[Your Nightmare]

There is little hope of the FairTax or any national retail sales tax being recommended by this panel.

[hripka]

The worst part of any type of national sales tax is the TRANSITION phase. There will most likely be a phase-out/phase-in of different tax systems. Then, by golly, there will be a CRISIS, and can't we just keep the income tax just a little bit longer?? Thanks a lot sales-taxers, we will then have TWO major methods competing for our money, (in addition to other taxes we will still have)

[lewislynn]

The fairtax crowd silence is deafening on this thread.

[Paul C. Jesup]

I looked at Taxanalysts website, writers of this article.

They seem to be a company that makes money by selling information on the IRS Income Tax Code. For example, here is one of their products; http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/website.nsf/Web/Onedisc?OpenDocument

Taxanalysts would go bankrupt if the U.S. switched to a Nation Retail Sales Tax (Fairtax). This is why they made this hit-piece attacking the Fairtax.

[Logical me]

Fair Tax will penalize those on Social Security since they will not realize any income increase if the income tax is abolished because no withholding is taken on SS payments.

[maine-iac7]

http://www.fairtax.org/

http://www.geocities.com/cmcofer/fca4.html

If we want to get rid of the IRS - and their storm troopers - we need to start rattling chains - LOUD - let those on the committee - and all other reps - know we want the IRS GONE...
We would be free for the first time in our lives...

[numberonepal]

Members of the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform on May 11 expressed concerns over the FairTax national retail sales tax

Yea, well I have concerns about the guvmint stealing my money right now.

[groanup]

Mack, who raised concerns similar to his fellow panelists', said he was "intrigued" by the plan. "But if it's such a great idea, why haven't other political entities around the world pursued it?" he asked.

Because it's a good idea for citizens and a bad idea for politcians, that's why. DUH!

[rolling_stone]

Mack, who raised concerns similar to his fellow panelists', said he was "intrigued" by the plan. "But if it's such a great idea, why haven't other political entities around the world pursued it?" he asked.

Simple, politicians everywhere want to hide how much they are stealing from us to buy votes for them....and just because it isn't used elsewhere is a p#ss poor excuse for not analyzing it. Imagine the world being flat until Christopher Columbus came along and changed all that..and made it round....LOL Politicians are brain dead when it comes to giving excuses to keep their sacred cow. Why change the system where over 50% of lobbyist money is spent for tax influence...It's not like they care about the people or anything, just themselves.

[THEUPMAN]

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would take as much as a 57 percent (tax-exclusive) rate to be revenue-neutral.

this says a mouthful ...


but I have a question...
will there be a difference for "business" purchases or will every transaction be taxed?

the wholesale chain , you know?

How would that be handled? I'm really trying to get a little info here.
thanks

[QQQQQ]

"expressed concerns "

That doesn't exactly sound like "picking it apart" as the title indicates.

There is nothing concrete in the article of any specifics that are incorrect in the FairTax, other than some "concerns".

[pigdog]

You'd certainly like to think that wouldn't you? BTW I wonder why the panel didn't have a presentation on the Nigntmare VAT or Nightmare Flat?

Were you previously occupied elsewhere or did they just overlook you? Or - in actual fact - perhaps they reazlized you don't have a plan at all but just like to naysay.

[goldstategop]

The income tax system has a lot of defenders and they're not by any means solely income redistributionist liberals. Moving to a national sales tax or flat tax system won't happen without a major fight. It will make the current Social Security fracas look like a Sunday walk in the park.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Conservative til I die]

In principle I agree with the FairTax. However, in practice, there are a lot of concerns I have about it. First, it is regressive. And in light of the very progressive nature of our current tax system, it becomes ever more regressive, relatively speaking. Plus, what about the effects of any transitions on retailers?

[Final Authority]

What will happen is that the President and the leadership in Congress will see the idea of a NRST as the method which they can augment the "take" of our property by phasing in, say, a 3% sales tax and still keep the income tax. Of course they will say that over time the income tax rate will decrease and the sales tax rates will increase but the IRS and the income tax will never go away because the liberals won't let them because it is the means to keep progressivity and the means to soak the "rich".

All sorts of programs will be identified for this tax to be ear-marked for such as propping up the IR in hospitals across the nation. Essentially, this tax pays for all of the criminal aliens health care. Or, it will be ear-marked for job training for jobs we no longer need or have because of our free and fair trade policies. But we will need nurses and other allied health care workers to keep all of the criminal aliens healthy so they can work the fields, clean our swimming pools, and mow our golf courses.

I love the FairTaxers, they are doing exactly what the government leadership needs, that is, they are designing a illusion or trick play to make us think the outcome will be different from reality.

[Radioactive]

As I have stated in many posts in the past, we need to get the Federal government out of business.

Promoting a national sales tax makes business an arm of the government.

What we need is to get the government totally out of the tax collection business.

The best tax would be a tax on the creation of money.

The Federal government would take only 10% of the money needed to run the economy for one year.

This would make the government business friendly, making government pass business friendly laws in order for the income of the government to rise.

This would in effect limit the growth of government to 10% of the economy.

It would also make the government invisible to most Americans...no more reporting to the government how much you made, or having business report how much it sold.

Making the government collect on the amount of money it creates also would get the Federal Reserve Monkey off our backs.

The Federal government would be the only entity that would be allowed to create money...no more Federal Reserve Debt notes.

This is the only real answer to our economic and trade problems.

[Hank Rearden]

Breaux raised concerns that the proposed 23 percent (tax-inclusive) rate would not be sufficient to raise the revenue necessary to fund the government.

Then let the goddamn government find a way to cut back, just like Normals have to do.

Stop remodeling Frist's office, stop restocking Ted Kennedy's liquor cabinet.

And fire a couple hundred thousand of those stupid fat cows behind the gray steel desks.

[Protagoras]

There is little hope of the FairTax or any national retail sales tax being recommended by this panel.

The government will never give up it's primary source of power.

[WhiteGuy]

Tax Reform Panel Picks Apart FairTax Proposal

What can be expected from a government that refuses to take a constitutional and common sense approach to spending..........

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Hey Bigun Seen this ?

[hosepipe]

[ Panel chair Connie Mack, vice chair John B. Breaux, and other members worried the plan would be difficult to enforce, would be regressive, and would require a high rate in order to take in enough money to fund the government. ]

Probably would be a higher and higher rate after democrats and Rinos get through with it.. Nah!.. no probably about it.. that is if it didn't become a virtual VAT.. I don't trust this Congress especially this Senate any farther than I can throw Hillary Clinton's broomstick OR vibrator.. Connie Mack spilled the beans implying don't cut gov't back to match the revenues.. BUT do we have enough revenue to match SPENDING.?..