Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FairTax / flat tax debate, Northfield, MN
Americans For Fair Taxation ^

Posted on 04/03/2008 12:03:31 PM PDT by Man50D

St Olaf's College, Northfield, MN

A debate will be held in Buntrock Hall, St Olaf's College, Northfield, MN at 8:00 PM, Thursday April 10th. The event is sponsored by the St Olaf College Republicans, but it is open to all interested parties regardless of political affiliation. David Strom, a graduate and professor at neighboring Carlton College will argue for the flat tax. Mr Strom is now President of THE FAIR MARKET INSTITUTE after a term as President of THE MN TAXPAYERS LEAGUE. He can be heard weekly on The Patriot, radio station 1280 AM, Saturdays from 9:00 am to 11:00 am. Dennis Madden will argue for the FAIR TAX. Dennis is the volunteer State Director for MN 4 FAIR TAX, an arm of AMERICANS FOR FAIR TAXATION, the grassroots organization working for the passage of HR 25 and S 1025, THE FAIR TAX ACT of 2007.

Date: Thursday, April 10, 2008

Time: 8:00 PM


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: fairtax; taxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 04/03/2008 12:03:32 PM PDT by Man50D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer; Taxman; Principled; EternalVigilance; phil_will1; kevkrom; n-tres-ted; Jaysun; ...

Fair Tax ping!


2 posted on 04/03/2008 12:03:57 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

I’ll take a flat tax please, with a side of fries.


3 posted on 04/03/2008 12:09:06 PM PDT by utherdoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

With all due respect, its a waste of time.
St. Olaf is so ignorantly liberal. Save the effort for an audience that counts.


4 posted on 04/03/2008 12:09:59 PM PDT by Seven Minute Maniac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: utherdoul
I’ll take a flat tax please, with a side of fries.

The Fair Tax is a flat tax but on consumption instead of income. A flat tax on income was implemented in 1913 and has grown to the oppressive system consisting of more than 67,000+ pages so complex that even the IRS has difficulty correctly answering tax questions.
5 posted on 04/03/2008 12:12:49 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Seven Minute Maniac
With all due respect, its a waste of time. St. Olaf is so ignorantly liberal.
Save the effort for an audience that counts.


It's hardly a waste of time considering the number of grassroots Fair Tax supporters is growing.
6 posted on 04/03/2008 12:14:14 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Using the effective tax rates provided at fairtax.org and comparing them to the effective tax rates under the current tax code, you’ll find that the fair tax is not anywhere close to as flat of a tax as the current tax code.


7 posted on 04/03/2008 12:14:57 PM PDT by eraser2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

It sure is growing, just not at socialist St. Olaf.


8 posted on 04/03/2008 12:17:19 PM PDT by Seven Minute Maniac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NorthWoody; Manic_Episode; mikethevike; coder2; AmericanChef; Reaganesque; ER Doc; lesser_satan; ...

WELCOME TO FREE REPUBLIC’S MINNESOTA PING LIST!

93 MEMBERS AND GROWING...!

FREEPMAIL ME IF YOU WANT ON OR OFF THIS LIST!


9 posted on 04/03/2008 12:18:55 PM PDT by MplsSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eraser2005
I don't know about the "fair" tax......I do think that the current tax system favors certain groups....

almost all workers find it hard to get over that 2% misc deduction....yet business men can routinely write off lunches, and drinks, and sporting events, and golf outings, etc etc...

the most egregious to me is the frequent flier miles/hotels that business men accrue.....the business pays for all of their out of town expenses and their flights, yet the business man gets to get all those free rides and hotel stays for him and his family....THAT should be absolutely taxed as income.....as should all the other freebies...

10 posted on 04/03/2008 12:20:38 PM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: eraser2005
Using the effective tax rates provided at fairtax.org and comparing them to the effective tax rates under the current tax code, you’ll find that the fair tax is not anywhere close to as flat of a tax as the current tax code.

Have you bothered to look at the 2007 1040 booklet? The 2007 tax table is 12 pages long! People only pay one rate at the cash register for The Fair Tax.
11 posted on 04/03/2008 12:21:39 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: utherdoul
Ditto, in a realistic sense, flat tax seems the easiest to implement within a short time-frame. Fair could be a long term goal.
12 posted on 04/03/2008 12:28:16 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Seven Minute Maniac

Maybe the St. Olaf Republicans should get together with the Carleton Republicans and the Macalester Republicans and they can form a baskeball team.


