Casselberry, FL Monthly Meeting (FairTax)

Casselberry, FL
The Winter Springs Civic Center
400 N. Edgemon Ave
Winter Springs, FL. 32708

We will meet this month at The Winter Springs Civic Center.

There will be a presentation of the FairTax followed by a Q&A and a discussion of recent volunteer activities.

This event does not require an RSVP. Registered users can request event reminders.

The fair tax ain’t fair, and does nothing to cut the funding of the massive monster known as government.

Then you must know something foundinf father and first Secretary of the Treasury didn't know about consumptino taxes in his federalist paper #21. To quote"

"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them."

He understood a consumption tax acts as a check on Congressional spending. If Congress spends too much then they would be forced to raise the sales tax rate. People would in turn make less purchases thereby lowering the amount of money taken in by Congress. This would force Congress to lower its spending.

Then you must know something founding father and first Secretary of the Treasury didn't know about consumption taxes in his federalist paper #21.

The first Secretary of The Treasury was Alexander Hamilton.

That's why Alexander Hamilton is known as the Father of the American National Retail Sales Tax. As Secretary of the Treasury, he pushed for a NRST and it was quickly and easily passed in 1794. Seen as the defining moment in the early days of this country, it has led to remarkable economic growth ever since. The people love it so much they call it the "FairTax."

BTW, none of this every happened. Why? Because when Alexander Hamilton says "taxes on articles of consumption," he doesn't mean a sales tax on all goods and services (he especially didn't mean services - thus the "articles" part) bought at retail, he meant "imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties" on specific items. Basically, what excise taxes and tariffs are today.

Alexander Hamilton most certainly wasn't suggesting taxing things like health care, etc. He was discussing placing taxes on items that could easily be avoided. He stated in this same Federalist Paper, "private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions." He is essentially saying here that if the government taxed every object (they weren't judicious in their selection), they would be oppressive. It's an argument against the FairTax.

To paraphrase Woody Allen, if Alexander Hamilton could come back and see what these FairTaxers are proposing in his name, he wouldn't stop throwing up.

Then you must know something foundinf father and first Secretary of the Treasury didn't know about consumptino taxes in his federalist paper #21. He understood a consumption tax acts as a check on Congressional spending. If Congress spends too much then they would be forced to raise the sales tax rate. People would in turn make less purchases thereby lowering the amount of money taken in by Congress. This would force Congress to lower its spending.

Hamilton wasn't speaking of anything as huge as the fair tax. Indirect taxes in his time were basically luxury taxes. The fair tax would tax luxuries and necessities. While there's the "prebate" that is supposed to take care of what you pay on necessities, we can be sure it won't be enough to cover all of the taxes you paid on necessities, since it is based on a government formula. Also keep in mind that Hamilton was the biggest proponent of a central bank, and actually got his way for awhile. Even if we went back to the way taxation was before the 16th amendment, our government would not decrease in size very much, if at all, since the Federal Reserve would still be there to print all the money the government needs.

Hamilton wasn't speaking of anything as huge as the fair tax.

I'm sure Hamilton would appreciate you spinning his words into something other than what he actually wrote. I don't know how you define "huge" but the Fair Tax's 133 pages pales in comparison to the 67,000+ pages of the income tax code.

While there's the "prebate" that is supposed to take care of what you pay on necessities, we can be sure it won't be enough to cover all of the taxes you paid on necessities, since it is based on a government formula.

The effective Fair Tax rate(after the prebate) will on average be lower than what people pay on average under the income tax. All federal taxes are based on a government formula. The problem with the income tax is it's "government formula" is too complex with too many loopholes for most people to understand. The Fair Tax will dramatically simplify that formula.

Even if we went back to the way taxation was before the 16th amendment, our government would not decrease in size very much, if at all, since the Federal Reserve would still be there to print all the money the government needs.

This statement lacks any credibility sans any specific facts to buttress your claim. There will be a size reduction in government enforcing a 133 page tax code with no IRS compared to the monster tax code enforced today by an agency that can know every aspect of a person's life. The latter part of your statement is ridiculous considering no tax code is designed to address Congress coining money. They are completely separate issues.

I'm sure Hamilton would appreciate you spinning his words into something other than what he actually wrote. I don't know how you define "huge" but the Fair Tax's 133 pages pales in comparison to the 67,000+ pages of the income tax code.

