Posted on 01/12/2008 1:06:53 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Yes, I've read the legislation.
No, I don't listen to the radio show.
No, I'm no stupid, idiotic, dishonest, evil, an employee of the IRS, spouse of an IRS employee, or part of a conspiracy of journalists against the middle class.
Yes, other conservative economists who have asked tough questions about the FairTax warned me to get ready for a gusher of hate mail.
Yes, the fact that the FairTax faction (after reading a torrent of insulting email, that word seems right to me) defaults to abusive speech from the beginning means that they are a movement of zealots with a weak case.
No, my questions are not all answered in the book or at fairtax.org or in the legislation.
No, my questions are not really answered by the emails and posts which I have received. What have been answered are the questions which remind the FairTaxers of other easier questions to are addressed on the web site.
No, the FairTax will not be simple. The debate in response to my latest article proves that.
No, the apologists who responded to me did not even remotely deal with the problem of the interest portion of mortgages.
Yes, I know that that interest isn't supposed to be taxable. But I also know that if all interest remains non-taxable, there will be a massive movement towards discounting house and durable goods sales prices and then making up the difference with high interest rates.
No, none of the fairtaxers seem who wrote to me seem to know that under the legislation, only some of interest is non-taxable.
Yes, that's right the government will decide what a reasonable interest rate is, and then tax you for anything above that.
No, the legislation's choice of how to interest is not actually reasonable at all. It uses the Treasury bond rate, which is very low.
So, yes, you will be paying sales tax, not just on your house, but on a substantial part of your interest as well.
Yes, this makes the effective tax rate on houses (and cars, and washing machines, etc.) and anything else bought with borrowed money, higher than on goods not purchased on credit.
Yes, this hurts the poor.
Yes, this punishes people with sub-prime mortgages.
Yes, it means that every time the Fed meets, it finds itself not just setting monetary policy, but tax policy as well.
No, this is not just interest about the interest problem. I could go all day on about this plan. Employee discounts, tipping, taxing churches: every element of this plan is fraught with complexity. The fact that the FairTaxers shout down questions like this tells us a great deal more about them than it does about the proposed plan.
Yes, I'm done – for now.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JerryBowyer/2008/01/09/questions_for_the_fair_tax_crowd
Questions for the Fair Tax Crowd By Jerry Bowyer Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Why do you think that a sales tax is less prone to corruption and complexity than an income tax?
When the income tax was originally promoted by William Jennings Bryan and other populists it was labeled as being fairer, since it would not hit the poor. When initially implemented it was very simple. However, over time special interest groups were able to lobby for exemptions, deductions, and other special treatment. Why would a sales tax not undergo the same process? Does the fair tax somehow magically abolish selfishness?
Are sales taxes, where they are currently in operation, simple and free from special interest lobbying?
The Europeans have a sales tax, called the VAT, which is extremely complex. Why wouldn’t that happen here? States have sales taxes, which, even despite their low rates still have long lists of items which are exempt or not exempt, and they still have people who cheat on them. If this happens at low rates, why wouldn’t it happen at much higher rates? Does moving the concept from Europe to the U.S., or from the State level to the national level, somehow render the legislative process more pure? If so, why is our income tax so riddled with complexity and special pleading to begin with?
Does it apply to non-profits?
If so, then they’ve become taxable and it would discourage charity. Also, wouldn’t churches become taxable? Aren’t there constitutional issues here? If not, then the tax advantage of non-profits disappears. If they’d be taxed the same way as businesses, wouldn’t this remove a great deal of tax encouragement for non-profit enterprise and shift talent and treasure away from that sector?
Are used goods, non-taxable?
If so, this means less goods production, more yard sales, eBay stuff, etc. Won’t this hurt traditional retailers and goods producers? Why wouldn’t this encourage evasion through rehabilitation? After all what exactly constitutes New vs. Used? If I repair a car, it’s used, but what if I upgrade it? New engine, but old chassis, is that new or used? Computers, too. New hard-drive, but old CPU; is that new or used? How does this not get complicated?
What about the transition period?
Before the sales tax takes effect, won’t there be a buying binge? Afterwards, won’t there be a buying drought? If so, doesn’t that cause a debt spike to finance purchases before the ‘sale’ ends? The implications for banking and currency policy are way too complicated for me to foresee.
Isn’t it true that the rate is not really 23% but 30% at least, because it’s tax-inclusive?
And even this does not count dynamic effects in which changed behavior and evasion narrow the base and raise the rate.
How do we determine the interest portion of mortgage payment?