13 posted on 04/03/2008 12:33:37 PM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

I wonder if Minnesotans for Glabal Warming will be there too...


14 posted on 04/03/2008 12:36:51 PM PDT by stefanbatory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cherry

this is why one ought to be a producer rather than a consumer...set up your own business and claim these same tax breaks! Anyone can do it with enough motivation...


15 posted on 04/03/2008 12:39:15 PM PDT by stefanbatory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cherry

“I don’t know about the “fair” tax......I do think that the current tax system favors certain groups....”

No doubt about that.

I think a better solution would be to just simplify the current code. Remove deductions and lower listed rates... it would be far less disruptive to the economy. I think people underestimate the broad effect a quick (less than 10 years) and massive change to the tax code would have.


16 posted on 04/03/2008 12:43:13 PM PDT by eraser2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
Ditto, in a realistic sense, flat tax seems the easiest to implement within a short time-frame.

The Fair Tax has a far better chance of passing than any flat tax. The Fair Tax alone has 74 cosponsors. The four flat tax related bills: Freedom Flat Tax, Tax Simplification Act Of 2007, Flat Tax Act Of 2007, and the Fair Tax Act Of 2007 have a total of 9 cosponsors. The latter two don't have any cosponsors.
17 posted on 04/03/2008 12:43:41 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: eraser2005
I think a better solution would be to just simplify the current code.

That was tried with the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The result is a tax code that has grow to more than 67,000 pages. The income tax code is beyond repair. It needs to be replaced.
18 posted on 04/03/2008 12:47:22 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian

Thats good.

They might get a full roster, but I’m not sure they’d be tall enough.


19 posted on 04/03/2008 12:47:30 PM PDT by Seven Minute Maniac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

“Have you bothered to look at the 2007 1040 booklet? The 2007 tax table is 12 pages long! People only pay one rate at the cash register for The Fair Tax.”

The 2007 tax table can be summarized in just a few lines (see p.87 of the 1040 instruction book). The table is 12 pages long because too many fools can’t do basic math.

But that doesn’t address the “flatness” of the tax. The length or brevity of a tax table has no direct relationship to the flatness of the tax structure.


20 posted on 04/03/2008 12:49:56 PM PDT by eraser2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
The Fair Tax has a far better chance of passing than any flat tax.

What is the challenge is the amount of legislation and departments that will need to change in relation to the Fair tax. Many of these departments and legislation fall under different governmental jurisdictions and would each require separate legal addressing. Of course, you then would run into situations known as Decree nisi where one law cannot be changed until another is fully changed and implemented. In many cases, you could have a circular decree nisi situation in regards to legal oversight of existing departments versus new ones created to oversee change (you can't implement X until you have a department to enforce it, and you can't create the department until you implement X..)

I asked a fair tax 'evangelist' who actually was pretty keen on tax law and worked for a congressman. He estimated that, in reality, it could take almost a decade to properly change all the laws and departments needed.

In other words, the reality isn't about the support side, it is about the actual changes needed to implement it.
I'm not saying the fair tax is all bad, just saying the flat could be implemented in a shorter time and a long term plan for converting to a fair tax could be developed and run.

21 posted on 04/03/2008 12:55:53 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: eraser2005
The 2007 tax table can be summarized in just a few lines (see p.87 of the 1040 instruction book).

You just refuted your own argument. Page 87 shows five different rates (15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%)! The Fair Tax will only be one rate when collected at the cash register.
22 posted on 04/03/2008 12:56:13 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Seven Minute Maniac

I dunno, I went to Macalester and I’m 6’6”...I’m not sure what the selection is like these days.


23 posted on 04/03/2008 12:57:45 PM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: eraser2005

Correction six rates. I left out 10%.


24 posted on 04/03/2008 12:59:13 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

7 rates
Don’t forget 0%


25 posted on 04/03/2008 1:05:15 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
7 rates Don’t forget 0%

Darn! I thought the income tax was flat!
26 posted on 04/03/2008 1:07:32 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

“You just refuted your own argument”

No, I didn’t.

My argument is that the current tax structure is actually FLATTER than the fair tax, using fairtax.org’s own data.

