Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Case for the 'FairTax'
Wall Street Journal Online ^ | March 7, 2005 | Laurence J. Kotlikoff

Posted on 03/08/2005 9:20:44 AM PST by n-tres-ted

Our tax code is a mess for a reason. Special interests pay for special favors. And with 17,000 pages and counting, there's plenty of places for our politicians to hide the kickbacks. Meanwhile, all the exemptions, deductions, exceptions and special provisions reduce the tax base, which means higher tax rates and smaller incentives for individuals and companies to produce income. And whether the tax breaks are set in fine print or spelled out in bold type, they generally favor the rich, making our tax system less progressive than is generally believed.

No tax system is perfect, but ours is so awful that fundamental reform is the only option. Fundamental reform is not just a necessity; it's also an opportunity to stop taxing income and start taxing consumption. My colleagues and I have been studying income and consumption taxation via computer simulations for some time now. We've found that switching from taxing wage and capital income to taxing consumption can significantly improve economic efficiency and growth. What's more, it can make our tax system much more progressive and generationally equitable.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: fairtax; kotlikoff; taxes; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 501-506 next last
To: camle

the last time I heard of some shopowner getting busted for not forwarding the taxes they collect is about the last time I heard of someone going to jail for nonpayment of federal taxes.

IRS Abuse Reports -- The Case Against the IRS

301 posted on 03/08/2005 12:43:41 PM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

" fact that won't change with the 'fair tax.' Instead, there will be a further 23(?)% tax ON TOP of that premium."

I am highly doubtful of that, however if you can provide some insight and convince me, well.....I'm willing to listen.


302 posted on 03/08/2005 12:44:21 PM PST by CSM (Currently accepting applications for the position of stay at home mom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: camle; ancient_geezer

"...Stock prices will rise, dividends will rise, and the rich will ger richer...."

Do you have a 401k? An IRA? A Pension? You will participate in the economic rebirth. The FairTax is more progressive than our current system. Your concerns for the lower and middle income people are well meaning, but unfounded.

AG, can you please post that graph? You know...the one with the pink line? THANKS for the assist.


303 posted on 03/08/2005 12:44:27 PM PST by Conservative Goddess (Veritas vos Liberabit, in Vino, Veritas....QED, Vino vos Liberabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: numberonepal

take care, my friend,. thanx for the conversation. enjoy !

I'll be departing soon meself.


304 posted on 03/08/2005 12:44:54 PM PST by camle (keep your mind open and somebody will fill it with something for you))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

very good! thank you for finding that article.

he is, however not talking about a sales tax, more of an excise tax. I'll have to study it some more later on though to be able to intelligently comment.

cheers!


305 posted on 03/08/2005 12:47:02 PM PST by camle (keep your mind open and somebody will fill it with something for you))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: camle

"an understanding of the topic,.."

Even after this admission, you fail to read the proposal?


306 posted on 03/08/2005 12:47:11 PM PST by CSM (Currently accepting applications for the position of stay at home mom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: camle

And my suspicion is that it would NOT take a Constitutional amendment to re-instate the income tax.


307 posted on 03/08/2005 12:47:25 PM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
Having lived in California that has had sales taxes since I can remember, I have been personally dissuaded from many a purchase by the sales tax on an item that I otherwise could afford and vice versa by customers.

Really? Maybe you couldn't afford it/didn't need it in the first place. You simply hit your "marginal propensity to not buy" point.

You didn't answer as to how much it cost you to comply with the existing tax code?

Did you include your corporate income taxes and the employer portion of wage taxes as part of your cost basis?

308 posted on 03/08/2005 12:48:58 PM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: CSM

you cannot pass a law that changes the constitution. that requires an ammendment.

until and unless the income tax ammendment is aboliched (which may take years, 2/3 states, etc..) don't expect this pollack to sign onto ANY new tax proposal.

at least mine stays within the confines of the constitution (AFAIK) and would not require an ammendment.


309 posted on 03/08/2005 12:49:07 PM PST by camle (keep your mind open and somebody will fill it with something for you))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: expatpat

"..but they will also receive 100% of their gross paycheck.And prices will go down! If any of you believe that, I have a bridge....."

SIGH .... for the 15th time, (pre-tax) prices of US PRODUCED GOODS will go down. Imports will be higher, as they should be.

