Posted on 07/06/2006 4:06:50 PM PDT by bu9418
[I wrote to Boortz today about this, but he didn't respond. I didn't expect him to. Maybe he will discuss it if enough people here make noise.]
The Fair Tax - Why we are all being fooled...
... and why it is just lip service.
Since the start, way back in the days of CATS (Citizens for an Alternative Tax System), I have been an advocate of the Fair Tax. Back then I was naive. I was doing the cool thing. I have learned a lot about what this "Alternative Tax System" has evolved to... The Fair Tax.
(Excerpt) Read more at markbureau.us ...
Oh goodie. Another Fair Tax foodfight.
Doesn't this ever get old?
Lets see how long it takes for the fur to fly...
Wait... I think I hear the stormtroopers already....
ping
Pushed along by a very incomplete and misleading excerpt. To summarize, markbureau is questioning the need for the repeal of the 16th Amendment, not necessarily taking sides in the larger issue of a national sales tax.
I favor the national sales tax for a host of reasons, all of which have been adequately discussed here before.
I don't normally get involved in these threads, because it's the same old crap over and over. Kinda like the Civil War threads here.
Get over it, already!
Anyhow, I'm just a little dismayed to see yet another effort to start the traditional foodfight between the usual suspects on each side.
It's far worse than the crevo threads which always deteriorate, too.
I'll just say I'm on the other side for another host of reasons hashed and rehashed. The CHIEF (God rest his soul) and I had a few rounds, and I don't feel like repeating the war as long as it's merely a mental exercise.
You're right. I am questioning the legislation. But it goes deeper than that. I think when the book came out, several people here also questioned the "keep your whole paycheck" argument which resulted in a re-write or addendum to the book, and a long explanation of what he "really meant" by Boortz afterward.
I am really beginning to see a hell of a lot of holes in the concept of the Fair Tax. I just hope it doesn't turn out to be a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" concept. I agree with the massive change, and the canning of the IRS, but there holes are way too glaring anymore to support it other than as a rally cry.
Perhaps you and I can someday start a thread called "Knitting tips and boring chick stuff" and exchange views on the tax issue. Sorta fly under the radar....
I have no desire to do it on any of the routine threads that get posted here. They're just too nasty.
Fair Tax ping!
Not one single person I know of that has expressed "skepticism" disagrees with the need for massive change within the tax system.
Flat taxes are good, and in widely successful use around the world, with a few variations. GST's and VAT's are universally hated, as are progressive income taxes. Truth is there is no one "perfect answer". Until there is one, we work within the system, make the necessary adjustments, and work diligently to fight the battles we can win like ending estate and AMT taxes.
There is no valid reason to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". Limit spending first (line item veto), end international welfare, give exceptional tax breaks to US businesses that "stay home and play fair". Just a few important strategic wins can start a torrent of spending and taxing reductions that will do everything that FT promises economically, without bringing the entire economy to its knees with one fatal blow.
And don't post those shopworn and discredit vanity posta.
DEBUNKING THE FairTax:
A Fair Question about Fair Tax
OPEN LETTER TO BOORTZ/LINDER (FairTax)
JORGENSON EXPLODES FAIRTAX MYTH (FR Exclusive)
Fair Tax - Straightening Out Some Confusion
FAIR TAX BOOK- 2nd Ed. Revisions
A FAIRTAX PRIMER
"Our gasoline started out to be a waste product that was dumped into rivers and streams to kill mosquitos..."
You should listen to PD and not post "discredited vanities"
They are only discredited in your fantasy world, here in the real world they make a lot of sense.
The FairTax plan is a misrepresentation, wrapped in hype, and surrounded by shysters.
We're looking good if the remarks in post #19 is the best response the Anti Fair Tax crowd has to offer!
Also post #20.
"... Just a few important strategic wins ..."
And these are the "just a few" that have never been forthcoming in almost 100 years now under the income tax and you seem to think there is some reason to believe that they will magically appear now, like Excalibur, from the Lake???
I'm afraid neither logic nor precedence nor history is on your side. It is far more likely that a tax system such as the FairTax which solves many of the economic ills facing this country will be the only thing that is reasonable. Funding entitlements from income is a self-defeating proposition that does not even give us enough time to correct (hopefully to stop completely) the entitlement deficiencies (S/S & M/C). Those programs are now nothing but political footballs funded by tiptoeing though the tax code each congressional session to see where even more tax increases for such special interests can be hidden from the taxpaying public. That has to stop lest we ruin the entire society - and there will not only be any bathwater, but no baby because no one can afford either of them.