The complexity / length of a table has little to do with the flatness of the tax.

You’re pointing to a table that is 12 pages long as your proof. But that 12 page table can be summarized in less than one, IF you have the capability to do math.

But here’s the thing you’re missing: because of the “prebate” scheme, the actual effective tax rates people would pay would vary dramatically. Those below the poverty level would pay a distinctly different effective % of their income than someone well over the poverty level. In fact, they would receive (pay negative taxes) a significantly higher amount than they currently receive. It’s in fairtax.org’s own arguments!

Again - the length / complexity of a tax table has very little to nothing to do with the flatness of the tax structure.

If you want a flatter tax structure, the fair tax is a step in the wrong direction.


27 posted on 04/03/2008 1:20:02 PM PDT by eraser2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Think of complexity v flatness this way:


Option 1: 25% sales tax with a prebate for $20k in expenditures

a) Household in the lowest quintile earns an annual income of $15,900 pretax currently. If they spend it all, they pay $3975 in taxes, but get a prebate for $5000, so they pay an effective tax rate of -6.4%

b) Household in the middle quintile earns an annual income of $58500 pretax currently. If they spend it all, that’s $14625 in tax, with a prebate for $5000, for an effective rate of 16.5%

c) Household in the highest quintile earns an annual average of $231,300 pretax currently. If they spend all of it, they’ll get an effective rate of 22.8%. If they spend half of it, they see an effective rate of 10.3%


Option 2: The current tax structure.

(http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/12-11-HistoricalTaxRates.pdf)

case a) pays an average of 4.3% instead of -6.4%
case b) pays an average of 14.2% instead of 16.5%
case c) pays an average of 25.5% instead of 22.8% (10.3% if they only spend half)


Do you see? The fair tax has a simpler sounding structure, but it doesn’t result in flatter effective tax rates.


28 posted on 04/03/2008 1:36:07 PM PDT by eraser2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cherry

just wait till you find out about the monthly entitlement check mailed to every adult. (just wait for K street lobbyists to get a hold of clients who want exemptions, just wait for Robert Reich to start demanding a “living rebate” every month.)

Just wait till you find out about the mandatory federal registration.

it is all available without any propaganda for your dining and dancing pleasure at http://www.thomas.gov under the searh term “fair tax” or “HR 25”

actually if those frequent flyer miles are taxable and in fact they are assets in divorce proceedings assuming the lawyer is savy enough to take a look. In defense of those who do the actual traveling, those miles are often a reward for picking and PUTTIN UP with the aggrivation of a particular airline.


29 posted on 04/03/2008 1:36:18 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: eraser2005
My argument is that the current tax structure is actually FLATTER than the fair tax, using fairtax.org’s own data.

The complexity / length of a table has little to do with the flatness of the tax.

You’re pointing to a table that is 12 pages long as your proof. But that 12 page table can be summarized in less than one, IF you have the capability to do math.


My post #22 clearly was a direct response to you're post # 20 referring me to page 87 to buttress you're claim the income tax is flatter than the Fair Tax. As already pointed out page 87 shows seven different rates for collecting the income tax. The Fair Tax has only one rate.

But here’s the thing you’re missing: because of the “prebate” scheme, the actual effective tax rates people would pay would vary dramatically.

You're trying to compare apples to oranges by missing the obvious point the prebate does not put a burden on the tax payer because it is not a rate that determines how much tax is to be collected. It is the complete opposite of the marginal tax rate by easing the burden of how much tax is to be paid. The Fair Tax imposes only one tax rate that burdens the taxpayer where has by your own admission page 87 of the 2007 1040 booklet clearly proves the income tax code imposes a burden of collecting taxes with seven different rates.
30 posted on 04/03/2008 1:56:44 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

There are Republicans at St. Olaf??!! Perhaps there is yet hope.


31 posted on 04/03/2008 1:57:47 PM PDT by Elsiejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
Check out this vanity post by a Freeper...it's an excerpt from the Massachusetts State Tax Form asking about Health-care!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1995678/posts

Imagine this on a Federal Level. I envision the IRS asking about how we spent our health care dollars right after they ask about the car we drive and how much we use our BBQ (how else will they calculate your carbon tax?).

