Send a message to President-Elect Obama about the FairTax

Americans For Fair Taxation ^

[Man50D]

The most compelling messages to elected officials are those in your own words, not just some cookie-cutter form letter. So please take a moment to craft a personal note about the FairTax. And remember, regardless of whomever you voted for in the general election, we all need to make Mr. Obama into a FairTax supporter, so please be courteous in your message about the FairTax.

In terms of talking points about how the FairTax can save our economy, you can view our detailed talking points or look below for some key points to highlight:

Rescue the homeowner and you rescue the economy The FairTax will end the harmful practice of withholding taxes from paychecks, and millions of Americans will see a huge boost in their take home pay--enough to save their homes and pay mortgage bills.

A $10 trillion dollar stimulus program funded with private investments Economists say the FairTax will attract literally trillions of dollars into our economy from offshore. That means new jobs right here in America (a point I know you readily appreciate), higher wages and a stock market that goes up instead of down.

Bring Back the "Made in America" Label The FairTax ends the retail price disadvantage American producers suffer under the income tax system. The income tax system adds up to 20% to the price of American products and that chases our manufacturing and service industries offshore. The FairTax gives American companies--and jobs--a fair chance.

Our economy works when wage earners prosper The FairTax makes our economy works again and restores consumer confidence by putting more money in wage earners' pockets. It attacks the problem at the base of the pyramid where average people live--not at the pinnacle. It ends the tax disincentives to upward mobility, savings, investment and capital formation.

[xcamel]

Egg-zactly.

[TonyStark]

Only chronic tax cheats embrace the fantasy of the unfair tax. Many have come before you, and all have gone down in flames. Go back to your bunker in NH, noob.

Which office of the IRS do you work for, coward?

[xcamel]

FT insults are considered a badge of honor on FR, so have your fun... it only points out your single digit IQ’s

[ari-freedom]

well I don’t think it is ‘socialistic’ to give tax breaks to certain groups. For example, we don’t want to tax the poor -we used to- but it is socialistic to have a special tax on the rich. One could argue for a tax that taxes both capital and consumption at the same rate. I think govt should encourage investment.

There is the issue of having a large enough tax base. If you exclude too many things you end up with a higher rate on everything else.
Then you have all the lobbyists. If you allow a special break for this guy and that guy then congress has a lot of power. “I’ll give you a special break if you give me something back.”

So if the tax is to have certain exceptions, it should be clear that they encourage investment, not debt and no special favors.

[ari-freedom]

“MY idea is to just not issue ‘prebates’ at all. At the same time, do not impose the ‘fair’ tax on food, medical care and pharmaceuticals, primary residence, or energy (necessities).”

I’m afraid you’re falling into a big trap. That’s a huge part of the tax base so you’ll end up with a higher rate on everything else.

[ari-freedom]

you still have to cut spending under any tax regime.

[CIDKauf]

The prebates are a big problem since the government can’t issue SS checks to only a portion of the taxpayers without making approximately 9 million errors annually. How many errors and at what cost will it be to issue monthly prebate checks to all taxpayers? This is a cost that we do not need, even if we choose to go to a consumption tax of some kind to replace the IRS.

[CIDKauf]

As always, government isn’t the solution, government is the problem! You could not be more right.

[ari-freedom]

It doesn’t make sense to tax people only to give most of that money right back. Just don’t take it in the first place!

Why does the fair tax have a prebate? Because nobody wants to tax the poor! Well, the original sales/excise system used to tax the poor. Government was also a lot smaller and less complicated back then. They didn’t have to spend billions on nuclear defense.

You can’t make an appeal to history without accepting all of its premises.

[TonyStark]

FT insults are considered a badge of honor on FR, so have your fun... it only points out your single digit IQ’s

3rd time: Which office of the IRS do you work for, coward?

[xcamel]

Be gone with you, gnat.

[Man50D]

That’s interesting. Got a link?

Below is the remark are posted at a website for Fair Tax State and District Directors from a Fair Tax supporter to an Illinois Fair Tax District Director.

It IS ironic that you sent me this email at this time. I am working with an attorney from southern Cal, who is a big dem, and in touch with the Obama circle. He told me they are looking favorably at the FairTax!

[Man50D]

So for example if I bought something for $100 and the fair tax was, say 10%, I’d see a bill Fair Tax 10%: $10 ?

You would see the actual cost of the item and a separate line for the tax rate.

[Man50D]

Your wife gets cancer. The medical services and oncology drugs she needs to stay alive are taxed at the prevailing Fair Tax rate. This isn;t optional, now, it isn't a consumer tax, it is do or die.

People are already taxed on medical expenses. Corporations also pay income taxes. Income taxes are a cost to businesses. That cost is passed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices. Eliminating that cost by eliminating corporate income taxes will be a cost savings. Overtime they will pass at least some of the cost onto the consumer due to competition or risk losing business.

