Facts on Fair Tax show it's a great idea

Tribune & Georgian ^ | 9/16/2005 | Jay Moreno

[Man50D]

Dear Editor, I've just read a new best-seller, which I highly recommend to you and your readers: "The Fair Tax Book, Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS."

The co-authors are "reformed lawyer" and syndicated talk show host Neal Boortz, and Congressman John Linder, R-Ga.

Linder is also the principal author/sponsor of The Fair Tax Bill (H.R. 25), currently before Congress.

In the interest of brevity (the book is only 180 pages, by the way), I'll quote from the back of the dust jacket.

"What the Fair Tax will do for America: eliminate the income tax and the dreaded IRS; jump start the U.S. economy; bring businesses and jobs back to the United States; and recapture billions of untaxed dollars currently lost to criminal and offshore businesses.

"What the Fair Tax will do for you: allow you to keep 100 percent of your hard-earned paycheck; let you choose to save all the money you want .... and pay taxes only when you spend it; eliminate countless taxes you don't even know you're paying; lower interest rates; and make April 15th just another beautiful spring day."

The authors provide ample citations from the works of various economic think-tanks to back each of those assertions.

The Fair Tax would replace all current federal, income-based taxes with one universal, federal "consumption tax," on both goods and services, at the retail level only. There would be no exemptions whatsoever. The proposed, "revenue neutral," initial tax rate would be 23 percent. Predictions are that the resulting economic boom would make it possible to lower that rate in short order.

As described so far, the Fair Tax would be so regressive as not to stand a snowball's chance in hell of passage. Here's the solution.

At the first of every month, every head-of-household, irrespective of income/net worth, would receive a federal "pre-bate" check equal to the taxes due on his or her appropriate "poverty level spending" for the coming month. To quote the authors, "'Poverty level spending' is, by definition, that spending necessary for a household of a given size to pay for its necessities. It is adjusted every year by the Department of Health and Human Services."

For example, if the Fair Tax were currently in effect, every family of four would receive a monthly pre-bate of $491.82 to cover the 23 percent tax on its first $2,138.22 spent -- its "poverty level spending." All spending above that level (that month) would have a net federal tax cost of 23 cents on the dollar -- be it for sneakers or a yacht.

The federal sales tax would be collected by the states' sales tax offices. Moreover, don't forget that everyone's "take-home-pay" would be their full, gross earnings under the Fair Tax.

It is a most interesting, concise and thought-provoking read that can be knocked out in two or three sittings. Suggested full retail is $24.95. There is at least one copy available at the Camden County Public Library.

I hope that you and your readers will both enjoy the book and come to support the bill.

[Man50D]

Ping.

[EagleUSA]

The bill makes very good sense. The problem facing the bill is the bureaucracy that sees the Tax Code as a political tool and a political weapon. This system basically nullifies these "tools" for politicians. It also provides for the redistribution of wealth, a horribly socialistic premise from which many of us suffer today.

It would be a beautiful day to see the IRS reduced to one building outside of Washington somewhere. The revenue enhancement the government would realize, the heavy reduction in corruption, tax evasion, would save the taxpayers untold amounts.

It always gets down to the old fact: Is it good for the people who will approve or disapprove it??

[ancient_geezer]

A Taxreform bump for you all.

If you would like to be added to this ping list let me know.

John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25) offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and SS/Medicare payroll taxes outright and replace them with with a national retail sales tax administered by the states.

H.R.25,S.25
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

Refer for additional information:

• search: "national sales tax" OR "national retail sales tax" OR "fairtax"

[EagleUSA]

It also provides for the redistribution of wealth...
----
In above, refers to the Tax Code, not the bill --- :-)

[PeteB570]

"Highway Bill" came to mind as I was reading you post

[ex-snook]

Hopefully a fair tax means a single tax on income of all types, no exclusions.

[ancient_geezer]

Hopefully a fair tax means a single tax on income of all types, no exclusions.

It is a single retail sales tax collected on the sale of all new goods and services for consumption. No exceptions no exclusions and dosn't care where the income comes from that you are spending.

[Man50D]

It always gets down to the old fact: Is it good for the people who will approve or disapprove it??

It will be good if enough of their constituents tell them it will be good or else.

[TWohlford]

Horrible idea. Horribly recession-prone for starters, and will be much more difficult to enforce (collect) than the current system.

[Taxman]

And the source of your profound insight would be?

[EternalVigilance]

Horrible idea. Horribly recession-prone for starters, and will be much more difficult to enforce (collect) than the current system.

Dead wrong on both counts.

Read Federalist 21 by Alexander Hamilton. Consumption taxes are self-leveling, like a fluid in nature.

