'Fair Tax Book' makes a surprisingly strong case

Citizen-Times | June 21, 2009 | Roger Lirely

[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

[Toddsterpatriot]

The drug dealer pays none of his own taxes when he buys today. Get it? eyes rolling....

Please explain the difference between paying $100 to the retailer, $29 of which goes to government (and is called corporate and income tax) and paying $100 to the retailer, $29 of which goes to the government (and is called a Fair Tax).

Under the nrst, he does pay his own taxes. Get it?

Is his purchase still priced at $100?

You want to argue that since the amount of tax costs currently paid by drug dealers will be similar to the tax they'll pay under an nrst, that personal income and payroll tax can't go away and bring in the same revenue.

For the moment I want to argue that you can't collect the same amount from drug dealers (that you collect today) and claim you've collected taxes from them for the first time.

What makes it possible is that the base of consumption is much greater than the base of taxable income - so we can all pay less and have the revenue be similar.

Everyone pays less and we collect the same? LOL!

Just to recap, my income tax and Social Security tax drop to zero. Corporate income taxes drop to zero. Prices at the store remain the same. I collect a monthly prebate. The government collects the same revenue. All because the tax base was broadened?

There's that free lunch claim again.

[Principled]

Everyone pays less and we collect the same? LOL!

You're getting close Todd!

Every LEGAL participant in today's system will pay less and we collect the same.

Keep that li'l brain going! You're getting closer!

[Toddsterpatriot]

Every LEGAL participant in today's system will pay less and we collect the same.

I'm waiting for proof that the illegal participants pay more. Keep trying.

[Principled]

Just to recap, my income tax and Social Security tax drop to zero.

No.

Corporate income taxes drop to zero.

Yes.

The government collects the same revenue.

Yes.

All because the tax base was broadened?

No. But that's a big part of it. PIT and SS taxes are part of the fair tax. Corporate income tax is indeed gone. And yes, the gov't collects the same.

You are making progress Todd.

[Principled]

I'm waiting for proof that the illegal participants pay more.

No need to wait. Just review the thread.

It's pretty easy. Illegals pay more tax under the nrst than they do now. Right now, they don't pay any tax. The embedded costs in a product are not the drug dealer's taxes, they are the seller's taxes.

When a law abiding citizen buys something, they pay the same at the counter as a drug dealer. But the two purchases are not the same - the law abiding buyer has paid income tax on the dollars he uses.

The drug dealer has NOT paid income tax on the dollars he uses to purchase. See the difference Toddy?

The law abiding citizen pays his own taxes via income/payroll tax. Both buyers pay the costs [utilities, salaries, tax costs, etc] of the seller. Only the law abiding citizen pays his taxes.

[Toddsterpatriot]

PIT and SS taxes are part of the fair tax.

Like I said, my income tax and Social Security tax go to zero, as in are not withheld from my paycheck.

And yes, the gov't collects the same.

And prices remain the same?

You are making progress Todd.

No proof that the drug dealers pay more? You're not making any progress.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Right now, they don't pay any tax.

They don't pay income or Social Security. Bigun's source said they pay $29 out of every $100 they purchase to government. Was his source wrong?

The embedded costs in a product are not the drug dealer's taxes, they are the seller's taxes.

Does the seller pay those taxes with money they get from the drug dealer?

When a law abiding citizen buys something, they pay the same at the counter as a drug dealer.

Yup.

But the two purchases are not the same - the law abiding buyer has paid income tax on the dollars he uses.

Yes, people who pay income tax pay income tax.

The drug dealer has NOT paid income tax on the dollars he uses to purchase.

Yes, people who pay no income tax pay no income tax.

Both buyers pay the costs [utilities, salaries, tax costs, etc] of the seller.

How much are those costs as a percentage of sales?

[Bigun]

My claims have been backed up nine ways from Sunday and your refusals to accept the evidence presented doesn’t change that fact at all!

[Toddsterpatriot]

My claims have been backed up nine ways from Sunday

You said, "The tax base was simply broadened to include all consumers rather than confining it to only those who earn legitimate incomes!"

Then you posted a source that said, "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"

Is the Fair Tax going to increase the amount taken by the government? How?