People will also have more dollars to pay for medical expenses since they will no longer have income taxes deducted from their paychecks. Also factor in the prebate that will cover the cost of necessities up to the poverty level.

These factors will result in more affordable medical care in the long run compared to the income tax.

Of course, your 'prebate' is for average consumption of medical services' taxes, not the whopping chunk you just paid so she could stay alive.

It isn't the intent of any tax system is to cover a majority portion of an individual's medical expenses. The Fair Tax will give them more purchasing power to cover the costs than the income tax does currently.

[Man50D]

So why not a Flat Tax?

The Fair Tax is a flat tax but on consumption instead of income. One significant difference is the Fair Tax gives people more power and freedom to choose when and how often they are taxed and abolish the increasingly oppressive IRS. Any flat tax on income still takes people's money before they see their first paycheck and maintains the agency that has become more an instrument of control and punishment that for collecting money to fund the government.

Everyone would pay the same.

Everyone will pay only one rate with The Fair Tax.

From what I heard some time ago, if there was a 10% Flat Tax, the Government would have more money than they would know what to do with.

Please cite your sources to support your claim. Even if everyone agreed with your statement it would mean Congress would be taxing the people excessively. The Fair Tax is designed to tax the same amount as is taxed with the income tax and will prevent Congress critters from setting the consumption tax too high.

[upchuck]

Thanks.

C+, maybe B-.

This is sorta like, “I heard it from a friend of a friend of my 2nd cousin, one removed.”

Given nObama’s Marxist and socialist mindset, I cannot imagine him being interested in something that takes power away from the government and gives it to the people.

Sorry.

[Man50D]

Given Obama’s Marxist and socialist mindset, I cannot imagine him being interested in something that takes power away from the government and gives it to the people.

The power lies with the people and not the politicians as our founding fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution. Congress critters want people think they are at the former's mercy. The 76 cosponsors didn't sign on out of altruism. They did so due to increasing pressure form their constituents. The same grass roots pressure can be and is being applied to the executive branch.

[ari-freedom]

good because that’s one of my complaints against the sales tax in NY. Nobody knows what the rate is and there are different rates for different items.

[Smokin' Joe]

Your wife gets cancer. The medical services and oncology drugs she needs to stay alive are taxed at the prevailing Fair Tax rate. This isn;t optional, now, it isn't a consumer tax, it is do or die.

People are already taxed on medical expenses. Corporations also pay income taxes. Income taxes are a cost to businesses. That cost is passed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices. Eliminating that cost by eliminating corporate income taxes will be a cost savings. Overtime they will pass at least some of the cost onto the consumer due to competition or risk losing business

Yes, people are taxed on medical expenses, but they also have the option of deducting extraordinary medical expenses from taxable income, and the costs of insurance, and with an MSA many other costs as well are taken from untaxed income. That is with our current system. While I am not advocating that system, I must admit that many of the pages of tax laws are there just to mitigate extraordinary disasters and reduce the tax burden on those who suffer them. more on that later.

People will also have more dollars to pay for medical expenses since they will no longer have income taxes deducted from their paychecks. Also factor in the prebate that will cover the cost of necessities up to the poverty level.

First off, I am happy that no one in your family has apparently required major surgery, chemo, radiation, etc. for cancer. If they had, you would be aware that the people in the above scenario are already down by one income. Under the current system, they would be taxed on less income, reduced by the amount of deductible medical expenses, reduced by any prepaid MSA deductions or the costs of the employee's partial payment for insurance.

That alleviates a fraction of the economic burden while someone is fighting for their life.

Under the 'fair tax', however, as they would be taxed on expenditures, not income, they would pay substantially more tax, even though their income was reduced by one paycheck, on top of whatever co-pays and uncovered medical expenses they have to pay--just to stay alive.

The prebate for the average 'poverty level' medical expenses' taxes (whatever "poverty level medical expenses" are) wouldn't hold a candle to the taxes on the costs of oncology drugs. In short, with a reduced income and additional catastrophic expenses, the fair tax would hit these people even harder.

You claim that eventually costs saved by industry would trickle down, but this is a time sensitive situation. There is no choice: do or die.

In addition, most of the cost of new pharmaceuticals is the attempt by the drug companies to recoup development costs in the five years they have before the drug goes generic. Don't expect much for savings in that sector.

Oncology drugs are especially expensive, often due to their composition, but also because of the reason cited above.

These factors will result in more affordable medical care in the long run compared to the income tax.

Actually, in the example above, that statement is wholly unsubstantiated.

Next example. Someone's house burns down. They have suffered a catastrophic loss. They can document the contents, their value, etc. Their insurance only covers a fraction of the value of those contents (not unusual), and what they pay for the house covers most of the replacement cost.

What it does not cover is the "fair tax" on all the replacement items. Again, the "fair tax" will kick them while they are down.

I suppose they could live in the street waiting for the savings to trickle down, but in reality, again, this is something which will not wait for that.