You are getting to be just as disengenuous as Your Nightmare and LewisLynn.


310 posted on 03/08/2005 12:50:39 PM PST by phil_will1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: camle

"...SOMEBODY has to collect, track, and disburse to the government the funds gathered...."

The Treasury Department will continue under the FairTax. They currently are responsible for tracking and reporting income and expenditures. The IRS is simply a collection agency. As you will note, when you send your tax check to the feds, it's made payable to "US TREASURY" not the IRS.

The Social Security Administration will be responsible for preparing and distributing the Prebate checks.


311 posted on 03/08/2005 12:50:44 PM PST by Conservative Goddess (Veritas vos Liberabit, in Vino, Veritas....QED, Vino vos Liberabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Goddess

yes, I do have some investments. a modest amount I assure you. however I am not arguing for my selfish benifit, but for other americans who might not enjoy the benifits of the market. We cannot hope to shape public policy by failing to consider the valid opinions and effects upon others in different situations.


312 posted on 03/08/2005 12:51:53 PM PST by camle (keep your mind open and somebody will fill it with something for you))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Why wouldn't the "fair tax" will suppress new home construction (since it creates an incentive to purchase existing homes)?

The embedded taxes presently in the cost of new homes would be stripped out by repeal. That would reduce the cost of construction by about 22% to 25%. The Fair Tax would be offset by that savings, and the total cost (including taxes) could be financed. In addition, interest rates would fall about 30% because interest income would not be taxed. AND every purchaser would be buying with 100% of their paychecks, rather than without aftertax dollars. This is SUPERIOR to the present tax system so far as new housing is concerned. It would make housing more affordable for young people IMO.

313 posted on 03/08/2005 12:52:14 PM PST by n-tres-ted (Remember November!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

which means that you are opening a pandora's box by suggesting a new method of taxation without an equal elimination of the old way. we'll most likely end up with both forms of taxation.


314 posted on 03/08/2005 12:53:18 PM PST by camle (keep your mind open and somebody will fill it with something for you))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: camle

"...yet. there is nothing that prohibits them either..."

Absent a statutory grant of authority and budget allocation to do it.......what in heavens name makes you think that they can or will do this? This verges on paranoia.


315 posted on 03/08/2005 12:53:36 PM PST by Conservative Goddess (Veritas vos Liberabit, in Vino, Veritas....QED, Vino vos Liberabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: camle

"maybe you are correct, but since their boards will be under the same shareholder pressure, you can safely bet that they will scheme to keep as much of the found money as they can."

Do you think they don't try to maximize profit and market share today?


316 posted on 03/08/2005 12:53:44 PM PST by CSM (Currently accepting applications for the position of stay at home mom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie; All

anyway, i must go. nasty weaqther and I gotsta pick up my kiddo.

thanx for a lively and stimulating conversation


317 posted on 03/08/2005 12:54:03 PM PST by camle (keep your mind open and somebody will fill it with something for you))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: Diamond; Principled

Does anybody currently get a tax refund from the government when they buy groceries or a washing machine? A monthly rebate given in advance seems to imply the continued existence of an IRS bureaucracy that keeps track of how much income everybody makes.

The HHS poverty threshold statistic is based on cost of a healthy diet taken as 1/3rd of the expenditure defining povertylevel. The statistic was set in the 60's and is updated for inflation as measured by CPI.

Now where is anyone tracking income or where is it even necessary in determining expediture level at the povertyline.

318 posted on 03/08/2005 12:54:07 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: camle

"we can work within the constitution to rectify much of what is wrong, and create a system that is both easier and fairer than either the current system or this proposal."

Fine with me. The FairTax is the best proposal developed so far in the 200+ years of the republic's existence. Let's pass it now and if you want to work on developing a better one over the next 10 -20 years, my hat is off to you. I know many FairTaxers who would gladly support an alternative if and when it materializes that is superior.


319 posted on 03/08/2005 12:54:18 PM PST by phil_will1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: camle
Soaking the rich is already being done to shameful levels.

Nonsense. They soak the hell out of those on the threshold of becoming rich. Once you actually get there, the current system is designed to keep you there thanks to the efforts of 60% of the Gucci Gulch lobbyists in Washington. It is not about soaking the rich, it's about blocking more people from competing with the rich.

320 posted on 03/08/2005 12:56:13 PM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 501-506 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson