Posted on 04/26/2007 3:30:39 PM PDT by Wuli
Our income tax system gives foreign manufacturers tax advantages over the "Made in America" label, makes debt more favorable than wealth, and — against all reason — costs taxpayers $265 billion a year in hours and money just to obey the law.
That average citizens are tirelessly inspired to organize and rally for an alternative that is simple, transparent and fair apparently makes Atlanta Journal-Constitution writer Jay Bookman so uncomfortable he resorts to comparisons with cults and misstates the actual tax-inclusive FairTax rate of 23 percent ("Fervent faith in Fair Tax defies reason," @issue, April 23).
In his cranky, contrarian quest to prove to the masses just how wrong they are, he asks how the Fair Tax can be revenue neutral if everyone pays less. First, some will pay more depending on how much they spend — this is a tax on consumption, after all. Secondly, he misses the larger point. Consumption is a far broader base for taxation than earnings and, therefore, generally requires less of each.
Dr. Laurence Kotlikoff, Boston University economist, finds that married couples earning from $30,000 to $50,000 with two children would have a lifetime average tax rate of from 3.4 to 11.1 percent compared to the current tax system's rate of 15.3 to 19.6 percent. This is such a fundamental concept; it is difficult to understand how Bookman missed this bedrock truth about the FairTax.
Under the FairTax, 10 million to...........
(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...
And you don't see anything wrong with the government deciding what my necessity level spending is, or giving me a monthly check to cover the tax on that spending?
The government giveth and the government taketh away; blessed be the government.
The FairTax puts us all on the dole.
The Constitution gives the Federal government the right to collect tax on income from work, not the 16th amendment.
I don't think it's great that they decide necessity level spending. I don't think anyone likes that. However, that is not a reason to dislike the nrst - the government currently decides how much they'll exempt from taxation by adjusting marginal rates, exemptions, deductions, and credits. The only difference is the mechanism by which the necessity level spending is exempted from tax. If you oppose the untaxing of some income or some spending, you'll oppose the rebate and you'll oppose today's different marginal rates, exemptions, deductions and credits.
No, I do not oppose being rebated taxes.
I thought the 16th allowed tax on income to be unapportioned.
About the only way they could redistribute under the Fair Tax system would be to increase the “poverty” level to increase the amount of the prebate.
It really irks them, however, that Bill Gates, you, me, and the homeless guy down the street gets the same “prebate”.
They could manipulate the prebate check, but the rules are that every household gets the same amount,
and they’d be pulling their hair out knowing that households that don’t vote for them would be getting the same as those that do.
Chapter and verse, please.
And we know the rules never change.
Sorry Lucy. THe income tax existed before the 16th. Do your own research.
Listen, the fair tax is a much better plan than what we have now. Politicians can be booted out of office for fiddling with taxes provided people get out and vote.In addition,the Fair Tax gets the imperial federal govt out of your life in this way.They wont show up at your house one day taking everything you own at the point of a gun.GOT IT?
These people against the Fair Tax are exasperating at times.Your point is well taken but the rats would finally have to tell us at what level IS the poverty level.They dont want to do that because it would’nt be just taxing the “rich” anymore.The middle class would realize the rats are after everybodies money including the poor.
How the current system could be tolerated would be unbelievable to the founders...
“Under penalty of perjury, penalty, and imprisonment, disclose how much money you earned last year, what you paid in interest on your house, and how much you contributed to charity.”
vs.
“secure in our persons and papers...”
Yes it did...so what’s your point?
secure in our persons and papers...would’nt that be nice?
The founding fathers were well educated, worldly men and would immediately recognize the hyperbole. I doubt your statement would even get attention.
You are required to disclose your income, however, you are free not to claim deductions for charity or interest paid, and thus not required to disclose either. If you choose to claim the deductions, then it is reasonable to require supporting documentation (in other words, if you want something, in this case a deduction, you must back up your claim with proof).
Since the FairTax has no provision for interest or charitable deductions, no documentation is required. Consider that a new home buyer will pay 30% tax on his purchase; in this area that would add $225,000 to the cost of the average home price - what is the total cost in tax and interest to the buyer over the life of the loan?
The same is true for any large purchase that is financed - it is not only the tax one must consider, but also the interest on the amount financed to pay the tax.
Further, because the lending institution is providing a service, there would be a sales tax on that service.
The FairTax doesn't require you tell the IRS what you earn, but income will still be reported to SS. Your banker will still require proof of income when you apply for a loan.
It makes no sense to me that someone who would consider disclosing interest paid on a home loan to get a tax deduction, onerous, would choose to pay more and get less.
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.