Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"The Fair Tax Fantasy"
Townhall ^ | 4/20/09 | Hugh Hewitt

Posted on 04/20/2009 3:15:05 PM PDT by pissant

This is a new book that I have co-authored with Hank Adler, a professor at Chapman University's business school, a post he took up after retirement from a long and successful career as a partner with Deloitte.

Hank and I undertook this project because we had --independent of each other and for different reasons-- arrived at the same conclusion: That the "Fair Tax" proposal put forward by my radio tal show host Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder is a disastrous mirage that far too many Republicans have been drawn too, and for all the wrong reasons. "The Fair Tax" is a hopelessly flawed fantasy, but one with a surface appeal of simplicity that attracts especially politicians in need of energetic volunteers and quick headlines. But if the "Fair Tax" becomes the "Kemp-Roth" of the next few years, the GOP will be rightly punished at the polls as the details of the plan make it to the desks of serious political and economic analysts and from there to large numbers of voters who will examine the plan carefully and reject it almost immediately upon doing so. In short, not only should Republicans and conservatives not endorse the Fair Tax, they ought to affirmatively disavow the plan and press instead for serious and thoroughgoing tax reform, including lower and flatter tax rates.

Fair Tax enthusiasts often call my show and demand that I "read the book," by which they mean one or both of Neal's books. We have, and they do nothing to persuade serious readers of the plans merits, but much to camouflage the scheme's many deeply embedded flaws. Henceforth I'll be able to respond "Yes, but have you read the book that exposes the Fair tax as a destructive fantasy it is?"

(Excerpt) Read more at hughhewitt.townhall.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: fairtax; hughhewitt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301 next last

Hugh better hope Romney doesn't come out in support of the fair tax. He'll find himself doing another violent 180 spin. Just as he did on amnesty after Mitt started sounding more like Tancredo.

1 posted on 04/20/2009 3:15:05 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pissant

I favor the Low Tax or No Tax approach


2 posted on 04/20/2009 3:17:06 PM PDT by GeronL (TYRANNY SENTINEL. http://tyrannysentinel.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant; Your Nightmare; Always Right; lewislynn; lucysmom; robertpaulsen; Filo; longtermmemmory; ..

FYI


3 posted on 04/20/2009 3:17:52 PM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Ditto. 85% of government at the local/state level is redundant or better served by the private sector.


4 posted on 04/20/2009 3:19:02 PM PDT by 1010RD (First Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Put simply, the imposition of a massive new sales tax --at least 30 percent but probably much higher-- on every product consumed in the United States and accompanied by the simultaneous repeal of the federal income tax code is a risky and deeply dangerous attempt to sell simplicity to a tax weary public.

There's a little bit of spin here. The Fair Tax, in order to achieve revenue-neutral income to the Treasury, would have to be set at 23%. The 30% number arises when you add in state taxes to the final retail bill, but state tax rates are irrelevant to federal gubmint tax rates. (Unfortunately.)

Solution: set the national sales tax at a rate lower than 23% and cut federal spending. Which is the entire goal of the Fair Tax, to achieve lower federal spending while making Americans completely aware of how much they REALLY pay in tax.

That all said, the Fair Tax is never getting enacted anyway, so who cares? I think Hugh is just trying to get some royalty revenue. IMO, he should have written a book advocating a tax policy he likes better, rather than attacking a tax policy that's never going to see the light of day. What's Hugh in favor of, lowered rates in our current tax system? A flat income tax?
5 posted on 04/20/2009 3:27:30 PM PDT by Terpfen (Ain't over yet, folks. Those 2004 Senate gains are up for grabs in 2 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Fair Tax?
No such animal exists.
A tax is someone taking something from you to support something you may not benefit from or support.
I do not suport abortion but my tax dollars do.
Someone may not support war, any war Quakers etc.But their tax dollars do.
So you need to get away from the idea that any type taxation can ever be fair.
What it needs to be is SIMPLE and LOW.Period...
No one should have topay another person to have their taxes done. That is the most asinine situation I ever heard of...


