Replies

Then you realize any form of tax on productivity is communistic.

As is any redistribution of wealth such as the prebate.

It's taking money from anyone who decides how much and how often they want to be taxed when they choose to make a purchase. Our communist style tax system doesn't afford the taxpayer any choice. Taxing consumption is not socialism.

Redistributing wealth is.

As is taxing to support socialist programs.

Your savings are taxed multiple times with every purchase with the embedded taxes. The short term situation of being taxed again will be more than offset by the elimination of embedded taxes, the 30% reduction in the overall tax burden and the increase in purchasing power.

Nonsense all around.

The government is still providing exactly the same drag on the economy, all you've done is change the shape of the anchor.

There is no reduction in tax burden. The only reduction is a slightly smaller compliance cost.

There is no increase in purchasing power.

Again, the government is taking exactly the same amount of money (productivity) out of the economy. That is what revenue neutral means.

Then you are opposing it on a fallacy.

Nope. I understand perfectly and I've already beat you down by doing the math and demonstrating the reason many months ago.

I noticed you conveniently ignored answering my question from the previous post (Based on what data do you make such an otherwise vague and empty claim? ) with another empty remark that fails to realize the math is based on years of study by several economists. What is your answer to my original question? What facts do you base your faux math remark to refute my figures?

As stated above, the tax is revenue neutral so the overall tax rate does not change. The government still swipes the same amount of productivity and all you've done is shift the burden somewhere.

Then repeal Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution that gives power to levy and collect taxes but until then there will be a tax system. It's far better to consumption than a communist supported tax on productivity.

Actually, A1S8 aside, most of the current income tax is already illegal since there is no provision for wealth redistribution and other socialist programs (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) in The Constitution.

The government is, therefore, prohibited from engaging in these programs.

If it weren't for FDR's threats to pack the SCOTUS and subsequent decisions in his favor that would be well established.

Naysayers railing against the FairTax become, ipso facto, defenders of the INCOME TAX system. Prof. Larry Kotlikoff believes that the current tax system IS bringing the country to nothing less than an "economic meltdown" by virtue of the invisibility of actual taxes paid. If Americans do not understand the true cost of their government, they're unlikely to hold Congress accountable - thus the enabling mechanism to continued profligate spending.

Even with the foregoing notwithstanding, do FairTax naysayers really believe:

• Workers love having their pay confiscated, hourly, through gov't withholding and don't mind getting their money back by involuntary servitude - to the tune of 50 hours/year (on average) - preparing an annual tax return?

• That certifying the number of persons in your family (annually, and, ancillarily, upon change in household) is an abrogation of our freedom - more intrusive and complex than filing a tax return every year subject to threats and intimidation by theIRS.

• It's better to have theIRS fishing through citizens' income transactions (complete with audits, interest, penalties, and threats against individuals, families, businesses as well as confiscation of their homes, property, and bank accounts) rather than - Gawd forbid - issuing a gov't check to an individual (while pretending that Social Security payments disbursement logistics really can't work for "prebates")?

• That an monthly advance tax rebate is the same thing as "being on the dole" ? (Only lobbyists, special interests, and business deserve "handouts" ? - the politician gets a payoff from a lobbyist, the lobbyist gets a payoff from its client, and the citizen gets higher taxes and/or prices that pay for it all.)

• "Hidden taxes" in higher prices are fine because they're not "taxes," per se? (Hey, forget that families are really paying business's costs for complying with a business income tax code - staff, consultants, submittals, etc.)

• It's far better to have a gargantuan tax collection "service" in Washington, than to have 50 decentralized, smaller, leaner state collection agencies collecting taxes from fewer sources?

• That the work by notable economists (paid tens of millions of $'s by Americans for Fair Taxation) doesn't carry weight because it was paid for by private funds instead of some gov't / quasi-gov't enterprise?

• That FairTax's backing by many economists doesn't carry any weight because (the Brookings') Wm Gale's testimony before the President's Commission on Tax Reform is - somehow - above all that?!

(NOTE: The Commission/Gale made up their own "consumption tax" requirements, as if that constituted a legitimate rebuke of the FairTax plan. Dr. Kotlikoff has requested - but never received - Gale's technical "modus operandi" which would definitively explain just how Gale's conclusions can be reconciled with Kotlikoff's well-documented technical work.

Let us work, together, to end the enslavement of the Tax Code and to restore Liberty to America's working families.

America's working families are paid because the companies they work for sell goods and services. Let's pay for government the way America's families are paid - when something is sold.

“As stated above, the tax is revenue neutral so the overall tax rate does not change. The government still swipes the same amount of productivity and all you’ve done is shift the burden somewhere.”

I picked this post out of many on this thread in which you asserted that out of control spending is the only issue facing the country today and therefore only measures which directly and immediately reduce spending are worth considering. You conveniently ignore congressional rules which require that tax reform proposals be revenue neutral.
You also ignore the indirect benefits that having a more visible and transparent tax regimen would have on spending.

More importantly, however, is that you ignore a number of adverse economic trends which MUST be addressed:
1. the spiral of complexity and higher and higher compliance costs which plague the current system,
2. the enormous trade deficit and ongoing erosion of our manufacturing sector,
3. the extremely low personal savings rate,
4. the federal budget deficit,
5. the crisis in SS & Medicare

What do all of these adverse economic trends have in common?
A. They are all unsustainable,
B. They are all exacerbated by our current dysfunctional tax system.

Other than spending restraint, nowhere in this thread does any FairTax opponent advance an alternative approach to dealing with the economic challenges that this country faces. We saw in 2000-2001 (with the tech stock bubble bursting) and are now experiencing (with the bursting of the housing bubble) what happens when adverse economic trends are ignored. We have a government which uses such crises as an excuse to spend trillions of $$$ that we don’t have and pass the bill along to future generations. When that approach is challenged, the response is: “you don’t expect us to do nothing, do you?”

No, we expect you to be more pro-active and address these adverse trends before they reach the crisis stage. The FairTax is an opportunity to address multiple adverse economic trends comprehensively and effectively.