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

Skip to comments.

'Fair Tax Book' makes a surprisingly strong case
Citizen-Times | June 21, 2009 | Roger Lirely

Posted on 06/25/2009 4:20:47 AM PDT by Man50D

The article can't be posted due to copyright complaints. The link to the article is below.

'Fair Tax Book' makes a surprisingly strong case


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bookreview; fairtax; unfairtax
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-239 next last
To: Bigun
You have been referred to that information several times

I was referred to info that shows prices remain the same, my income and social security taxes are cut to zero while I also receive a prebate? Don't forget, government revenues remain the same. Was the reference in a magazine showing how to build a perpetual motion machine?

21 posted on 06/25/2009 9:30:51 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: groanup

Some math is so bad, even Willie can see it.


22 posted on 06/25/2009 9:31:25 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Oh, I can well remember the days when the primary sponsor of that snake-oil "reform" was convicted felon Jim "Beam Me Up, Scotty" Traficant.

You can't remember anything. The only sponsor of The Fair Tax since it was first introduced in 1999 to Congress was and still is Congressman John Linder of Georgia. In fact Traficant was never even a cosponsor! Where are those sources? Please keep guessing to show how little you know about The Fair Tax.

The corporate lobbyists have an army of shills on the Internet waiting to hijack and derail any legitimate discussion of tax reform that ordinary citizens may wish to have.

You're digging a deeper hole. Americans For Fair Taxation does not have lobbyists. Donations for The Fair Tax come from individuals which you could easily see by visiting either www.fairtax.org or www.fairtaxnation.com

Please keep spewing your nonsensical remarks for they serve to weaken any argument you have opposing The Fair Tax.
23 posted on 06/25/2009 11:05:26 AM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! FairTaxNation.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TChris
That's just a flat-out LIE.

Why would you post something like that?


Wow! Did I my mistake! My bad! I meant The Fair Tax is a flat tax on consumption instead of income. I've type this fundamental point so many times I couldn't see the forest for the trees. Sorry!
24 posted on 06/25/2009 11:10:09 AM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! FairTaxNation.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
I was referred to info that shows prices remain the same, my income and social security taxes are cut to zero while I also receive a prebate? Don't forget, government revenues remain the same. Was the reference in a magazine showing how to build a perpetual motion machine?

Nope. The tax base was simply broadened to include all consumers rather than confining it to only those who earn legitimate incomes!

25 posted on 06/25/2009 11:10:49 AM PDT by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
The tax base was simply broadened to include all consumers rather than confining it to only those who earn legitimate incomes!

If prices remain the same, how are you increasing tax receipts from those with illegitimate sources of income?

26 posted on 06/25/2009 11:13:27 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

I’m typing real slow so you can get this!

The tax base is FAR broader under the FairTax than it is under the current income tax! More people paying means that each individual will pay relatively less unless of course you are one of those who isn’t paying currently!


27 posted on 06/25/2009 11:24:36 AM PDT by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
The tax base is FAR broader under the FairTax than it is under the current income tax!

Great! So how does someone with undeclared income pay more taxes when the claim is that prices remain the same?

Maybe you need to type slower, I'm still seeing the bad math claims.

28 posted on 06/25/2009 11:27:53 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Let's see if I can do it with pictures included.

Taxation in pictures: Why FairTax makes sense

The New York Times made some coverage of the FairTax proposal recently. The coverage was done in a way typical of mass media trying to be "unbiased": they vaguely describe the topic being covered, and quote some people who are in favor, quote some people who are against. The arguments in favor or against are not really explained, and it is left up to the reader to perform their own research, or walk away from the issue with lingering doubts.

People who are in favor of FairTax generally say that the proposal has been designed by competent economists, and has been verified and endorsed by many more. They say that the calculations behind the proposal have been verified many times, and that the people who refute the proposal either haven't taken the time to understand it, or have vested interest in the current, horrendously complex, tax system.

People who are against FairTax generally quote some other economist who calls it "unworkable" or "a swindle" without bothering to explain why.

However, there is an easy way to comprehend why the FairTax makes sense. All it takes is a picture.

Taxation in the US


The following diagram illustrates taxation in the American economy.


When you buy a $100 product, you observe being directly taxed only by the state, assuming there's a local sales tax. What you don't observe, however, is that the remaining $90 you are paying for the product has a lot of other tax built in.