The FairTax has been studied extensively by dozens of economists and their answer is always the same - it will greatly benefit the economy of the country as well as the taxpayers.
Being upset at what Boortz might (or might not say isn't worth being concerned about since he isn't an economist, did not introduce the legislation (nor will he guide it through congress), nor is he the person who drafted the legislation in the first place. It was drafted primarily by two men with either economics or even advanced legal degrees in Taxation.
If you wish to know about the FairTax, read the bill, don't listen to Boortz for information. And we know from your past postings that your definition of "skepticism" merely means a desire to retain the income tax system which you have said "inherently" has nothing wrong with it. That's hardly "skepticism". There's a different word for it.
The first hole is the keep all of your paycheck argument. It was very misleading to say.. "You get to keep 100% of your paycheck" and then be told, your employer will decide whether you get the increase or not.. That doesn't wash. Not at all. If I sign an agreement to make 50,000, no change in the law nullifies the contract of 50,000 dollars. That is hole number 1.
Now, hole number 2 is the whole "It will be implemented on Jan 1 the year after the 16th amendment is repealed."
Repealing the 16th amendment is not necessary to dismantle the income tax. The 16th Amendment didn't create the income tax, the Revenue Act of 1913 did. It doesn't take a constitutional amendment to render that act void. That is the proverbial wool being pulled over your eyes. As I said it is a built in excuse for its failure.
The third hole I have seen now is "revenue neutrality" of the argument i.e. "no free ride, no free lunch".. Sorry, but as a freedom loving, small government Libertarian, Boortz should not be an advocate of revenue neutrality. It is a cop out. It indicates that the only Fair thing needs to also be fair to an oversized government. The purpose of tax reform should be to reduce the size of government, not to stoke its ego with a revenue neutral reform. That kind of thinking is just another "rob peter to pay paul" scheme.
Shall I go on?
I won't I am for the change. I just don't want people to be lulled to sleep by a book and an entertainer. Change is only good if informed people accept the change, not an ignorant mass.
Thanks,
markbureau
Sorry, wrong thread.
"Abuse" is 3 doors down, on the left.
The FairTax solves no ills, in fact a look at our economy shows a picture of a robust, growing, job creating machine with the vast majority of its citizens enjoying luxury that the rest of the world (including much of the developed world) can only dream of.
The entitlement crisis on the horizon is a problem on the spending side of the ledger, creating a new method of sucking the money out of the taxpayers does not solve this spending problem.
You have the wrong diagnosis of the problem. And, as a result, the inflationary, "tax on all accumulated wealth", double-counting FairTax scheme is the wrong medicine to cure it.
And the numbers don't add up, as has been pointed out many times before. Regardless of what "dozens" of economists think.
Because of the prebate, it is not even revenue neutral, it is actually one of the largest tax increases in history, if not THE largest.
Not too many did. You walk away, but not before leaving an attack.
Even the slightest disagreement with the "religion of linder" unleashes a torrent of nasty posts.
Correcting errors can be nasty or nice. Disagreement is not a problem.
Not one single person I know of that has expressed "skepticism" disagrees with the need for massive change within the tax system.
RobfromGa says our income tax is just fine. Don't you know of him?
Flat taxes are good, and in widely successful use around the world, with a few variations.
Agreed. They're far better than what we have (although rob would disagree.)
There is no valid reason to "throw the baby out with the bathwater".
In your analogy the baby is a valuable item and the bathwater isn't. How does this relate to the nrst? What bad thing (bathwater) is to be eliminated while also eliminating a valuable item?? And what is the valuable item you do not wish to eliminate? ....
Limit spending first (line item veto)
All for it.
end international welfare,
All for it too.
give exceptional tax breaks to US businesses that "stay home and play fair".
I don't know what that means.
Not to mention creating the "New National Welfare Plan"
-withholding of income and payroll taxes
-business taxes
Both of which contribute to the minimizing of the populace's perception of the cost of government.
Beyond that, it isn't border adjustable... meaning the trade deficit continues on its unbounded track the wrong way and US manufacturing continues to dwindle. Manufacturing is 50% (IIRC) less as pct of GDP than it was 50 years ago due in large part to a tax system that cannot border adjust.
The last thing i'd mention is how any income tax continues to encourage illegal immigration. The illegals simply become part of the already existing cash economy - which is taxed but not much. Illegals pay little tax under an income tax.
The nrst, the major reform option, handles all of the above.
-eliminates withholding
-eliminates business taxes
-is border adjusted
-discourages illegal immigration by making it less profitable (and those who stay will end up paying the highest rate).
So yeah, a flat tax is better than what we have, but the nrst is better than a flat tax.
