Fair Tax Events

“The only trap is believing the prebate is anything more than covering taxes on necessities up to the poverty level.”

Utter nonsense!

Prebates are just another conduit for socialism. The definition of “family”, “necessities” and “poverty level” are completely subject to Washington whim.

Good Lord, man, can you not envision the problems with allowing liberal pols to define those things. Certainly everything under the sun will be a “necessity” and the “poverty level” will soon exclude the same half of Americans (or more) that do not now pay a net federal income tax.

There are so many unlikely events (constitutional amendments, etc.) and votes required by this silly “Fair-Tax” plan that I don’t have time to debate them all right now.

But even if I thought it possible, I would strongly fight its implementation. Prebates would soon become the most disgustingly bloated entitlement in the history of misguided “fairness” minded boondoggles.

Just imagine, at that point, trying to eliminate or even trim the program that sends a check to every “family” in America every dang month of the year.

As screwed up and unfair as the current system of revenue gathering is, SPENDING is real the problem.

And, spending will NEVER come under control in a system where growing numbers of citizens are insulated from the related expenses - exactly what prebates would do.

God recognized the fairness of a true flat tax - 10% from dollar one to dollar infinity.

Prebates are just another conduit for socialism.

Hardly. The prebate would not come close to covering the monthly/yearly costs to sustain a family. A family of four(two adults)would receive $6,440 annually or $537 monthly per the chart at FAQ #3. That amount of money wouldn't come close to covering the costs necessary to sustain a family. At least one member of that household will still have to work full time.

The definition of “family”, “necessities” and “poverty level” are completely subject to Washington whim.

Good Lord, man, can you not envision the problems with allowing liberal pols to define those things.Certainly everything under the sun will be a “necessity” and the “poverty level” will soon exclude the same half of Americans (or more) that do not now pay a net federal income tax.

Washington isn't in charge. The people are in charge. Those definitions are already in the Fair Tax Act. I suggest you read the bill. Changing the poverty level to include more Americans would require an increase in spending to fund such an expenditure. An increase in spending would in turn require a corresponding increase in the consumption tax rate. Tying a tax directly to consumption will prevent that from happening since the people will decide how often and how much they are taxed. Raising the rate will result in a corresponding decrease in purchases thereby lessening the amount of tax collected and consequently keep spending in check. This is not a new concept. It was recognized by founding father and first Secretary of The Treasury Alexander Hamilton in his federalist paper #21. To quote:

"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them."

There are so many unlikely events (constitutional amendments, etc.) and votes required by this silly “Fair-Tax” plan that I don’t have time to debate them all right now

The Fair Tax Act bill will require the same number of votes(The House and Senate)as any bill voted on by Congress.

Prebates would soon become the most disgustingly bloated entitlement in the history of misguided “fairness” minded boondoggles.

It's laughable to compare the prebate to an entitlement that not only provides far more money to people than a prebate but is not based on returning money due them. The prebate merely gives back some of the money people will pay taxes on when they make a purchase. Big difference.

As screwed up and unfair as the current system of revenue gathering is, SPENDING is real the problem.

I agree and The Fair Tax will address that as pointed out with Alexander Hamilton in the above paragraph.

And, spending will NEVER come under control in a system where growing numbers of citizens are insulated from the related expenses - exactly what prebates would do.

Giving people some of the money people will pay in taxes that will be only a tiny fraction of what they will need to pay bills will not come close to preventing them from paying their own bills.

God recognized the fairness of a true flat tax - 10% from dollar one to dollar infinity.

The Fair Tax is a flat tax but on consumption instead of income. I won't pretend for a second to speak for god as you have anointed yourself to do but the truth about a flat tax on income is it will still maintain the oppressive IRS that has been stealing our freedoms since 1913.

I applaud your efforts in advocating a switch to consumption based taxation.

I don’t care how noble your intentions are, once those monthly checks start flowing, nothing will stop an Obama/Nancy/Harry type of govt (and liberal courts) from messing with the formula until it becomes what you claim it will not.

And, no, I don’t consider the concept of sheltering folks from taxes based on poverty levels or any other such politically derived criteria to be a noble one anyway.

The FairTax throws a bone to those of us who desire economic common sense and restrictions on intrusion. But it throws a 48oz porterhouse steak to the socialists whose holy grail of government-controlled wealth distribution is greatly helped by instituting a plan to let them mail every “household” money every month based on rules which they can change in any way their need for votes might dictate.