6 posted on 04/20/2009 3:33:18 PM PDT by SECURE AMERICA (Coming to You From the Front Lines of Occupied America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

The only “fair tax” is land rent taxation. People as diverse as Leo Tolstoy, Mark Twain, Winston Churchill, Milton Friedman and William Buckley agreed on the basic logic of this tax. If you’re interested, here’s a place to start, http://www.groundswellusa.org/thekey.htm


7 posted on 04/20/2009 3:34:29 PM PDT by stop_fascism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Fair Tax = National Budget/# of Residences in the USA

Imagine how fast spending would decrease.


8 posted on 04/20/2009 3:36:51 PM PDT by sbhitchc ("One man with courage makes a majority." -- Andrew Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

I don’t have any real feelings on fair tax either way but the real problem we face today is spending.


9 posted on 04/20/2009 3:38:21 PM PDT by cripplecreek (The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen; pissant
What's Hugh in favor of, lowered rates in our current tax system? A flat income tax?

Hugh is in favor of whatever the GOP tells him to be in favor of.

I don't know if this suffices as an example but Hewitt will constantly ask people to send money to the NRSC (National Republican Senatorial Committee) even though he inadvertently said on air once that the NRSC f**ked up Minnesota and caused Coleman the seat.

The NRSC is backing Specter instead of Toomey in the primary. Guess who Hewitt will back? Will he still shill for the GOP even as they sell us out?

10 posted on 04/20/2009 3:39:52 PM PDT by AreaMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Yes, but there are some real FT nuts out there that won’t listen to reason about it’s chances. I’d love for FT to happen. Problem is why would the 50+ % of asswipes in this country who pay NO taxes at all be interested in something like a ‘fair tax’? No reason whatsoever, period.


11 posted on 04/20/2009 3:41:38 PM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AreaMan

Point well taken.


12 posted on 04/20/2009 3:43:00 PM PDT by Terpfen (Ain't over yet, folks. Those 2004 Senate gains are up for grabs in 2 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pissant

I think I have written that book 20 times over over that last 10 years.


13 posted on 04/20/2009 3:43:29 PM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

I do worry about FT combined with already sky high taxes within my state.


14 posted on 04/20/2009 3:44:08 PM PDT by cripplecreek (The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

The government will never reduce a tax, once imposed.


15 posted on 04/20/2009 3:45:06 PM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen
There's a little bit of spin here. The Fair Tax, in order to achieve revenue-neutral income to the Treasury, would have to be set at 23%.

Question for you. If you have a $100 item before tax, but the final cost after sales tax is $130, how much sales tax is being charged?

A. 23% (The Fair Tax answer)
B. 30% (As this book states)

16 posted on 04/20/2009 3:46:25 PM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stop_fascism
The only “fair tax” is land rent taxation.

With out fiat currency, why tax at all? Just spend and let inflation take care of the tax? That would be the fairest tax and most efficient.

17 posted on 04/20/2009 3:51:04 PM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Depends, who’s receiving the tax money? If the federal gubmint sees 23% of that $100, then their tax rate is 23%. If the final bill is $130 on an item that costs $100, and the Fair Tax is 23%, then it stands to reason the state sales tax is 7%.

All I’m saying is, the explanation in the book promo contains spin. I’m not promoting the Fair Tax. I think it’s a bad idea because it’s a disincentive for consumption, which is the sole generator of tax revenue under the plan.


18 posted on 04/20/2009 3:51:56 PM PDT by Terpfen (Ain't over yet, folks. Those 2004 Senate gains are up for grabs in 2 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen

Under the fair tax, the government gets all $30 and calls it a 23% tax. They arrive at their rate by stating the tax as a percentage of the after tax cost, 23% of $130. It is the fairtaxers who spin. I was not including any state tax in my example.


19 posted on 04/20/2009 3:54:16 PM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

I am a fervent believer that most local services should be privatized


20 posted on 04/20/2009 3:54:41 PM PDT by GeronL (TYRANNY SENTINEL. http://tyrannysentinel.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pissant
IMO the problem with a "fair tax" is that it's only "fair" to the single wage-earners who have no dependents and no mortgages. Their taxes will go down, but all the married-with-two-kids-and-a-mortgage wage earners will see their federal taxes go up.