And the retail tax is a breeze to collect compared to the income tax. 46 states already have the mechanism in place, and the vast majority of sales taxes are collected by retail operations at their cash registers. All that is needed is a simple recalibration of those machines. Piece of cake.

Educate yourself before you speak.

[balrog666]

More idiot-level propaganda for the FairTax.

[EternalVigilance]

Hopefully a fair tax means a single tax on income of all types, no exclusions.

Income taxes of any breed are fundamentally flawed from their inception.

They are a key plank in the Communist Manifesto.

They are anathema to freedom...

[balrog666]

Horrible idea. Horribly recession-prone for starters, and will be much more difficult to enforce (collect) than the current system.

You are absolutely correct. I salute you sir!

[EternalVigilance]

More idiot-level propaganda for the FairTax.

More juvenile commentary from balrog666.

[Man50D]

Horrible idea. Horribly recession-prone for starters, and will be much more difficult to enforce (collect) than the current system.

What is the basis of such a general and vague statement?

[pigdog]

In fact, the IRS is eliminated by the bill, not reduced.

The "political tool and political weapon" commentary will go by the wayside as the politicos begin to get the message (as they are starting to do) that their jobs which they so prize are dependent on bringing the FairTax into law.

Just keep letting them know that you expect them to support and co-sponsor the FairTax bill - it's starting to creep onto their collective radar screens.

[smokeyb]

the book is only 180 pages, by the way

which is longer than the whole Fair Tax bill!

[Mikey]

SCRAP THE CODE, ABOLISH THE I.R.S.

[pigdog]

Recession probe??? Then why has every economist who has reviewed the plan agreed that it would be economically beneficial and help bring about an improved climate of savings?

Also, you must not be aware of the evasion that goes on at present in the form of the illegal economy (drug dealers, illegal aliens, etc.) who will help out with tax "contributions" under the FairTax when they buy things at retail whereas they're basically a big zero right now. In addition the costs of compliance with the FairTax are dramatically lessened - being basically zero for almost all taxpayers.

It's actually an excellent idea.

[Mikey]

I believe I'm on the ping list?????? If not, put me on it ole ' ancient one.

[kellynla]

BTTT

[Your Nightmare]

I can't believe y'all are still trying to pimp this book when it's admittedly full of lies.

On second thought, I can believe it. It's just par for the course for FairTaxers.

[Mikey]

"Hopefully a fair tax means a single tax on income of all types, no exclusions."

That's the beautify of it. Its strictly a tax on the articles of consumption ONLY, and only at the retail side. Plus it doesn't tax used goods, only new.

[ancient_geezer]

U'r on it now!! ;O)

[pigdog]

I can't believe you're still trying to pimp against the book, claiming it is "admittedly full of lies". The Squirrels are the ones doing the "admitting".

On second thought, I can believe it; it's just par for the course for Squirrels. Seems they're against things beneficial to our economy.

[EternalVigilance]

I can't believe y'all are still trying to pimp this book when it's admittedly full of lies.

Which is in itself a lie.

Can you show me where Boortz or Linder has admitted that their book was 'full of lies'?

It would take a quote exactly of that nature for your statement to be 'TRUE'.

Fact is, the extent of their 'mea culpa' was that they should have been more clear on one minor point.

But y'all proceed with your usual exercise in straining at gnats while swallowing smelly, stinky camels...

[Your Nightmare]

Fact is, the extent of their 'mea culpa' was that they should have been more clear on one minor point.

Are you really trying to contend that they just weren't "clear" on the issue and that it was a "minor point"?


You FairTaxers just kill me. LOL!

[upchuck]

FWIW, Neal Boortz has published info correcting some errors of omission in the book. Here's a link.

Later on he writes:

Double-Taxing those who have already worked and saved for their retirement. This one is so easy; I just don't know why some people are having trouble grasping it. Retirees who have are living off their savings are still paying taxes. They're paying the embedded taxes present in everything they buy. Those embedded taxes will simply be replaced with the embedded FairTax. Virtually an even swap. Retirees will not be paying any more in taxes than they're paying now.

For people who are living on pretax retirement savings this is true. But I don't believe it is true for those living on post-tax retirement savings such as a Roth IRA.

Twice now I have heard Neal on his radio show spar with callers about this. And both times he has just swept it under the rug, cut off the caller and gone to a break or taken the next caller.

[pigdog]

So much for your "full of lies" comment ... it's been replaced with carping about whether or not something is a minor issue.

You misstating, full-of-hyperbole Squirrels just kill me. LOL!!