Both sides of the argument are contained in those threads, I am fine with leaving it to a coherent, not-yet-brainwashed individual to make his own judgments regarding the issues raised.
I do know that Linder and Boortz changed their book, so they agree that the fundamental "Keep 100% of your paycheck, prices stay the same, and we all get a big welfare check at the beginning of the month" mantra was wrong.
And the fact that they try to pass it off as a 23% sales tax when it is a 30% FairTax is another attempt to fool Joe Sixpack.
And the fact that governments will face a 22.35% increase in their non-education payrolls, as well as a 20%+ increase in the cost of their purchased items which will force HUGE tax hikes at the local, state, and Federal level is another big lie.
And don't forget the assumumption that this 30% plus sales tax won't have ANY impact on tax evasion is another whopper. For every increase in evasion that means an increase in the tax rate, which leads to more evasion, and so on...
And don't forget those who already have saved their nest egg in already taxed net worth, who will see the value of each of those hard-earned and already taxed dollars DEVALUED by about 17-25% with the inflationary price increases caused by the FairTax.
Besides those small points, and a couple of dozen more, the FairTax is a honey of a plan.
Why is Rob on FR trying to use the entertainer's words to paint the supporters of the nrst as "little boortzes"?
I think the guy's an idiot (boortz).
Well, I think they do offer a good bit of information. It is unfortunate that the handful spoils the thread. IMO they do that on purpose - like when dems try to shut down talk radio. It's all they got - use the law (or in our case the Mod) to stifle discussion.
Predictable. Doesn't work unless you're in NK.
I have been clear on my position that we need to continue to reduce marginal income tax rates, eliminate corporate taxes, eliminate the death tax, and greatly reduce spending so that we can get rid of more taxes in the future.
Yes, I support improving the present system, as opposed to the lunacy of the FairTax.
"I just don't want people to be lulled to sleep by a book and an entertainer. "I very much agree on that and I'd add I also don't want people to be misled and misinformed by a salesman (who has admitted being favor of the income tax) seeking personal notoriety. It's for that reason that I posted #23 - to tell you that the better place to find out about the FairTax is by reading the bill itself and by studying some of the economic results on the FairTax website.
Perhaps you'd be surprised to know that I agree with two of your three points. Most FairTax supporters know that the 100% of the paycheck is the position that will prevail in real life - for the reasons you state (existing labor agreements and competitive pressures as well). The employer will have little say in the matter if he wishes to stay in business. So that's not a whole, but a misunderstanding or misstatement by Boortz.
Your second "hole" I also agree with and most FairTax supporters also know that there is no need to repeal the 16th amendment to implement the FairTax - nor to eliminate the income tax, the IRS, etc. Reading the bill itself will quickly show you that. That's merely another faux pas by Boortz. The only "wool" I see being pulled over anyone's eyes is perhaps that being pulled over those of Boortz since you are quite right and the income tax is voided by the passage of the FairTax and the records are required to be destroyed, too. So there is no hole #2 and no excuse for failure - as you point out, it's not required.
Having said all that, though, we are very much behind the idea of the repeal of the 16th as an additional precaution but it isn't a requirement for making and operating the FairTax. Once the income tax is so voided it will be difficulty of the order of impossible to "bring it back".
"The purpose of tax reform should be to reduce the size of government, "
With the addition of one word to that statement, most of the FairTax supporters would agree, I think. The word would be "eventually" inserted between the words "To" and "reduce". A tax bill is not (and cannot be) a spending bill and trying to combine the functions of both into a single bill will accomplish neither thing. It seems better to get the tax system more nearly under control with the costs openly available to all and seen by all and with all treated the same way. Once done, there will be plenty of irate voters insisting that the cost (which they now clearly see in each receipt) of "their government" be reduced and that failure to do so will lead to changes of incumbents.
I'd urge you to become personally informed about theFairTax and read the bill and spend time understanding what's on the FairTax website from many different economists. What you see mainly on these threads as attacks on the FairTax are typically poorly informed views of those who have some animus against the FairTax and for the income tax for reasons of their own. A few even admit that. Do your own research and don't accept their word - or mine.
The FairTax website had the same crap about the "100% paycheck, and prices staying the same, and you get a big check each month to boot" all over it for the last seven years, so this isn't just Boortz.
And if you look at almost any FairTax thread beofer last summer, you will see many of the current FairTax cultists/posters were arguing strenuously for the fairytale Free Lunch for many years, and shouting down anyone who said they were full of it.
So don't try and pawn this misrepresentation as only a Boortz hallucination-- it was party line until recently.