Find someone who declares 80-100K gross income on his/her taxes, who also has two dependents under 17 and a mortgage over 150K. Ask them what their effective federal tax rate is, on that 80-100K they earn. It's not 23% - it's more like 15% or less, after they get done claiming all of their federal deductions. A flat tax of 20+% will cost them dearly, and provide yet another government deterrent to the Traditional American Nuclear Family.

As a former employer of mine once told me, "take a good look at the income tax laws, before you tell me there's no such thing as social engineering."

21 posted on 04/20/2009 3:56:25 PM PDT by Alex Murphy (Presbyterians often forget that John Knox had been a Sunday bowler.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
I was not including any state tax in my example.

I inserted the state tax in there because it's the only way, mathematically, a 23% tax rate on $100 translates to a $30 add-on. You're going to have to explain your reasoning as to how a 23% rate adds up to $30 on a bill of $100.
22 posted on 04/20/2009 3:56:37 PM PDT by Terpfen (Ain't over yet, folks. Those 2004 Senate gains are up for grabs in 2 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Most of them are here on FR


23 posted on 04/20/2009 3:56:59 PM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen
I think it’s a bad idea because it’s a disincentive for consumption,

Any less than the income tax is a disincentive for working?

24 posted on 04/20/2009 3:57:31 PM PDT by Stegall Tx (Democrats: raising your taxes; cheating on theirs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Fair Tax ping.


25 posted on 04/20/2009 3:58:52 PM PDT by TADSLOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

You certainly have.

Lately, I’ve been thinking that, at this moment, in the midst of a rapidly expanding federal government and a rapidly shrinking private sector, the FT would be a disaster.


26 posted on 04/20/2009 3:59:53 PM PDT by savedbygrace (You are only leading if someone follows. Otherwise, you just wandered off... [Smokin' Joe])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sbhitchc

I like your line of thinking. What would be an even better formula is this:
Amount of Fed Budget a State receives = Amount that state pays
Then leave it up to the State to figure out how to pay/tax its poeple.
Effect would be reduction of earmarks/state budget because the politician’s state / citizens are on the hook to pay the money back thereby reducing amount of money requested/required each year.
2. States with high liabilities pay more taxes ie NY or CA

Just a thought.


27 posted on 04/20/2009 4:02:39 PM PDT by John.Galt2012 (I'll take Liberty and you can keep the "Change"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stop_fascism

The concept of property tax as discussed at groundswellusa has several issues.

The most important issue is the tax on the “improvement” to the land. Unfortunately ALL “improvements” to the land depreciate over time so based on external market factors affecting the depreciation rate will adversely impact the “amount” of tax able to be collected, etc. Also it will disproportionately tax people people higher rates for artificially inflated property values from the wonderful stupid programs like CRA.

Land is the only that potentially has the potential to appreciate over the long-haul. Land will depreciate if it has become polluted, etc...but generally will appreciate in value over the long haul.

One small problem with the “land-rent” scenario...who would maintain their properties anymore? It would be better to let your property slide to accelerate depreciation to improve your tax position...once that starts to happen entire regions will suffer.

People will move to new locations and repeat and eventually we will just end up with sub-par real estate and massively depressed areas and no taxes.

Another side effect will be small postage stamp size parcels of land that will be build upon. The whole notion of owning land will become a thing of the past. Land is there here all right...but it is the key to the people maintaining the power over our corrupt government...the last thing we want to do is open the door so the government will ultimately control how much land we will be able to own.


28 posted on 04/20/2009 4:05:15 PM PDT by surfer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Stegall Tx

The difference between consumption and employment is that one is usually optional. What will happen is that people will pay the higher prices on items they need, like food and clothes, but will cut voluntary consumption. It’s the same effect as a price increase.


29 posted on 04/20/2009 4:05:40 PM PDT by Terpfen (Ain't over yet, folks. Those 2004 Senate gains are up for grabs in 2 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen
I think it’s a bad idea because it’s a disincentive for consumption...