We will never stop the socialist slide in this country if we don't get rid of the IRS and the income tax, withholding.
32 posted on 04/03/2008 2:03:05 PM PDT by socialismisinsidious ( The socialist income tax system turns US citizens into beggars or quitters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eraser2005
Do you see? The fair tax has a simpler sounding structure, but it doesn’t result in flatter effective tax rates.

Once again you're basing your argument on the false premise the prebate is method of collecting taxes. The prebate is anathema to putting the burden on the taxpayer to collect taxes. The onus is on Congress to return money to the tax payer. The Fair Tax imposes only one rate of tax burden on the taxpayer whereas the income tax imposes seven different rates.
33 posted on 04/03/2008 2:03:38 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

You can bet it will be the 35% rate. The poor and the elderly will have their entire income taxed. The wealthy will have their villas off shore and pay no tax on what they spend. If you have saved, after tax money, When you spend that money it will be taxed again at 35%. NO THANKS


34 posted on 04/03/2008 2:09:41 PM PDT by chainsaw ( No black racist Muslims in the WH.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: chainsaw

We’re wasting our time....

fairtax supporters are completely delusional....


35 posted on 04/03/2008 4:37:03 PM PDT by eraser2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: cherry
...the business man gets to get all those free rides and hotel stays for him and his family....THAT should be absolutely taxed as income.....as should all the other freebies...

And you have just suggested even more complexity to a horrid system.

I have been working on my personal taxes since mid-December, when I tried to guess what the rules would be to avoid the alternate minimum tax. (Congress passed the law in late Dec.) I learned about recapturing ordinary income on stock I acquired from my employer at a reduced price 20 years ago, and dug up dusty records to obtain the required data. I bared my financial and philosophical soul, telling the government where I got my income, how much it was and to whom I donated money. I paid taxes on inflation (sometimes know as capital gains). Stock I had held for twenty years tripled in price. How much of that was a real increase in purchasing power and how much was inflation? It doesn't matter, I paid tax on the entire gain. I have no idea how my depreciation is calculated, I just let the (not free) software do it.

I don't think I am alone in spending hours and days dealing with subtle intricacies of the tax code (sometimes correctly). Please don't tell us how to tweak and further complicate the current system. Let's ditch it and start over.

36 posted on 04/03/2008 4:51:41 PM PDT by Cracker Jack (If it weren't for the democrats, republicans would be the worst thing in Washington.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cherry
the most egregious to me is the frequent flier miles/hotels that business men accrue.....the business pays for all of their out of town expenses and their flights, yet the business man gets to get all those free rides and hotel stays for him and his family....THAT should be absolutely taxed as income.....as should all the other freebies...

Technically, those frequent flier miles, and any other business assets that are used for personal, non-business purposes are taxable income. Often, however, the problem is in determining exactly how much is personal vs. business, and in interpreting complex, confusing regulations. Often, the final determination depends on peoples intent, and that opens the door to abuse. The FairTax would eliminate much of this awful situation.

37 posted on 04/04/2008 4:32:37 AM PDT by foxfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: foxfield

actually the fair tax would do no such thing. There is a “computation of value” that OldIRS does which NewIRS will do.

Divorce Judges have been doing the calculation for decades. The fact is the FairTaxSCAMMERS have a very poorly thought out scam which has been shown as a failure in the past on similar schemes.

It is EASY to legally avoid consumption taxes. In 1991 it killed the luxury goods manufacturing in the USA. Now with the internet in 2008 it is easy to see in the “no shipping, no sales tax” to neutralize this sales tax with entitlement program.


38 posted on 04/04/2008 5:19:04 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
a very poorly thought out scam which has been shown as a failure in the past on similar schemes.

I am curious. What failures? When, where, and under what conditions?

39 posted on 04/04/2008 5:34:19 AM PDT by Cracker Jack (If it weren't for the democrats, republicans would be the worst thing in Washington.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Cracker Jack

there are more than enough exampls on these fair tax scam threads.

any time you tax items which can be purchased elswhere with a lower tax people do so.

Look at duty free shops.

or the 1991 luxury tax.

look at LEGAL avoidance of state sales taxes.

the list goes on and on.

You don’t even touch on the fiasco of the Great Society wealfare state promoted with the included prebate/rebate...

every month the government sends FREE MONEY!