If non-specified, business will simply give big discounts on price and then make up for it in the interest calculation, as interest is deemed non-taxable. These calculations are highly malleable and can become very complex. Homes will be financed with low-ball prices and high interest rates, and sup-prime mortgages will skyrocket.
If a cap is put on excludable interest, then at what rate? Federal rates? That makes the Fed a tax-setting agency and hyper-politicizes monetary policy.
One man, one vote, one tax bill.
No rates, no schemes, no nonsense.
Simply equally under the law.
Everyone should get a tax bill for the same amount.
Now if you believe “from each according to his abilities”, tax rates are just dandy.
Other issues to consider. The fair tax rate automatically adjusts based on the needs of social security. In other words, the rate will go up as social security costs increase. Also, much of the revenue generated by the fairtax is the government taxing itself. I have news them, that is not revenue.
You forgot on Government Check per Person Every Month.
Under the “fairTAX” every man woman and child would be issued an EBT card (welfare benefits) from the government. They would get their “prebate” deposited there. It is a massive entitlement program that would make FDR proud. And Democrats will be happy to discover how easy it is to tweak the “prebate” amount in the name of “social justice”, giving the “rich” smaller or no “prebate” and a progressive “prebate” for everyone else. Perhaps the “poor” would get a $5,000 “prebate” every month. Paid for by the “fairTAX”.
I wish the author would have mentioned at least what section of the FairTax bill he is discussing here.
The word "mortgage" does not appear in the FairTax bill at all, so this cannot be a mortgage-specific provision in the bill, and I don't see where in the general provisions about interest where this "reasonable" rate applies to anything about paying mortgage interest, so I don't think he is correct about having to pay FairTax on the interest paid each month on mortgage loans made at a relatively high interest rate.
But he does have a good point about that this is indeed a viable tax avoidance mechanism: you buy something at a large markdown from the market value (a circumstance which I did see mentioned in section 804, but that is in reference to a leaseholder option to buy at the end of a lease term, not to original initial purchases at a discount when compensating financing is provided by the seller), and then the borrower pays an interest rate enough above prevailing rates to compensate the seller who is doing this self-financing.
That would indeed seem to be legitimate tax avoidance under the FairTax since the seller could then try to offload the mortgage for a premium over the principal. Whatever premium he can generate there is not subject to the FairTax, and thus whatever value you created by agreeing to these terms is untaxed by the FairTax.
“One man, one vote, one tax bill.
No rates, no schemes, no nonsense.
Simply equally under the law.”
You are describing a per capita tax. Now you’re talking.
WOW it seems the Fair Tax proposal is the BIGGEST POWER GRAB attempt since hillarycare!
(s)I demand a living prebate. Enough to pay for more than mere poverty rent. The prebate should be the ENTIRE poverty dollar amount from the US government. (horray free money!!!)(/s)
It has never occured to Mr. Bowyer that there is nothing to keep the Congress from raising the max tax rate right now to 100%...other than we still are an armed population.
It also probably has never occured to Mr. Bowyer that the defination of a slave is someone who turns over 100% of the fruits of his labor to someone else...and as things stand right now....just in income taxes alone, we who work, and in fact pay income taxes, are anywhere from 15% to 38% slaves.
I want to be free once in my lifetime. I really don't care if the tax system is a "fair tax" or a simple NRST.....freedom being the objective here....and I don't want to become a criminal just because I don't "volunteer" to pay up.
Under the Fair Tax....you don't have to pay if you don't want to....just don't buy anything new!
Should the Millionaire be able to vote a thousand times in the same election?
I wish the author would have mentioned at least what section of the FairTax bill he is discussing here.
No schemes? Nonsense. Humans always look for loopholes in taxes. That’s part of the reason the income tax is so convoluted, foiling tricks, schemes and manipulations. The National Sales Tax will have its own cumbersome regulations. It’s the nature of taxes. No one wants to pay taxes, they’re always looking for ways not to pay taxes. It will be the same under the National Sales Tax, which will be imposed in this universe, not the “fairy tax” universe.
Simply equal under the law? Dream on. Taxes are always unfair to someone. And people are always looking to shift the burden to someone else. That's really what the National Sales Tax is all about. Some people figure they'll come out ahead under this scheme.
I too am on the fence about the Fair Tax. Clearly the current system has got to go. Way too many attempts at social policy through taxes has warped it seriously out of shape.
However, like the Bowyer, I see that there are a lot of unexplained things in there. The current FAQs are insufficient.
I’d love to believe it is the right way forward, but for now I am skeptical.
And food is what, tax free? Until when?
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.