That is the PRECISE reason it is a GOOD idea. The whole idea is to encourage saving (investment). That can only come at the expense of consumption.

While there are some good reasons to be concerned about the fair tax idea, this just isn't one of them. Quite the contrary - this may be its biggest plus.

30 posted on 04/20/2009 4:08:57 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen; pissant

I actually think the Fair Tax has more potential of happening now than ever.

When you truly understand what the Fair Tax represents it makes complete sense to get behind it.

There are some key aspects of the Fair Tax that no other tax approach delivers (non-consumption based).

1) You as an individual are no longer a target of the government

2) The elimination of waste is very high - as in...more of the tax collected will actually end up in the spending budget

3) All illegal money ends up getting taxed

4) 65,000,000 tourists a year will pay into our coffers

5) We would become the #1 place in the world to do business - how many jobs would that create?

6) As an individual you would have complete control on how much you paid in taxes per year, and you wouldn’t be penalized for saving

7) No more double taxation through instruments like the death tax, etc...

8) Our ability to complete on a global level would skyrocket

9) Without a capital gains tax the amount of capital available for business expansion would literally be unlimited

I could go on for quite a while about the benefits...I literally do not see the downside to it. It actually is fair if you accept we must pay some taxes...


31 posted on 04/20/2009 4:12:04 PM PDT by surfer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
The whole idea is to encourage saving (investment). That can only come at the expense of consumption.

IMO, the purpose of tax policy should not be to substantially change purchasing habits. Taxes are a necessary evil that should be minimized/eliminated wherever and whenever possible, not a tool to force people to keep their bank accounts in what some gubmint official deems to "correct."

If someone wants to blow their money, it's their decision and responsibility. Tax policy should not be used to alter that behavior.
32 posted on 04/20/2009 4:14:46 PM PDT by Terpfen (Ain't over yet, folks. Those 2004 Senate gains are up for grabs in 2 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: surfer

We’re in agreement on your points 3, 6, 7, and 9. However, I think the overall disincentive effect on the consumer side will outweigh the benefits of those points.


33 posted on 04/20/2009 4:17:03 PM PDT by Terpfen (Ain't over yet, folks. Those 2004 Senate gains are up for grabs in 2 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen
I inserted the state tax in there because it's the only way, mathematically, a 23% tax rate on $100 translates to a $30 add-on. You're going to have to explain your reasoning as to how a 23% rate adds up to $30 on a bill of $100.

Let the fairtax people explain, it is how they do math. They calculate the rate on the gross costs (after tax). $30 is 23% of $130. The fairtax people, not me, calculate the tax rate that way. The do not use the $100 pretax cost to calculate the expense. The fairtax is really a 30% sales tax. That is a fact, not spin. The fairtax rate is what they call an 'inclusive' tax rate. It is the fairtaxers who are spinning this.

34 posted on 04/20/2009 4:17:40 PM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: pissant
The income tax is the most intrusive expression of Big Government. It can't be reformed; its got to go. The Fair Tax represents a return to the system of taxation that existed when this country was founded. Its a tax on consumption rather than a tax on income, which is a socialist idea. You should not be taxed on how much or how little you have but instead on what you spend. That's why I support the Fair Tax.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

35 posted on 04/20/2009 4:23:30 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: surfer

Thank you for the serious reply. Your objections have all been answered by land rent taxation proponents. I can’t do their arguments justice, but here is an overview.

The idea of land rent taxation is that you do not tax improvements. So the tax actually encourages improving property to the max. Since the tax on a hovel and a mansion would be the same, if they were placed on an equal parcel of land.

LRT also allows private use of land, as long as the tax is paid. So you are correct, that the idea of owning land would be a thing of the past. However, this is really not a bad thing.

Presently, around 95% of the private land in America is owned by 5% of the population. Much of the land is not being used at its highest and best use. Instead, speculators hold the land waiting for it to “appreciate over the long haul.” Value is an estimate of this appreciation. So we see real estate bubbles followed by busts. That is exactly what led to the current recession. It hurts the economy in the long run. By taxing land rents, it is no longer economically prudent to hold it out of use.


