[freedomfiter2]

Fair tax yes. Flat tax, what’s the point. We’d still have to keep records, fill out forms be subject to audits and the millions of tax laws that even the IRS can’t give you a straight answer on.

[Ann Archy]

Flat tax is FAIRER....EVERYONE NEEDS TO HAVE SOME SKIN IN THE GAME...>EVERYONE......15-20%. There would be MANY ways to get around paying the “Fair Tax”.

[Leisler]

Do only what supposedly the reps said they would do, support the letter of the Constitution and we wouldn’t need any tax.

Oh, yeah, I forgot. Constitution=dead letter.

[Huck]

Glad to see Hoffman isn’t a fan of that big swindle FairTax idea.

[Huck]

You fair taxers are insane in the membrane. How do you think they are going to calculate social security and medicare taxes under your scheme? Doing away with the income tax still leaves you with two federal withholdings. you create a NEW fed tax and accomplish nothing. Abolish the IRS? So? They’ll just rename it something else.

[Nuc1]

I want a national sales tax, the repeal of the income tax amendment and the abolition of property taxes. Someday this will be done. Right now, with Americans so enamored with the marxist income tax, a flat tax is at least a step in a better direction.

[LS]

No, not at all. The original income tax was essentially a flat tax. One form-—pretty much one page. No corporate separate taxes. Lowest bracket paid 1.5%, top paid 6%. That I can tolerate. Yeah, I’d take the fair tax, but I don’t like ANY system that “gives out money” as it’s first step, as the fair tax does, and I don’t like businesses collecting taxes (and I understand they do that now).

[Huck]

We’d still have to keep records, fill out forms be subject to audits and the millions of tax laws that even the IRS can’t give you a straight answer on.

What about all the businesses under your scheme? They don't have to keep records and submit forms? They are the tax collectors! You don't think they'd be audited? You are dreaming!

[cc2k]

freedomfiter2 wrote:

Fair tax yes. Flat tax, what’s the point. We’d still have to keep records, fill out forms be subject to audits and the millions of tax laws that even the IRS can’t give you a straight answer on.

The point of a flat tax is that it would be a test of resolve, and an opportunity for Congress (hopefully an entirely new, 100% freshman congress in 2010) to show that they can avoid tinkering with the tax code. If they can do that, then I might be convinced that a national retail sales tax could work.

A sales tax code with thousands of pages of exemptions, incentives, credits, surcharges and penalties would be as much of a nightmare as the current income tax code. With the current environment of career congress critters and lobbyists, it would be a matter of (not much) time before the sales tax code would be this kind of nightmare. Fair Tax supporters say they would never do this. A flat income tax would be an opportunity to test them on it without as much turmoil from the transition.

To believe in the Fair Tax, you have to believe:

• That we are not overtaxed, we are not undertaxed, we are taxed just the right amount, but by the wrong method.
• That the same congress which has made (tens of?) thousands of changes to the income tax code over the last 20 years will make no changes to the new sales tax code over the next 20 years.
• That drug dealers and prostitutes evading taxes by not reporting their income is a bad thing, but drug dealers and prostitutes evading taxes by not reporting their taxable sales of goods and services and failing to collect and remit sales tax will be an improvement.
• That setting taxation rates is to much bother for the Congress, so unelected bureaucrats should be allowed to increase taxes to meet their needs with no vote from the Congress.
• That it is a good idea to have absolutely everyone in the entire country expecting a monthly check from the government.
• That taxes will be uniform, even though the total federal taxes included in the total price you pay for a gallon of milk, a gallon of gasoline, a bottle of wine and a carton of cigarettes and a carton of eggs will all be different on the first day it is implemented.

Not to mention that implementing an additional tax system, before amending the constitution to do away with all authority for income taxes, will ultimately lead to both a sales tax and an income tax.

I could support a national retail sales tax, but only after this constitutional amendment is actually ratified by the states:

---

Article of Amendment

Section 1. Congress shall make no law laying or collecting taxes upon incomes, gifts, or estates, or upon aggregate consumption or expenditures; but Congress shall have power to levy a uniform tax on the sale of goods or services.

Section 2. Any imposition of or increase in a tax, duty, impost or excise shall require the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately be presented to the President of the United States.

Section 3. This article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the sixteenth Article of amendment is repealed.

---

Note that this amendment requires the retail sales tax to be uniform, eliminating the temptation to tax some items more and other items less.

Also, to get my support, the tax rate would have to be significantly lower than the proposed Fair Tax. If that means that actual spending cuts would have to be part of the package I consider that a good thing.

Actually, if the Fair Tax really will result in a significant reduction in the price of everything as Fair Tax proponents claim, an across the board budget cut of a percentage that approximately matches the expected savings would not result in any reduction of government services, and should be included in the bill.

---

From the desk of cc2k:

I support Doug Hoffman for Congress (PayPal). Please, spread the word about this important election on November 3, 2009 in New York’s 23rd congressional district.