I agree Hamilton had some great and timeless ideas. Mostly because they were not perverted by misguided notions of fairness and politically convenient compromises of principle. Your quote from him clearly supports my viewpoint over yours in my opinion. You will note that his vision of a “COMPLETE barrier against any material oppression of the citizens” does not include a prebate ladder for half the voters to scale that barrier completely unscathed or - unimaginably worse to Hamilton I’m certain - a system which potentially allows millions of less productive citizens to actually profit from the tax burden of others.

Flat is good.

Any “Fair-Tax” that includes prebates is NOT flat.

But I do not share your child like faith that the process of sending every family a monthly check from the federal government is not going to be subject to great and accumulating amounts of liberal tampering.

You're correct if you define child like as information based on $22 million of research. Any bill can be tampered with but it is up to the people to ensure that doesn't happen.

I don’t care how noble your intentions are, once those monthly checks start flowing, nothing will stop an Obama/Nancy/Harry type of govt (and liberal courts) from messing with the formula until it becomes what you claim it will not.

Any legislation/law can be changed. By your line of thinking the people shouldn't support any legislation be because it could always be changed in the future. I noticed you also conveniently ignored the essential fact cited in post #10 concerning the concept of a consumption tax keeping spending in check per Alexander Hamilton's statement.

And, no, I don’t consider the concept of sheltering folks from taxes based on poverty levels or any other such politically derived criteria to be a noble one anyway.

All laws born from legislation in Congress are politically derived for the very simple fact they are created by politicians! This goes far beyond the finances. It's a matter of restoring the power and freedom back to the people as our founding fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution. Lessening the tax burden is the means by which that can happen. A fact and noble cause that is apparently lost on you.

The FairTax throws a bone to those of us who desire economic common sense and restrictions on intrusion. But it throws a 48oz porterhouse steak to the socialists whose holy grail of government-controlled wealth distribution is greatly helped by instituting a plan to let them mail every “household” money every month based on rules which they can change in any way their need for votes might dictate.

Once again you ignore the simple yet profound fact doing so would force them to spend more and thereby raise the tax rate to a point people will make less purchases thereby reducing tax collection and in the long run force Congress to spend less. The people keep Congress critters and specifically the soicalists in check by tying taxation to consumption.

Mostly because they were not perverted by misguided notions of fairness and politically convenient compromises of principle.

Then we should be against any legislation in Congress and in the future because by your logic the whole system is corrupt!

Your quote from him clearly supports my viewpoint over yours in my opinion. You will note that his vision of a “COMPLETE barrier against any material oppression of the citizens” does not include a prebate ladder for half the voters to scale that barrier completely unscathed or - unimaginably worse to Hamilton I’m certain - a system which potentially allows millions of less productive citizens to actually profit from the tax burden of others.

Your statement clearly shows you fail to grasp Hamilton's concept and The Fair Tax. The flaw in your thinking is referring to citizens in regards to thier amount of productivty. Production is a term used with respect to an income based tax. Hamilton's incite is not based on income or productivity. It is based on consumption! Production is not a factor, only how much one spends! People of all economic classes make purchases and therefore are subject to the prebate. The Fair Tax will only cover the taxes on those goods and services people need to survive and as pointed out to you in a previous post wouldn't be sufficient to pay all of a household's bills. People will still have to work.

Obviously, I understand the difference between production and consumption. I assume it is just as obvious to you that people who produce more coincidentally have more to spend.

It baffles me that you don’t see how prebates are a violation of Hamilton’s “COMPLETE barrier”. The barrier is certainly NOT complete if prebates are included which, by definition, are a ladder over Hamilton’s barrier. When the highly politicized prebate formula evolves to the point where half plus one of the voting population makes it over the barrier, spending restraint will be quite difficult - same as today.

You Fair-Taxers are onto some good ideas. Wipe out the IRS, switch to consumption tax, etc. I just can’t go along with the horrible prebate concept.

If there are true small government conservatives out there that do not see gigantic flashing red lights going off when anybody advocates a “fairness” based federal system of monthly checks from the feds to every single American household, then I’d suggest they check the batteries on their red light.

Obviously, I understand the difference between production and consumption.I assume it is just as obvious to you that people who produce more coincidentally have more to spend.

If it were obvious to you then you wouldn't keep applying production to Hamilton's statement when it makes no reference to production! It's strictly in regards to consumption! Forget production!