36 posted on 04/20/2009 4:25:26 PM PDT by stop_fascism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

I think it’s a bad idea because it’s a disincentive for consumption...

As opposed to disincentive for production???

I agree, this is probably the best thing about a consumption tax.
Other than those who are living of their trust funds (wealthy) and/or working “under the table” (illegals and criminals)have to start paying.


37 posted on 04/20/2009 4:25:32 PM PDT by John.Galt2012 (I'll take Liberty and you can keep the "Change"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Income tax is basically slavery. If you don’t own the product of your labor, you are a slave. We are supposed to be happy that we are only slaves 40% of the time.

The “fair tax” is an indirect tax on the same labor. You’re still a slave, but the government is being nice enough to conceal that fact from you.


38 posted on 04/20/2009 4:28:35 PM PDT by stop_fascism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sbhitchc; Taxman; Principled; EternalVigilance; phil_will1; kevkrom; Bigun; PeteB570; FBD; ...
Imagine how fast spending would decrease.

No more federal income taxes taken out of your paycheck means increased purchasing power. All the embedded taxes in everything we purchase that are due to corporations passing the cost of their income taxes into the consumer will be removed. No more taxes on capital gains, estates and savings will all put more money in people's wallets thereby increase spending. Fair Tax ping !


39 posted on 04/20/2009 4:29:49 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Hugh has lost so much credibility with me -- and I was a major fan of his for years after I first discovered him in late 2000 -- that I'm tempted to think, "If he thinks it's a bad idea ... it's probably a good idea."
40 posted on 04/20/2009 4:33:13 PM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: surfer
I support FairTax for these reasons:

1) It gets rid of the most insidious form of corruption--the buying and selling of income tax breaks.
2) It saves Americans at least US$350 BILLION per year in compliance costs.
3) It encourages savings and capital formation with no tax consequences, so the savings rate and investment rate will rocket through the roof.
4) Income tax evasion is GONE. The need for the cash-only underground economy and the funneling of what some estimate as high as US$17 TRILLION out of the USA to offshore financial centers goes away, and we could get a gigantic boost in financial system liquidity as these funds are now repatriated back to the American financial under better tax circumstances.
5) We could see several trillion more enter the USA as foreign investors take advantage of investing in a country with no taxes on earning money.
6) #4 and #5 could bring in US$17 to US$20 TRILLION in liquidity to the American financial system. That is essentially the world's largest "private bailout," so big that it could revive all the major distressed banks, AIG and the Big Three automakers and still have more than enough to revive the rest of the US economy.
7) Because of no more taxes on earning money, businesses will now based their economic decisions on what is best for the company, not what is the lowest tax burden. Corporate headquarter and production jobs come flowing back into the USA under better tax circumstances, and all those idled factories and office space will be taken in a matter of months.
8) Homes will be realistically priced based on the value of the property and how the house is built, not what kind of mortgage interest tax deduction you can get.

41 posted on 04/20/2009 4:33:56 PM PDT by RayChuang88 (FairTax: America's economic cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: pissant

So, does this guy actually lay out his argument anywhere..... or does he just pompously tell us to read the book?

Somehow I do not trust him. It seems his motives are to sell the book, not to push his cause.


42 posted on 04/20/2009 4:34:51 PM PDT by Apple Pan Dowdy (... as American as Apple Pie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

I admit the current income tax may be better than the Fair Tax. But, since we’ve tried the income tax for a while, let’s try the Fair Tax for the next 96 years and compare.


43 posted on 04/20/2009 4:35:05 PM PDT by tnlibertarian (Wealth is earned, not distributed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen

I think it’s a bad idea because it’s a disincentive for consumption...

As opposed to disincentive for production (income tax)???

As you stated, tax that which you wish to discourage i.e cigarettes, alcohol, earning and production???

You are correct, it would disincentive spending, which is detrimental to a country who borrows in order to spend money it doesn’t have. IMO that is probably why we are in such an economic mess right now.