[Man50D]

I'll excerpt a small portion of one:

Your source is lacking in relevance and is in error for more than one reason. The thread has to do with The Fair Tax as indicated by the title, not the bill to which Tauzin and Traficant supported. You then made the remark in reply #11

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.

First off The bill to which you are referring regarding Traficant is H.R.2717(Individual Tax Freedom Act of 2001). This is different from the Fair Tax Act(H.R.2525 in 2001). Second your comment specifically states he was the primary sponsor. Billy Tauzin was the sponsor, not Traficant. He was only a cosponsor. Third John Linder was never a cosponsor of H.R.2717 and therefore never associated with Traficant or Tauzin. The reason Linder would not support H.R.2717 is due to the fact he introduced H.R.2525 one month before Tauzin and Traficant's bill.

Regardless of those facts, H.R.2717 is not the same as H.R.2525 which is obviously the reason for two separate bills and is the reason the Individual Tax Freedom Act of 2001 did not see the light of day in the following session whereas The Fair Tax Act has increased cosponsors in each session of Congress since it's introduction in 1999.

You keep shooting yourself in the foot with each comment either lacking any factual information or replete with errors. Thank you for the self contradiction and proving your memory is at best faulty if not disingenuous. Keep up the good work!

[Principled]

They [drug dealers] don't pay income or Social Security.

You got it Todd!

And since income tax and social security are part of the nrst, drug dealers WILL pay their taxes [what we used to call income tax and social security taxes] when they pay the fair tax.

My gosh, you got it!

[Man50D]

MOST Americans will see a tax increase with the "Fair Tax." Therefore, they will not vote for it.

Oh really? That must explain why Fair Tax rally's number in the thousands, the number of people joining The Fair Tax grassroots movement is growing and the number of cosponsors has increased in each session of Congress since it was first introduced in 1999.

Those silly supporters must not understand as you do replacing the income tax code with The Fair Tax will reduce their overall tax burden from 53%+ down to 23% is actually a tax increase.

The Fair Tax's stock is rising.

[Toddsterpatriot]

They [drug dealers] don't pay income or Social Security.

You got it Todd!

Yeah, I know.

And since income tax and social security are part of the nrst, drug dealers WILL pay their taxes [what we used to call income tax and social security taxes] when they pay the fair tax.

Bigun showed they already pay embedded taxes now. Was his source wrong? How will the NRST compare to currently embedded taxes?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Those silly supporters must not understand as you do replacing the income tax code with The Fair Tax will reduce their overall tax burden from 53%+ down to 23% is actually a tax increase.

Wow, our tax burden goes down and the Feds still collect the same revenue. It's magic!

[lewislynn]

Given the absolutely astonishing mat skills you have ALWAYS displayed on this subject it is quite humorous to see talking about anyone's supposed ignorance!

Your spelling and grammar aside. I just thought if you were going to pretend to know about taxes you should have the facts so you won't continue to publicly make a fool of yourself.

[Man50D]

Wow, our tax burden goes down and the Feds still collect the same revenue. It's magic!

No, it's called common sense. The Fair Tax will encompass a broader tax base than the income tax and be more stable as it will collect taxes even during economic downturns where the income tax code can't collect when people are unemployed.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you going to claim that drug dealers will be taxed for the first time with a Fair Tax?

[bluegirl]

No one has been able to explain to me what would be "fair" about this:
We are near retirement. We have been living frugally and saving money. We have already paid taxes on the money we saved and plan to live off. If the "fair tax" is passed, it will be like paying taxes again on money that has already been taxed. Doesn't seem fair to me.

[Toddsterpatriot]

The drug dealer pays none of his own taxes when he buys today. Get it?.....

You want to argue that since the amount of tax costs currently paid by drug dealers...

LOL! Get it?

[Willie Green]

Regardless of those facts, H.R.2717 is not the same as H.R.2525 which is obviously the reason for two separate bills and is the reason the Individual Tax Freedom Act of 2001 did not see the light of day in the following session whereas The Fair Tax Act has increased cosponsors in each session of Congress since it's introduction in 1999.

Traficant/Tauzin's NRST was only gonna charge a 15% tax before the bigger weasels decided to up the ante.