You misunderstood my usage of "huge". It wasn't in reference to the size of the tax code, it was in reference to what things would be taxed. It is a fact that the "fair tax" would charge tax on all new goods, and all services. All new goods were not taxed in Hamilton's day, and services were not taxed at all.

The effective Fair Tax rate(after the prebate) will on average be lower than what people pay on average under the income tax. All federal taxes are based on a government formula. The problem with the income tax is it's "government formula" is too complex with too many loopholes for most people to understand. The Fair Tax will dramatically simplify that formula.

On fairtax.org, there's an open letter to the President, Congress and the American people concerning the form of the federal tax code, and it says: "We are not calling for elimination of federal taxation, which would be irresponsible and undesirable. Nor does our endorsement call for reduced federal spending. The tax reform plan we endorse is revenue neutral, collecting as much federal tax revenue as the current income tax code, including payroll withholding taxes." So it does not seek to cut the funding of government at all, it only seeks to be "fair". The fair tax is really not any more fair than our current income tax, and is in fact just as progressive as the income tax and would function as an income redistrubution. The poor will pay less than zero percent retail sales tax on their spending after the prebate, which would function much the same way as the earned income and child tax credits of today.

This statement lacks any credibility sans any specific facts to buttress your claim. There will be a size reduction in government enforcing a 133 page tax code with no IRS compared to the monster tax code enforced today by an agency that can know every aspect of a person's life. The latter part of your statement is ridiculous considering no tax code is designed to address Congress coining money. They are completely separate issues.

You seem to think there will be no enforcement agency for the fair tax, but you would be wrong in that assumption. It would create a Sales Tax Bureau, along with all the other offices needed to deal with problem resolution. While it would be a smaller agency than the IRS, simply calling it something other than the IRS doesn't mean there won't be any bureaucracy. Since the goal of the fair tax isn't to shrink the size and scope of government by cutting its funding, government will not shrink. I never said the tax code was designed to address Congress coining money. And anyway, the Congress does not coin money anymore. The Federal Reserve and taxes are not separate issues in terms of the goal of reducing the size of government. Government does not produce anything, it can only take what it has from the citizens. Before the Fed came along, all the government had to fund itself with was taxation. That meant we couldn't use our military to fight wars that were not related to our defense, and we couldn't create programs designed to give money away to the people, since that would naturally mean taxes had to be raised. Taxes can only be raised so much before the people revolt. Therefore, a central bank is needed that would, combined with the income tax, fund the government in whatever way it needed. If funding is needed over and above what is taken in through taxation, the government simply borrows the money from the Fed and everything is okay, except for the growing deficit, which is almost at 10 trillion dollars. As long as government has an unlimited money supply, it will not stop growing.

It wasn't in reference to the size of the tax code, it was in reference to what things would be taxed. It is a fact that the "fair tax" would charge tax on all new goods, and all services. All new goods were not taxed in Hamilton's day, and services were not taxed at all.

You fail to understand the insidious nature of the income tax code. We are taxed right now on every item or service we purchase under the income tax code! Corporations pass their income taxes onto the consumer in the form of higher prices. Approximately 22% of everything you buy are embedded taxes. The government doesn't want you to because they go by the notion out of sight out of mind. Your statement only proves they have accomplished this goal.

So it does not seek to cut the funding of government at all, it only seeks to be "fair".

This remark doesn't doesn't have anything to do with my statement about the Fair Tax effective tax rate being lower than what people pay on average for income taxes. You completely misunderstand Hamilton's remarks in Federalist Paper #21. It only refers to keeping Congress in check from spending beyond a certain point when taxes are tied directly to consumption. It doesn't state consumption taxes will reduce spending. The Fair Tax will keep spending in check by not allowing it to tax people more but instead will keep it revenue neutral. That is not to say that it can't reduce spending by using a smaller agency than the current IRS to monitor Fair Tax compliance.

The fair tax is really not any more fair than our current income tax, and is in fact just as progressive as the income tax and would function as an income redistrubution.

All forms of taxation redistribute wealth. That is the point of a tax. The fundamental difference between the Fair Tax and the income tax is that the former restores power and freedom to the people by allowing them to determine how much and how often they are taxed. The latter takes your money before you see it in your paycheck.

The poor will pay less than zero percent retail sales tax on their spending after the prebate, which would function much the same way as the earned income and child tax credits of today.