44 posted on 04/20/2009 4:36:51 PM PDT by John.Galt2012 (I'll take Liberty and you can keep the "Change"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: pissant
serious and thoroughgoing tax reform, including lower and flatter tax rates

IOW, Hugh Hewitt, RINO extraordinaire, is for the communist-inspired income tax, and nothing but more deckchair arranging on that Titantic.

Which shows that he isn't "serious," and that, as usual, his thinking is far from "thoroughgoing."

45 posted on 04/20/2009 4:40:57 PM PDT by EternalVigilance ("Our flag still waves! And we shall NEVER let them tear it down!" - Alan Keyes, 4-15-09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen
There's a little bit of spin here. The Fair Tax, in order to achieve revenue-neutral income to the Treasury, would have to be set at 23%. The 30% number arises when you add in state taxes to the final retail bill, but state tax rates are irrelevant to federal gubmint tax rates. (Unfortunately.)

This remark is spin. Everything we purchase today contains nearly 23% embedded taxes due to corporations passing on the cost of their income taxes to the consumer. A $1.00 item today actually costs 77 cents with 23 cents of embedded taxes. That is a tax inclusive rate. The Fair Tax will eliminate corporate income taxes and apply the 23% to the actual amount as a separate entry on the receipt(23/77=30%). This is the tax exclusive rate. The amount of tax collected will be the regardless of which rate you cite and the total cost of the product will be close to the same as we have now. It will not increase 30%.

Solution: set the national sales tax at a rate lower than 23% and cut federal spending. Which is the entire goal of the Fair Tax, to achieve lower federal spending while making Americans completely aware of how much they REALLY pay in tax.

Twenty three percent in necessary to collect the same amount as is collected today. Cutting federal spending is only one part of The Fair Tax. Americans will be aware of how much they pay as the tax rate will be itemized on the bill.

That all said, the Fair Tax is never getting enacted anyway, so who cares?

Why do you bother to respond if it is a moot point? The fact is support is growing for The Fair Tax. That is evident by the increasing number of cosponsors that have signed on in each session of Congress since the bill was first introduced in 1999. That number is a direct reflection of the growing grassroots movement that has put increasing pressure on Congress critters.
46 posted on 04/20/2009 4:41:31 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
Problem is why would the 50+ % of asswipes in this country who pay NO taxes at all be interested in something like a ‘fair tax’?

How about the fact they will see an increase in purchasing power as all federal income taxes will be removed from their paychecks. Everyone is paying for the hidden taxes in the cost of everything we purchase. The Fair Tax will remove those embedded taxes. That along with more money paychecks will make everything more affordable.
47 posted on 04/20/2009 4:45:06 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen; Always Right

Also, the FairTax is the only retail sales tax EVER that is calculated as tax inclusive.

If your State has a 7% sales tax, the sales tax is calculated by simply multiplying the retail cost of the item by 0.07.

The FairTax calculation is anything but simple. A few years ago, I figured out all the algebraic expressions that are involved, but today it hurts my brain to try to think about it.

The basic concept is that the 23% is calculated on the sum of the retail price of the product/service and all of the taxes. It’s immediately obvious that if you add the retail price and the taxes, then take 23% of the sum, you will get a larger number than if you multiply the retail price by 23%.

If you take a product/service that retails for about $77, the gross payment will be $100. IOW, the tax would be $23, which is 23% of $100. Now, since the retail price is $77, then the tax of $23 is about 30% of the retail price.

Just remember, the Fair Tax is the only retail sales tax that is calculated that way, by including the tax in calculating the tax percentage. That is what tax inclusive means.

All other retail sales taxes are calculated as tax exclusive, the tax itself is excluded from the calculation. Like your State sales tax.


48 posted on 04/20/2009 4:45:56 PM PDT by savedbygrace (You are only leading if someone follows. Otherwise, you just wandered off... [Smokin' Joe])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Comment #49 Removed by Moderator

To: Man50D

That’s quite the defensive post you’ve authored there.


50 posted on 04/20/2009 4:46:51 PM PDT by Terpfen (Ain't over yet, folks. Those 2004 Senate gains are up for grabs in 2 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301 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
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

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