It baffles me that you don’t see how prebates are a violation of Hamilton’s “COMPLETE barrier”.

It should baffle you since you're completely misinterpreting the meaning. The barrier he notes refers soley to the duties(taxes) being too high and the resulting reduction in consumption lessening the amount of tax collected mentioned in the previous sentence. You are erroneously attempting to interject a concept into Hamilton's remark that has nothing to do with his statement! Trying to put words in his mouth only weakens your argument.

If there are true small government conservatives out there that do not see gigantic flashing red lights going off when anybody advocates a “fairness” based federal system of monthly checks from the feds to every single American household, then I’d suggest they check the batteries on their red light.

Those flashing red lights you speak of are only figments of your fertile imagination. Since you don't believe me then try living for a year off the amount of prebate cited from the chart at www.fairtax.org for a household of your size for one year without working. You'll be losing money faster than you can say Fair Tax and will quickly realize you will still have to work a full time job.

I understand Hamilton’s barrier quite well even if I am failing to get you to understand that prebates are, by definition, designed to circumvent that barrier to an evolving extent.

I does not seem arguable to me that sending everybody money to offset a subjectively derived amount of their theoretical consumption tax costs is clearly a barrier bridge.

Perhaps an example will help.

Let’s say I’m a low income guy. I spend just enough so that my consumption tax amount equals my prebate amount. What is my barrier?

Certainly I’ve turned the barrier into a benefactor if I manage to incur a smaller amount of consumption taxes than the total amount on my check from the federal sugar daddy. I could theoretically profit from others’ tax burden.

Keeping the FairTax flat, which it is not, would be the only way to really have a Hamiltonian barrier.

“...try living for a year off the amount of prebate cited from the chart...without working...will quickly realize you will still have to work a full time job.”

Who’s stuck on production now?

Also, you seem to think I’m saying people will not need to work or something. I’m not. I’m merely pointing out that the silly prebate part of the FairTax is geared toward sheltering everybody from a politically calculated and evolving portion of their tax burden.

The net effect of that is that a large (and I certainly predict growing) number of citizens will be paying a net zero (or less) federal tax while others will pay varying marginal rates depending on how much they spend on taxable items.

The so-called “Fair” Tax would definitely be fairer and cleaner without the prebates. Why introduce a political mechanism for evolving progressivity (yes, it is) which works against long term certainty in tax planning.

Would we not be better off getting that liberal logic out of our revenue generation side altogether? Would not the FairTax be fairer if it was strictly logical and emotionless in its implementation?

I understand Hamilton’s barrier quite well even if I am failing to get you to understand that prebates are, by definition, designed to circumvent that barrier to an evolving extent.

You don't come close to understanding it so long as you're fixated with referencing the barrier to the prebate instead of Hamilton's association of it with the ability of the people to prevent excessive tax rates by having the rate tied to consumption.

Let’s say I’m a low income guy. I spend just enough so that my consumption tax amount equals my prebate amount. What is my barrier?

Let's go by the fact you keep misunderstanding the concept of Hamilton's meaning of a barrier as stated above instead of what he clearly meant.

Certainly I’ve turned the barrier into a benefactor if I manage to incur a smaller amount of consumption taxes than the total amount on my check from the federal sugar daddy. I could theoretically profit from others’ tax burden.

Exclude for the moment you repeatedly can't or refuse to grasp Hamilton's concept of barrier. An example based on the chart Fair Tax FAQ #3. A single adult person will receive an annual prebate of only $2,392. The percentage of single people who have an annual income of such a small amount so that their prebate is equal to or greater than their income is so infinitesimally small it is close to non existent. You are citing a very large exception to the rule the prebate for most people will be a very small percentage of their household income and therefore couldn't possibly be considered a substitute for income. Such a ludicrous example only weakens your argument further. The prebate is tantamount to an earned income tax credit, not some form of welfare.

Keeping the FairTax flat, which it is not, would be the only way to really have a Hamiltonian barrier.
Two flaws in this statement. 1. It is not called The Fair Flat Tax Act. It is The Fair Tax. The former term is one of several titles used for Flat income tax related bills. 2. The Fair Tax is a flat tax on consumption as only one rate(23%) will be applied at the time of purchase.

Also, you seem to think I’m saying people will not need to work or something. I’m not. I’m merely pointing out that the silly prebate part of the FairTax is geared toward sheltering everybody from a politically calculated and evolving portion of their tax burden.