40 posted on 04/04/2008 7:33:52 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
every month the government sends FREE MONEY!

Every month the government sends money which, for virtually all of us, represents a refund of FairTax paid, but not owed. No one is obligated to pay FairTax below the poverty level of spending. Therefore, that amount of FairTax is refunded monthly.

I suppose none of us should get an income tax refund because, under your definition, it is also welfare.

41 posted on 04/04/2008 10:10:12 AM PDT by Cracker Jack (If it weren't for the democrats, republicans would be the worst thing in Washington.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
FairTaxSCAMMERS

I would be pleased to have an open and balanced discussion of the issues you raised. However, your reference to "scammers" makes me think you are pretty closed minded. Please correct me if I am wrong.

42 posted on 04/04/2008 3:12:31 PM PDT by foxfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: eraser2005; Man50D
My argument is that the current tax structure is actually FLATTER than the fair tax, using fairtax.org’s own data.

"Flat" in the context of tax rates refers to a uniform marginal rate of tax using a consistent base. Both nrst and flat income tax have flat marginal rates.

But neither is flat at all if you're looking at is effective rates. They both have a nearly infinite number of possible effective rates. It is absurd to claim one set of infinite possibilities is "flatter" than another.

In the same way the prebate affects effective rate WRT spending, income earned affects effective rate WRT income. You can devise a scenario for ANY effective flat income tax rate less than the stated marginal rate. Similarly, you can devise a scenario for ANY effective nrst rate less than the stated marginal rate.

So I don't know how you arrive at your claim that one is flatter than the other unless you're comparing marginal rate of one system to effective rate of the other system. Both have flat marginal rates, both have wildly variant effective rates. Please explain.

Now, if you really are asserting that the current tax structure is flatter than the nrst, I think you're mixing up marginal and effective rates for sure. On it's face, the current system has multiple [seven?] marginal rates yet the nrst has a flat marginal rate. Both have infinite possibilities for effective rates less than the marginal rate [or max marginal rate in the case of the current system.]

So again, there is no way to conclude that the current system is flatter unless you compare the marginal rates to effective rates, which is nonsensical. Please explain your assertion "My argument is that the current tax structure is actually FLATTER than the fair tax, using fairtax.org’s own data.

43 posted on 04/05/2008 3:29:46 AM PDT by Principled (Vaporize the "Divide and Conquer" taxes - Have everyone pay the same marginal rate!. NRST!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Still telling the same old stale lies, eh?


44 posted on 04/05/2008 3:51:41 PM PDT by xcamel (Forget the past and you're doomed to repeat it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cracker Jack

a refund? prefund? if your read HR 25 at http://www.thomas.gov it is for the GOVERNMENT DETERMNED necesities amount. This is K Street Lobbyist bonanza money. This means every industry will lobby (and pay campaign contributions) for those politicians who give the most government determent cecessity determination for their industry. IOW a bigger car sales tax determination, a computer purchased sales tax determniation, cell phone expense dtermination (on top of local and state taxes.

It is all fun fun fun and will be percieved as free money to the great society...


45 posted on 04/07/2008 10:24:01 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
To summarize your argument, I think you are saying the FairTax should not be passed because it is too simple and it might be changed from its original form.

I wish that argument had prevailed in 1913 when they were working on the first income tax.

I have read the pertinent parts of HR 25 and recognize that some government bureaucracy has the responsibility of establishing the level of "poverty" spending. This is being done now, so no new bureacracy would be required. (I have read some pertinent parts of the IRS code also, but a much smaller percentage.)

If the FairTax is implemented as conceived, all legal residents will be sent the same amount as a refund. The refund will equal the amount of tax paid on the poverty level of spending. I know this is a simpler way to get a refund than filing and retrieving a bunch of income and deduction records, then filling out what seems like a ream of complex forms and mailing them off to the IRS. And if you make a mistake you risk penalties.

Those of us that favor the FairTax look at this simplicity as an advantage, not a disadvantage.

If the principle of equal refunds can be maintained, any change in refund level will be paid by all taxpayers, and may result in raising the FairTax tax rate. The cost of the refund is included in the revenue that must be collected to implement the FairTax. That will be visible to everyone and the voters will have a chance to respond at election time. If Congress tinkers with the FairTax by, for instance, charging more tax on some items than others, the tax system will no longer be the FairTax as proposed.