They have to have a place to live, and all their stuff, from toothbrushes to clothing to shoes, furniture, appliances, bedding, the works, all has to be replaced.

I suppose they could buy used toothbrushes and underwear and avoid the tax, but in reality, the tax will compound their catastrophe by tagging them another 23-30% (or more) for things they need, far over and above any prebate for 'average poverty level' purchases because they have to replace everything.

Again, when the chips are down, the 'fair tax' hits those hit hardest as if they were purchasing Rollex watches when they are purchasing things normally considered necessary to life.

Which is one of the reasons I oppose it.

Eliminate the tax on necessities (food, primary residence, medical care, energy), and scratch the Gubmint check which gives the whole idea the appearance of a Socialist 'gimmie', and I might be able to support it.

One other thing, that is the Government double dip. If a person has saved for their retirement, stashed their cash carefully, loaded their savings account and their Roth IRA, and this were to be enacted, they would pay taxes on that money a second time when they spent it (income taxes were paid once). That stinks, too.

in fact, it is unfair.

YMMV, but I remain unconvinced.

If we are going to replace the income tax, let's get something better. But before we do that, let's cut the Government, reduce the scope and spending thereof, not create more Government to redistribute monies which should never have been collected in the first place.

[Man50D]

Yes, people are taxed on medical expenses, but they also have the option of deducting extraordinary medical expenses from taxable income, and the costs of insurance, and with an MSA many other costs as well are taken from untaxed income.

You're referring to taxes seen. I'm referring to the embedded value added taxes(VATS)imposed at each stage of production. The purchase of food, clothing, and medical services is made from after-income-tax and after-payroll-tax dollars, while their purchase price hides the cost of corporate taxes and private sector compliance costs. You are in effect taxed much more than twice for each purchase. Your response proves no one realizes how much or how often they are taxed beyond the visible taxes. No tax deduction/loophole will offset these hidden taxes.

The loop holes that allows these so called deductions are the direct result of lobbyists who distort the true economic cost of goods and services. The Fair Tax eliminates the loopholes and thereby the power and influence of lobbyists.

If they had, you would be aware that the people in the above scenario are already down by one income. Under the current system, they would be taxed on less income, reduced by the amount of deductible medical expenses, reduced by any prepaid MSA deductions or the costs of the employee's partial payment for insurance.

Again you are not factoring the unseen costs of hidden VATs under the current system! Getting rid of VATs will overtime reduce the costs of these medical expenses along with having more dollars in people's paychecks thanks to the Fair Tax federal income taxes from their checks and the prebate.

Under the 'fair tax', however, as they would be taxed on expenditures, not income, they would pay substantially more tax, even though their income was reduced by one paycheck, on top of whatever co-pays and uncovered medical expenses they have to pay--just to stay alive.

Under The Fair Tax they will only be taxed once up front as opposed to multiple times at each stage of production under the current system! That tax will be more than offset by the prebate, more money in paychecks and elimination of embedded taxes!

In addition, most of the cost of new pharmaceuticals is the attempt by the drug companies to recoup development costs in the five years they have before the drug goes generic. Don't expect much for savings in that sector.

You are describing businesses attempt to make a profit. That called capitalism and is happening under the income tax! It will happen under any tax system but The Fair Tax will reduce the cost of those expenses to less than they are with the income tax for the above reason regarding VATs.

Next example. Someone's house burns down. They have suffered a catastrophic loss. They can document the contents, their value, etc. Their insurance only covers a fraction of the value of those contents (not unusual), and what they pay for the house covers most of the replacement cost.

What it does not cover is the "fair tax" on all the replacement items. Again, the "fair tax" will kick them while they are down.

Any and all hypothetical scenarios your create The Fair Tax will lower the costs due to cost savings passed onto the consumer with the elimination of corporate income taxes and all the compliance costs associated with those taxes not to mention the extra cash people will have in their pockets.

I suppose they could buy used toothbrushes and underwear and avoid the tax, but in reality, the tax will compound their catastrophe by tagging them another 23-30% (or more) for things they need, far over and above any prebate for 'average poverty level' purchases because they have to replace everything.

This statement clearly shows you have not read The Fair Tax. The rate will not be 23-30% as you erroneously claim. The total of the VATs currently under the income tax isslightly less than 23%. The Fair Tax rate will take these VATs and make them transparent by adding the tax separately from the true cost of the item and not including it in the cost of the item. A $100 item today is actually &77 with a $23(23%)embedded tax(rounded up). This is a tax inclusive rate. The 23% Fair Tax is the quote of this inclusive rate. The Fair Tax is a tax exclusive rate as it is separated from the cost of the item. The tax exclusive rate is 23$/$77 or 30%. The dollar amount collected feom the tax is the same regardless of which rate is quoted and will equal the VATs under the income tax. The effective tax rate (after the prebate) will lower the Fair Tax rate.

YMMV, but I remain unconvinced.

You remain uninformed.