Now you're repeating yourself. I can only reiterate my response in a previous post to you. All legislation is politically motivated since all are created and passed by politicians! You have a keen grasp of the obvious. Also if Congress critters were to change the prebate amounts then they would have to raise the tax rate to fund the increased spending which would be kept in check by the people reducing their spending. Congress would collect less consumption taxes and consequently be forced to lower the tax rate creating the barrier Hamilton referred to in Federalist Paper #21, nothing to do with income.

Who’s stuck on production now?

Do you make it a habit for grasping at straws with a completely irrelevant remark? My statement is in regards to the prebate not Hamilton's meaning of barrier in Federalist paper #21.

The net effect of that is that a large (and I certainly predict growing) number of citizens will be paying a net zero (or less) federal tax while others will pay varying marginal rates depending on how much they spend on taxable items.

Your prediction couldn't be more of an incorrect assumption void of any facts. Cite your source that shows more people will earn the amounts cited in the chart of FAQ#3 so that their effective tax rate will be zero or a negative number.

Why introduce a political mechanism for evolving progressivity (yes, it is) which works against long term certainty in tax planning.

I agree! It is a progressive tax but not for the reason you state. You are misunderstand the meaning of progressive. The Fair Tax will be progressive because the effective tax rate(after the prebate) will be greater for people who earn more than lower wage earners.

Would we not be better off getting that liberal logic out of our revenue generation side altogether?

You have a strange definition of liberal. There's nothing liberal about lessening the tax burden on necessities that would otherwise be too expensive for many people.

Would not the FairTax be fairer if it was strictly logical and emotionless in its implementation?

No emotion was involved with the $22 million study that was conducted years ago to determine the best alternative to the income tax. The result was The Fair Tax.

Yes, I certainly do understand Hamilton. You just don’t understand my point regarding him. In describing his barrier, he says “If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption”. Prebates are specifically designed to artificially keep the net “duties” lower and the effective overall duty progressive rather than flat.

“The percentage of single people who have an annual income of such a small amount so that their prebate is equal to or greater than their income is so infinitesimally small...the prebate for most people will be a very small percentage of their household income and therefore couldn’t possibly be considered a substitute for income.”

I don’t know how you could read my comments comparing the consumption tax burden with the prebate amounts and somehow come away this twisted income illogic.

“The Fair Tax is a flat tax on consumption as only one rate(23%) will be applied at the time of purchase.”

Nonsense. Despite the 23% collected on all sales, it is an effectively progressive rate. You pay 0% up to the politically determined amount (offset by the prebate tit) and then you pay 23% on sales above that amount. So the effective annual rate varies from 0 to almost 23% depending on your level of taxable consumption.

“You have a strange definition of liberal.”

And you have an extremely tolerant definition of small government conservatism if you favor establishing a government-checks-for-everyone system hugely susceptible to political whim.

Why the heck don’t you just dump the silly prebates and LOWER THE RATE?

“No emotion was involved with the $22 million study that was conducted years ago to determine the best alternative to the income tax.”

Yes, I here it was designed by robots. I’ll admit there are many logical points in the FairTax. But the robots must have caught a virus before inserting the flawed liberal concept of prebates into the plans.

BTW, am I supposed to be impressed by the amount of money spent on the aging study? Hell, the feds regularly spend many times that amount on worthless studies.

Give me ten bucks and I’ll write you the ReallyFairTax: FLAT rate consumption tax. No need to track “households” (whatever they become), or individuals.

You just don’t understand my point regarding him. You just don’t understand my point regarding him. In describing his barrier, he says “If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption”. Prebates are specifically designed to artificially keep the net “duties” lower and the effective overall duty progressive rather than flat.

Think again. I understand it all too well. One fundamental point you clearly have not read in The Fair Tax is that it specifically is designed to be revenue neutral. The prebate is already factored into the tax rate. Consequently the prebate will not have any effect on duties/tax rates.

I don’t know how you could read my comments comparing the consumption tax burden with the prebate amounts and somehow come away this twisted income illogic.

Either you have a very short memory or your line of thinking has become so twisted you contradict yourself.

Your remark in post #15: "The net effect of that is that a large (and I certainly predict growing) number of citizens will be paying a net zero (or less) federal tax while others will pay varying marginal rates depending on how much they spend on taxable items."