How much tax in total?

Over the past 15 years, total US government receipts - federal, state and local - have summed up to about 33% of GDP (OECD, 'Tax&Non-TaxReceipts').

According to the US GPO, based on data for the year 2000, "total Federal spending accounts for 20% of the gross domestic product, while total state and local spending account for 12%".

The federal government collects a large majority of its revenue through the personal income tax (10-35%), corporate income tax (35-39%), social security (12.4%), and payroll tax (2.9%). The states get some of their revenue from the federal government, while collecting the rest through sales taxes (0-10%) and piggybacking on the federal income tax (0-10%).

Current federal budget deficits are about $480 billion, about 3.8% of GDP. This means that the federal government spends about 20% of GDP, but collects only about 16.2% in taxes. A majority of the remaining 3.8% is borrowed from the private sector, while a minority is taken from the economy as an invisible tax, by the government simply printing the money.

You don't see these taxes when you buy a product in a retail store. But out of every $100 you spend for a product, some $29 on average are taken by the government, at some point or another in the process of the product's production. Some $16 are taken by the federal government, and some $12 are taken by the states.

Due to special interests and their lobbying, there are numerous exceptions, and the effective tax level is different for every individual product and service.

The fact that they collect this money at so many different points, and using such a complex tax code with so many special cases and exceptions, imposes a large compliance burden nationwide. The Tax Foundation estimated that this burden was $265 billion in 2005 - about 2% of GDP. This likely means that the US would experience an immediate one-time GDP growth spurt of 2% if income taxation was eliminated, just from not having to comply with the income tax alone.

There would almost certainly be another, permanent 2% or so increase in annual growth because the government would stop taxing investment to spend it on consumption.

Taxation in the EU


If you think the US has it bad, look at the following diagram for Europe.


So you thought the US rescued Europe from fascism in WWII, eh?

No such luck.

To understand, take a minute to meditate on this quote from The Big Book of Fascism by our friend Benito Mussolini:
Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.... The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.... Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number.... We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.
And so it is across Europe today. Just compare this sentiment to the diagram you see above. The State is everywhere.

In addition to the personal and corporate income tax, payroll tax, and social security taxes which are present in the United States, most EU countries impose the Value Added Tax, which performs essentially the service of a sales tax. The difference, as you can see from the diagram above, is that the VAT is much more convoluted, raising compliance costs across the EU and opening opportunities for scamsters to abuse the system, forcing the EU to lash back at them by raiding and closing otherwise perfectly good offshore banks.

Additionally, EU personal and corporate tax levels are higher than in the United States, bringing total government receipts of Euro area countries to a whopping 45% of GDP. Mussolini would be pleased.

The FairTax


Finally, here is the diagram for the FairTax proposal.


Simple, eh? Instead of collecting taxes bit by bit, at every conceivable point where there is any kind of financial transaction, the FairTax government would focus its collection in a single place: where the consumer purchases a product or a service.

The FairTax rate of 23% is calculated to replace only federal taxes. Various US states have different approaches to taxation, and it is up to them to keep their existing systems or change to an additional sales tax on top of the FairTax.

However, if you recall that US federal taxes collect about 16.2% of gross domestic product (the remaining 3.8% is borrowed or printed), it should be apparent how a 23% FairTax rate is enough.

With a federal government that taxes about 16.2% of what the people of the United States produce; and with US consumption at 86% of GDP; a 23% consumption tax works out to 23% x 86% = 20%. Subtract the FairTax prebate - a sum of about $480 billion, or again about 3.8% of GDP - and the result is 16.2%, exactly the amount collected by current federal taxes.

For a more involved FairTax rate calculation, check out Taxing Sales Under the FairTax: What Rate Works? on the FairTax website. And see also the FairTax FAQ.

UPDATE 2008-01-13: Previously forgot to show how the FairTax prebate and the existing federal budget deficit factor into the calculation. The deficit and the prebate are about the same amount ($480 billion) and cancel each other out. FairTax collects 20% of GDP before the prebate, and 16.2% after the prebate. But existing federal taxes also collect 16.2%, even though government spending is 20%. FairTax is intended to replace existing federal taxes, not increase them to cover the deficit.