It has been my observation that most of those who oppose the FairTax assume it will be changed it in some way, then criticize the changed version.

To pass the FairTax intact will take an effort at least as large as the one that beat back amnesty for illegal immigrants. And we will have to do it again when Congress starts tinkering in response to lobbyists. I think the advantages are worth the effort.

46 posted on 04/07/2008 1:01:24 PM PDT by Cracker Jack (If it weren't for the democrats, republicans would be the worst thing in Washington.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Cracker Jack

OldIRS vs NewIRS.

-Either way the size the the government employee based remains the same.
-Either way the size of the government remains the same.

HR 25 does not change the constitution, it only changes law. The so called simplicity of HR 25 is a falicy as you now have to register as a vendor, you have to register as a government approved family (just wait for the new-socialist-family engineers to grab a hold of what is a family) You have to PROVE your exemption which is just more paperwork in tracking all the exemptions.

Of course this assumes your industry has not simply moved, like the 1991 luxury tax caused, outside of the USA.

We need a system of reducing the size of governemnt and reducing taxation.

The FairTaxScam is simply premised on the absurd notion that we are taxed enough but just by the wrong means.

We need som OTHER proposal to get rid of the current tax system. Then again for all we know this proposal could be just another clintonesque self donation tax trust write off.


47 posted on 04/07/2008 3:38:34 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I agree with a lot of what you say. I think the controversy may be one of tactics rather than ultimate goal.

As an example, you will not find me defending the current size of government. I think the FairTax would do some things very well, and some things not at all. The intent of those who proposed the FairTax is to save the government spending battle for later. The transparency of the FairTax would be helpful in attacking spending. And since everyone would be paying the same highly visible tax, it becomes harder to sell the idea that everything can be financed by taxing the other guy--the "rich", the corporations, the evil oil companies, etc.

I think your example of the luxury tax killing some industries in the US in 1991 would not hold true under the FairTax. The luxury tax was laid on top of the existing tax load and put domestic countries at a competitive disadvantage. The FairTax would put domestic countries at a competitive advantage by removing their taxes and thus lowering their cost of production. Foreign products with embedded taxes in their wholesale price would be at a disadvantage in our domestic market. Many FairTax proponents suggest the business reaction would for companies move to the USA from where the taxes are higher.

No, I don't believe bureaucracy would disappear entirely with the FairTax. I do believe requirements on both business enterprises and the private citizen would be much less. Those collecting the FairTax would be paid to do it, instead of the current practice absorbing the cost of collecting the state sales tax or withholding tax. The compliance costs of administering withholding, keeping track of all income and deductions and arranging affairs to minimize the tax load would go down in a major way.

I believe the income tax is thoroughly embedded in our culture. We all have accumulated a lot of knowledge of how our own situation is effected by the income tax law. The FairTax would make most of that obsolete, something that I believe scares people--especially those people whose living is based on dealing with the income tax and its effects.

The FairTax would have to be pretty terrible to be worse than the yearly experience I have trying to pay no more income taxes than are legally required. With FairTax, the tax is paid with the transaction and it is OVER. I don't have to track much of anything or tell the government much about my personal affairs. April 15 would be just another day. Hallelujah!!

48 posted on 04/07/2008 5:53:28 PM PDT by Cracker Jack (If it weren't for the democrats, republicans would be the worst thing in Washington.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Cracker Jack

“It has been my observation that most of those who oppose the FairTax assume it will be changed in some way, then criticize the changed version.”

Absolutely. In addition, the FairTax opponents believe that they , and only they, can predict what the FairTax will evolve into. What they don’t comprehend is that even in the unlikely event that their worst case scenarios do unfold, the FairTax would still be better than the system we have now or any alternatives proposed so far.


49 posted on 04/11/2008 7:00:27 PM PDT by phil_will1 (My posts are in no way limited or restricted by previously expressed SQL opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: foxfield

“I would be pleased to have an open and balanced discussion of the issues you raised. However, your reference to ‘scammers’ makes me think you are pretty closed minded. Please correct me if I am wrong.”

You aren’t wrong; you are right on target.


50 posted on 04/11/2008 7:03:34 PM PDT by phil_will1 (My posts are in no way limited or restricted by previously expressed SQL opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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