[Always Right]

Twice now I have heard Neal on his radio show spar with callers about this. And both times he has just swept it under the rug,

And he should. The fact is after tax prices are going up if the fair tax ever becomes law. Anyone with any kind of savings will see the buying power of that money significantly reduced. Boortz has now admitted that prices can't come down like he says in the book (unless employees miraculously agree to a pay cut). Incomes will go up to offset these price increases, but those relying on savings will be hurt. No amount of tap dancing will change that. If I was Boortz, I guess I would want to change the subject too.

[Always Right]

So much for your "full of lies" comment ... it's been replaced with carping about whether or not something is a minor issue.

Minor issue???? Misrepresenting 'embedded taxes' by $1.3 Trillion is hardly minor. An error equivalent to more than 10% of our entire economy. Minor issue, good one pigdog.

[ancient_geezer]

But I don't believe it is true for those living on post-tax retirement savings such as a Roth IRA.

What acts to prevent a retired person withdrawing money from a Roth from paying the tax burden that embedded in the price of all goods and services under the current tax system?

That is an automatic second taxation, not to mention the corporate taxes that are paid on earnings before dividend distributions in Roth equity investments.

[Always Right]

Can you show me where Boortz or Linder has admitted that their book was 'full of lies'?

Actually they just admitted to one lie, but that little misrepresentation was the basis of several chapters in the book. A $1.3 Trillion misrepresentation.

[pigdog]

Speaking of lies, note that the poster with the quaint number of 1.3 Trillion is spouting the SOS again. Nothing like a tad bit of hyperbolic overstatement.

He also doesn't undertstand what a minor issue is when confronted with one. Next thing you know he'll start his namecalling tirade.

[Always Right]

The Squirrels are the ones doing the "admitting".

I see a few fairy taxers are still in denial. You fairy guys need to stop snorting that pixie dust.

[pigdog]

See what I mean ... check #37. He just couldn't wait to get started.

A truly intelligent commentary.

[Always Right]

Speaking of lies, note that the poster with the quaint number of 1.3 Trillion is spouting the SOS again. Nothing like a tad bit of hyperbolic overstatement.

Actually it is an understatement, the real number is $1.33 Trillion according to the latest IRS numbers for the amount the fairy taxers have conveniently told us were not included in 'embedded taxes', but Boortz today said that they were.

[Always Right]

See what I mean ... check #37. He just couldn't wait to get started.

If you are going to call us names in every post, you are going to be fairy taxers. Get used to it queen of the fairy taxers.

[Always Right]

A truly intelligent commentary.

Thank you.

[Man50D]

Thank you for serving our country.

[Bigun]

I can't believe y'all are still trying to pimp this book when it's admittedly full of lies.

There are NO lies in the book nor has there been anything remotely approaching an admission of one as any OBJECTIVE observer (that leaves you two out doesn't it) can readily determine for themselves.

It would seem therefore, that the only prevaricators around here are you two!

[woodbeez]

Boortz has now admitted that prices can't come down like he says in the book (unless employees miraculously agree to a pay cut).

A wage cut, not a pay cut. Employees can agree or disagree(stay or quit) if they get wage cut and receive the same (take-home) pay.

[lewislynn]

Facts on Fair Tax show it's a great idea

LOL! You people live in your own little world.

There are no "facts on Fairtax", it doesn't exist...But there is Fairtax lies, hope, wishful thinking and conjecture

Even Boortz had to do a major "fact" lie retraction.

[Always Right]

There are NO lies in the book nor has there been anything remotely approaching an admission of one as any OBJECTIVE observer

No lies? Just a little $1.3 trillion misrepresentation. According to fair taxers for the last 7 years, 'embedded taxes' did not include taxes paid by individuals. Wages would not have to be cut in order to see a 20-30% price reduction. Well after some arm twisting, Boortz finally admitted that was not the case. To see a 20-30% reduction in prices, employees would have to take wage cuts. A fact that you could not get from 100 readings of Boortz Book and the fair tax website and other various propaganda they put out.

[Always Right]

A wage cut, not a pay cut.

Take home pay and wages are not equivalent terms. Pay and wages can be used interchangeably, but I will try to use wages in the future if that makes you feel better. When people ask you what your employer pays you, I bet most people would respond with their wage, not their take home pay. At least I would.

[woodbeez]

To see a 20-30% reduction in prices, employees would have to take wage cuts

Thank you for saying wage that time. Do you agree there would be a 20%-30% reduction in prices if employee wages were cut?

[Always Right]

Thank you for saying wage that time. Do you agree there would be a 20%-30% reduction in prices if employee wages were cut?

You could get close to 20%. Business owners would also have to accept lower profits too in lieu of paying taxes.

[woodbeez]

Business owners would also have to accept lower profits too in lieu of paying taxes

Please explain. Your gross employee costs go down by 20%. How would that result in lower profits?