And remember that the sponsor of the bill, my Congressman Linder is the #1 NYT bestselling co-author of the book and they appear at the rallies together to spread their disinformation, so don't try to say that this is just Boortz's misinterpretation.
I think the guy's an idiot (boortz).
I think he knows exactly what he's doing-- gaining fame and fortune by creating a bunch of little Boortz's who believe whatever he says, and haven't a clue about economics or how businesses work. So, he's not the idiot, its Linder and Boortz's FairTax sycophants that are lacking in the critical thinking department.
I am well aware of the Bill, the site and the book. If, however, boortz is misrepresenting through ignorance or anything else, it is a disservice for that cause.
markbureau
Linder is my congressman too...
i live on Lake Allatoona..
And remember that the sponsor of the bill, my Congressman Linder is the #1 NYT bestselling co-author of the book and they appear at the rallies together to spread their disinformation, so don't try to say that this is just Boortz's misinterpretation.
The book is also by Linder, not just Boortz.
If they sold the plan telling the truth, no one would be interested. It's the Free Lunch Fairytale that has all the crowd salivating at the thought of free boats, and plasma tvs and snowmobiles. Just give me all my paycheck, and another government check every month, and all the prices stay the same. Who wouldn't be for that-- if it were truly possible and everyone was a winner?
He is the "Moses" of FT - and has the stone tablets to prove it.
Oh, and most of his "work" comes from bilking the taxpayer.
Why? If not obvious prima facia, even a small amount of looking and/or thinking would result in the obvious - your employer decides everything. You can negotiate - but the employer decides. If you don't like it, nothing prevents you from finding other work.
If I sign an agreement to make 50,000, no change in the law nullifies the contract of 50,000 dollars.
Right. Which is why it makes sense to say that you'll keep all your paycheck (with no federal tax deductions.) Which is what you're upset about. DOH!
It will be implemented on Jan 1 the year after the 16th amendment is repealed."
Where does it say that? I'm with you, no need to wait. After the income tax is gone, there will be no hesitation to make the taxation of income unconstitutional - thereby making another amendment necessary if anyone ever wants to bring it back.... the amendment in question would repeal the 16th AND affirmatively state that taxation of any kind of income is unconstitutional.
And you're saying that the time and energy being spent on this is... pretend?
Shall I go on?
I am for change too. I just don't want people to continue to be lulled into paying unreal amounts of tax by hiding tax in higher prices, lower wages, or reduced ROI.
I just don't want people to continue to be lulled into paying unreal amounts of tax by using withholding to minimize the impact of taxes.
The purpose of tax reform should be to reduce the size of government, not to stoke its ego with a revenue neutral reform.
Your presumption is that only a tax bill that provides a tax cut will ever cut spending. That's wrong.
The simple act of eliminating withholding would be revenue neutral. But it would dang sure lead to lower taxes and hence lower spending. How's that possible ... it's revenue neutral?
Further, by changing the environment away from one which encourages increases in spending to an environment that decreases spending would be a good thing.
Every single person who buys anything will oppose any increase and support any decrease. Wouldn't it be nice if the pol that can figure out how to do things cheaper gets to keep his job? As it is now, the pol who keeps his job is the one who can do the best job at taking more money and delivering it to constituents. We need to turn that around. Thanks,
Principled
The world's #1 largest, most robust and vibrant economy-- it's here in the good old USA. And we need to preserve it if for no other reason than we are the only country capable of stopping radical Islam from taking over and that will cost money.
To talk of radical Fairtax lunacy while we are involved in a real War for our survival is just nuts.
It woulda been interesting if the South had won. Entire novels have been written on the changes in history after that date.
Me? I don't care. We certainly have a stronger and more powerful nation than if we had been divided 150 years ago. I love Civil War history, but view it as a tragedy on both sides.
Of course, this has nothing to with tax.
Tax the damn Yankees.
There. I kept the the thread on topic.
Yes, they do. It has not been pointed out that the numbers don't add up. If that were true, why would 55 Congressmen sign on? Why would National Small Business United sign on? And the Farm Bureau? etc...
I see, Rob is smarter than all of them. So smart, indeed, that he is unable to convince anyone else of his discovery.
The FairTax solves no ills...
Does the fairtax do anything for US manufacturers WRT exporting? Or are you saying a reduction of our manufacturing base of 50% is not an "ill"?
C'mon Rob, why do you really oppose any reform? Because the income tax is so good and the sales tax (see federalist 21 among others) that our founders envisioned is so eeeeevil?
Yes it is. Do you know what revenue neutral means?
Please provide a link. This is complete BS.
Rob, why do you simply state something then believe it's true? Really?
Do you think others believe it too or something?
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.