[Your Nightmare]

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

[PISANO]

There are TWO REASONS that a NRST will NEVER replace the INCOME TAX.

First, try getting the almost 50% of the people in this nation who DON'T PAY ANY INCOME TAX to go along with it.

And the constitutional amendment that is necessary to abolish the income tax, would be next to impossible to pass.

IMHO the chances of a NRST is 0%!!!

[leprechaun9]

Most recent data that I have seen on sources of the funds that go into the National Cash Register: (there is only one)

FY2003:
Personal Income Tax = 44.5%
SSI = 40.0%
Corporate Income Tax = 7.4%
Excise Taxes = 3.8%
Other Taxes = 4.3%
TOTAL = 100.0%

Personal Income Tax Payers:
In 1986 the top 5% of Federal Personal Income Tax Payers paid 42.57% of the total and the bottom 50% of Federal Personal Income Tax Payers paid 6.46% of the total.

In 1993 the top 5% of Federal Personal Income Tax Payers paid 47.36% of the total and the bottom 50% of Federal Personal Income Tax Payers paid 4.81% of the total.

In 2001 the top 5% of Federal Personal Income Tax Payers paid 53.25% of the total and the bottom 50% of Federal Personal Income Tax Payers paid 3.97% of the total.

[SittinYonder]

300 posts, didn't look to see if you'd been here.

"But if it's such a great idea, why haven't other political entities around the world pursued it?"

WTF? So now not only do our judges turn to foreign law, but our policy makers turn to foreign policies? We really are screwed.

[Myrddin]

Notice that the committee is charged with cobbing up another "progressive" (tax the hell out of the "rich") scheme. That is major part of the problem. The tax base is too narrow. The bottom of the income scale is sucking at the public tit while expecting the top end to finance the largesse. That needs to end. Government is spending entirely too much money on things where it has no legitimate business. Unless the spending is fixed, there is no taxation scheme that will be tolerable.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Maybe it's time to start sending these jackass politicians Tea Bags instead of money. They raise taxes but won't raise a finger to CUT spending and CUT programs that are useless and unconstitutional.

[phil_will1]

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

Wishful thinking on your part, YN. And if they do, it's only because the panel has been "misled" by FairTax supporters, right YN?

Remember a couple of months ago when you were parroting the MSM's belief that the administration was "running away from" the sales tax because of the uproar over the President's comments on the campaign trail in Florida? Then I posted Secretary Snow's comments directly contradicting that?

Then you posted the MSM's assertion that the reference to the home ownership and charitable contributions concerns ruled out a sales tax. I then posted the exact language of the Executive Order which clearly did NOT rule out any proposal that did not have a tax deduction for those items.

There is a lesson here. Don't believe everything that you read in the media, especially if it is from the MSM (which is largely clueless on this issue) or from a biased source that benefits from the current system.

[phil_will1]

"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."

Interesting that this reporter didn't mention that Senator Mack went on to "answer his own questions" in his words in a manner that was very favorable to the FairTax.

I wonder why the reporter didn't mention that.

[Sprite518]

Of course they would. Anything that allows individualism they are against because it weakens their ability to get elected. The want every dope in America to depend on them from cradle to grave.

[Sprite518]

I guess our country is just too d@m stupid to see the benefits of the fair tax. I am sure our country will slowly become a Socialistic state thanks to the idiots that are too stupid to understand basic math! Unbelievable!

[Stu Cohen]

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

I thought the Treasury printed paper that funded the government?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

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

Just the thing to ensure a fluorishing black market (if the 30% exclusive rate won't do just that).

[Ethrane]

"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."

Maybe because they are all left-leaning socialists?

Why do we in America even consider what other 'developed' countries do?

Hell, would we have ever broke from England if we weren't the leaders on the forefront?

[rwfromkansas]

Well, that is the end of that.

Damn.

[mississippi red-neck]

No matter what type plan they come up with rest assured that the people will pay more and the government will get more money.

It will also have a provision to increase the amount. The politicians spend more every year and they always get it from the same place.

All this talk from them about fair tax or reforming tax laws is about one thing, getting more of our money to fill their insatiable appetites.

[patriot_wes]

"True reform"

http://www.losthorizons.com/Cracking_the_Code.htm

[JoeGar]

Why wouldn't a property tax be the fairest tax of all? The more property, the more taxes.

[atlanta67]

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


so...did you honestly expect that a fair book would be number #1 and presto we'd get rid of the tax system we've had in this country since 1913??

We'll have the fair tax someday but it will be a long time.


It took until 1964 to get rid of WW2's "temporary" income tax increases. Another 17 years to get the top rate down to 50% and another 5 to get it to 28%, since then we've back tracked.


you must understand incrementalism

[Petrosius]

Breaux raised concerns that the proposed 23 percent (tax-inclusive) rate would not be sufficient to raise the revenue necessary to fund the government. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would take as much as a 57 percent (tax-exclusive) rate to be revenue-neutral.

I think that this is a benefit rather than a problem with FairTax, it would clearly show the level of the tax burden. While we argue about the merits of the different tax systems we loose sight of the fact that the real problem is the level of government spending. I will support any of the currently discussed tax plans if federal spending were cut to 10% of the GDP; at 60% no tax plan will be just.

[MortonMark]

Yes, good, the fairtax is an absurdity, wrapped in bad math. Lets hope no one passes it. The only good thing about passing the fairtax — we would all learn the incredible power of wishful thinking.

Fairtax would have to be 50-60%. But can you imagine even a 40% sales tax on new homes? Who on earth would buy a new home, just go buy an existing home. When the new home market goes into toilet — the tax rate would have to increase, because gov revenues would be lower than expected.

How do you get renters to pay a 50% sales tax on their rent?

That I have to see.

How do you get stroke victims and cancer patients to pay 40-50% sales tax on their sugery, nursing home care, etc?