You're citing the exception to the rule. That group will be a very small percentage of the population. Most people will still be paying some amount of tax.

You seem to think there will be no enforcement agency for the fair tax, but you would be wrong in that assumption.

I've been a Fair Tax volunteer for several years. I know the Fair Tax will require a much smaller agency in the Treasury Department than is required with the income tax.

While it would be a smaller agency than the IRS, simply calling it something other than the IRS doesn't mean there won't be any bureaucracy.

That's right. The important point is there will be no intrusion into every aspect of a person's personal life because they will be complying with the tax law every time they make a purchase.

Taxes can only be raised so much before the people revolt.

Exactly! That is one strenght of the Fair Tax! This addresses the whole point of raising the tax rate too high and people will revolt by spending less thereby Congress taking in less money because they would have spent beyond an acceptable point determined by the people.

I'm sure Hamilton would appreciate you spinning his words into something other than what he actually wrote.

Glass houses. Hamilton wasn't talking about anything ever resembling the FairTax (he was talking about excises and tariffs in specific articles of consumption - if you don't believe me, just look at the taxes during that time) but you continue to use the quote out of context to promote something Hamilton would have never supported.

I don't know how you define "huge" but the Fair Tax's 133 pages pales in comparison to the 67,000+ pages of the income tax code.

You continue to repeat the lie that the "income tax code" is 67,000+ pages. What do you call someone who knowing repeats lies?

This statement lacks any credibility sans any specific facts to buttress your claim. There will be a size reduction in government enforcing a 133 page tax code

The FairTax wouldn't replace all of the tax code. So who, exactly, lacks credibility?

compared to the monster tax code enforced today by an agency that can know every aspect of a person's life.

Hyperbole much?

You fail to understand the insidious nature of the income tax code. We are taxed right now on every item or service we purchase under the income tax code! Corporations pass their income taxes onto the consumer in the form of higher prices. Approximately 22% of everything you buy are embedded taxes. The government doesn't want you to because they go by the notion out of sight out of mind. Your statement only proves they have accomplished this goal.

I am by no means ignorant of the income tax code. I used to be an income tax preparer and I know how crazy it is. But the current income tax is actually irrelevant to this point of the discussion. The point here is that you were using Hamilton to support your view about consumption taxes, but comparing the fair tax to the taxes Hamilton was referring to is wrong. The taxes he was talking about were imposts, excises, and duties; he wasn't referring to a national sales tax.

You completely misunderstand Hamilton's remarks in Federalist Paper #21. It only refers to keeping Congress in check from spending beyond a certain point when taxes are tied directly to consumption. It doesn't state consumption taxes will reduce spending. The Fair Tax will keep spending in check by not allowing it to tax people more but instead will keep it revenue neutral. That is not to say that it can't reduce spending by using a smaller agency than the current IRS to monitor Fair Tax compliance.

I don't misunderstand anything about Federalist #21. What you need to understand is that since the fair tax is a revenue neutral tax, it would not have any significant effect on the size of government, beyond making the compliance agency smaller.

All forms of taxation redistribute wealth. That is the point of a tax. The fundamental difference between the Fair Tax and the income tax is that the former restores power and freedom to the people by allowing them to determine how much and how often they are taxed. The latter takes your money before you see it in your paycheck.

Actually, no, not all forms of taxation redistribute wealth, and that is not the point of a tax. The point of a tax is to raise revenue to keep the government funded for its purposes. The purpose of funding our government is stated in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. If the funds are used for anything else besides what is listed there, it is unconstitutional. You seem to prefer the fair tax because you decide when to buy something rather than have it taken out of your check. Frankly, I don't see a difference, since your money was taken anyway.

You're citing the exception to the rule. That group will be a very small percentage of the population. Most people will still be paying some amount of tax.

Exception to what rule? We would be trading one system of redistribution of wealth for another one with the same net effect.

Exactly! That is one strenght of the Fair Tax! This addresses the whole point of raising the tax rate too high and people will revolt by spending less thereby Congress taking in less money because they would have spent beyond an acceptable point determined by the people.

I guess fair tax supporters don't really want government to be scaled down to its constitutional size? Is the only concern with keeping revenue at the same level and just having a different system of taxation? The only advantage I see to the fair tax is that the compliance system would indeed be less intrusive. However, that is not enough for me. I prefer a constitutionally restricted government and that requires cutting off the money supply and ending the welfare/warfare state.

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.