It will be impossible for a large number of people to pay no consumption tax as the amount of the prebate received by an overwhelming majority of people will be to small a percentage of their wages for them not to pay any tax. A very tiny minority will fit the scenario you describe. You are merely illustrating the exception to the rule. The chart below illustrates this point.

Nonsense. Despite the 23% collected on all sales, it is an effectively progressive rate.

This has already been explained to you. The Fair Tax is progressive but you keep misunderstanding the meaning of progressive! Progressive means the lower the wage the lower the effective tax rate. Consequently the rich pay more and the poor pay less as a percentage of their spending. This is an essential point in the Fair Tax. Fair Tax FAQ #49.

You pay 0% up to the politically determined amount (offset by the prebate tit) and then you pay 23% on sales above that amount.

Wrong! Only a very tiny minority will have a zero effective tax rate as the above chart illustrates. The effective tax rate increases as wages increase. Only the wealthiest will pay an effective rate of 23% and they also will be a very tiny minority on the other end of the spectrum per the chart. Most will fall somewhere in between 0 and 23%.

Yes, I here it was designed by robots.

Resulting to insults only illustrates the futility in your claims. I hope more Fair Tax opponents have resort to the same tactic. It will make it that much easier to refute their claims and pass The Fair Tax.

BTW, am I supposed to be impressed by the amount of money spent on the aging study? Hell, the feds regularly spend many times that amount on worthless studies.

Give me ten bucks and I’ll write you the ReallyFairTax: FLAT rate consumption tax. No need to track “households” (whatever they become), or individuals.

You obviously can't grasp the point people were willing to objectively spend time and money to find the best alternative to our current tax code.You belittling the effort doesn't change that fact. The Fair Tax will not "track" households as you claim or as the IRS does currently. The Fair Tax will merely use house hold size to pay back taxes they would otherwise be burdened to pay on necessities as has already been explained to you.

There's certainly nothing impressive about the obvious fact you have not bothered to thoroughly read The Fair Tax Act or your insults to compensate for you lack of understanding and supporting tax system that will maintain the increasingly oppressive IRS. Your arguments degenerate with each post and paragraph. I suggest you actually read the bill instead resorting to insults. It defeats your purpose.

“One fundamental point you clearly have not read in The Fair Tax is that it specifically is designed to be revenue neutral.”

The concept of federal revenue neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with my arguments against progressive rates and a politically susceptible dole system.

“Your remark in post #15...”

My remarks you quoted EXACTLY describe your graph!!!

“It will be impossible for a large number of people to pay no consumption tax...”

Have you seen your own graph and cross checked with US Census data? Millions of voters will pay no net federal tax and have no incentive to vote for spending restraint.

To quote the very propaganda you linked to:
“The poor actually pay less than zero-percent retail sales tax on their spending. Much like with the earned income tax credit of today, the rebate may give them more money than they actually spend on retail taxes. Especially if they are frugal and buy mostly used products”

“Progressive means the lower the wage the lower the effective tax rate. Consequently the rich pay more and the poor pay less as a percentage of their spending.”

No kidding? I’ve only been saying that repeatedly as you continue to say I don’t know what progressive means. I can’t possibly fathom what you believe to be my definition of progressive. I’m trying to agree with the FairTax propaganda which proudly proclaims itself as progressive.

Look, I’m not trying to convince you to give up your plan.

I’m just explaining why I, as a conservative, would never even consider voting for it.

It’s progressive. I don’t like that.

It institutes the largest entitlement ever conceived. I don’t like that.

It’s dangerously optimistic in its assessment of future political events. For example, that the income tax would not return even though it’s not repealed. I don’t believe that.

“...you have not bothered to thoroughly read The Fair Tax Act...”

I’ve read it more than once.

And I’ve debated other die-hard FairTaxers who claim to be conservative. I’ll have to admit you are the first to defend progressive taxation. Most admit they hate that aspect but are willing to compromise their principles for political expedience in passing the favorable portions.

Also, what’s with all the whining about insults?

I don’t consider progressive taxes as “fair”. Does that insult you?

You seem to think the effort and expense involved in putting together the so-called FairTax themselves somehow prove its remedies are divine. I really could not care less whether they spent a billion dollars on the plan. I still would not be sold on the prebate entitlement.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Defending the American Dream Summit

March 9Monday

Cincinnati Monthly Meeting

March 10Tuesday

District 7 FairTax Meeting in Fayetteville

Johnston County Fair Tax Meeting