Source

29 posted on 06/25/2009 11:36:31 AM PDT by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
You can't remember anything. The only sponsor of The Fair Tax since it was first introduced in 1999 to Congress was and still is Congressman John Linder of Georgia. In fact Traficant was never even a cosponsor! Where are those sources? Please keep guessing to show how little you know about The Fair Tax.

Click here and take your pick.

I'll excerpt a small portion of one:

Two options have been discussed on and off since the exploits of the 1994 conservative revolution (i.e., which suddenly fizzled after the government shut down in December 1995). The first option is the possible implementation of a national sales tax, endorsed by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer (R-TX), Reps. Bill Tauzin (R-LA), James Traficant (D-OH), and John Linder (R-GA). This option would eliminate the dreaded, intrusive IRS and could conceivably be implemented by the sales tax machinery already operating at the level of state governments. The second option is the flat tax, different versions of which are promoted by Forbes magazine publisher Steve Forbes and House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX).

See? Linder and Traficant are right there in RED, along with Billy Tauzin (another weasel)
I understand Tauzins pulling down a couple million bucks a year now as a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry, diverting our tax dollars to finance "free" prescription drugs, no doubt.

30 posted on 06/25/2009 11:42:11 AM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
Let's see if I can do it with pictures included.

Thanks for the info.

But out of every $100 you spend for a product, some $29 on average are taken by the government, at some point or another in the process of the product's production.

Looks like those with illegitimate sources of income are already paying 29% of total purchases. So how does the base get broadened again?

31 posted on 06/25/2009 11:47:36 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Looks like those with illegitimate sources of income are already paying 29% of total purchases. So how does the base get broadened again?

Yep! just like you and I are but you and I are also currently paying all those other taxes (income, SS, Medicare, gift and estate etc.) that they don't pay currently and would under the FairTax!

Also there are a great many folks who currently take in a LOT of money that doesn't come under the definition of "income" and thus doesn't have any taxes due on it. Those folks consume like crazy however and would get their part of the bill with the FairTax in place!

32 posted on 06/25/2009 12:05:00 PM PDT by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
Yep! just like you and I are but you and I are also currently paying all those other taxes

You bet. That explains why I want my other taxes to go to zero. That doesn't explain how the scumbag drug dealer is going to pay more in taxes. He doesn't care if the $29 he pays is a hidden tax or an explicit sales tax. As long as his price remains $100, he doesn't pay more. The base isn't broadened.

Try again?

33 posted on 06/25/2009 12:08:44 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

The drug dealer has to earn $100.00 with which to make the purchase.

How much do you have to earn to have $100.00 left in order to make that same purchase? I’ll just bet you it’s a damned site more than $100.00!


34 posted on 06/25/2009 12:22:09 PM PDT by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
The drug dealer has to earn $100.00 with which to make the purchase.

You bet. How does this explain the broader tax base?

How much do you have to earn to have $100.00 left in order to make that same purchase? I’ll just bet you it’s a damned site more than $100.00!

I'll bet you're right!

35 posted on 06/25/2009 12:26:06 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

I’ve answered that question in every way I can possibly think of and you refuse to see it. So be it! Others will see it quite readily I suspect!


36 posted on 06/25/2009 12:31:26 PM PDT by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
I’ve answered that question in every way I can possibly think of and you refuse to see it.

You said the base is broadened. That somehow we would collect taxes from those (like drug dealers and the high consuming idle rich) who currently don't pay. The claim in the original article is that prices remain virtually unchanged. The drug dealer would pay less "hidden tax" and more "Fair Tax" and the total would remain the same.

Explain how collecting the same tax from the drug dealer somehow has broadened the tax base.

Others will see it quite readily I suspect!

Try again?

37 posted on 06/25/2009 12:38:52 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Read A Macroeconomic Analysis of the FairTax Proposal.

Maybe they can get through I don't seem to be able to.

38 posted on 06/25/2009 12:46:14 PM PDT by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
Maybe they can get through I don't seem to be able to.

You made a simple claim, the Fair Tax will collect money from those who currently don't pay. Drug dealers currently pay, on average, 29% of all purchases to government, according to the source you provided.

You disproved your own claim. Thanks. That was fun.

39 posted on 06/25/2009 12:52:04 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

I know what I said and I stand by it despite the fact that YOU can’t seem to get your mind wrapped around the fact!


40 posted on 06/25/2009 12:55:31 PM PDT by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-239 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