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

Skip to comments.

Flat Tax Vs. Fair Tax Vs. Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Plan
Forbes ^ | 10/13/2011 | Nathan Lewis

Posted on 10/14/2011 6:40:56 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

For a number of years now, people have asked me whether I prefer a “flat tax” or a “fair tax.” Both are problematic.

The “flat tax” is typically conceived as a replacement for the existing personal income tax. This is fine, but it ignores the payroll tax, which is really just another form of income tax. So, it is only half of an income tax reform. In practice, quite a few countries have gone this route, beginning especially with Russia in 2001, and the results have been very good. These countries have generally replaced their income tax systems, but have kept what amounts to relatively high payroll taxes.

I would like to see a top-to-bottom income tax reform, which includes payroll taxes. Or, I should say, which does not include payroll taxes: I would like to see the payroll tax system eliminated entirely and integrated into a single income tax system. Neither Hong Kong nor Singapore, which are models of what can be achieved with a flat tax system (or nearly so in Singapore), have a payroll tax. The result is that taxation on the lowest incomes is very low, and the overall system has a high degree of progressivity despite modest top rates.

Hong Kong’s flat tax system, with no payroll or sales/VAT taxes, generates about 13% of GDP in revenue per year, with a top tax rate of 16%. This is quite good, and shows excellent efficiency and high compliance. However, 13% of GDP is still rather short of the 18.5% of GDP that the U.S. Federal tax system has generated over the past several decades. So, we would have to decide either to reduce spending considerably — which might be nice, but is a separate discussion — or generate more revenue somehow.

(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 999; fairtax; flattax; hermancain
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

1 posted on 10/14/2011 6:41:05 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The worry I have with a flat tax that it would be easy just to raise the flat tax as OUR government tries to satiate its craving for more money in the future.
2 posted on 10/14/2011 6:43:52 AM PDT by Bitsy (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The point of failure of this plan for me is that it gives Congress another revenue stream (VAT/sales tax) without repealing the 16th amendment. Mark Levine (following my lead on this, IMHO) made comment on this last night.


3 posted on 10/14/2011 6:46:25 AM PDT by Pecos (O.K., joke's over. Time to bring back the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Why does this article say the Fair Tax will be 30% tax rate? I thought it was more like 15%?


4 posted on 10/14/2011 6:46:46 AM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bitsy

Sorry, but the government can raise ANY tax.

The same thing that would stop the government from raising any tax is the taxpayer.

I would argue there are actually more limits under 999:

- is transparent, so everyone will see what Congress is trying to do if they try to raise rates.
- because everyone is paying, there is no class warfare. If they try to raise the rates, there will be public outcry of raising taxes on the poor.
- Cain will ask Congress to put in 2/3 majority rules to keep from changing rates - if they will is another question.


5 posted on 10/14/2011 6:47:54 AM PDT by justsaynomore (Cain 2012 - http://teamcain.hermancain.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Also this article fails to understand the prebate of the Fair Tax...where the poor (everyone for that matter) gets a check so that in effect all the stuff you buy for the essentials in a year aren’t taxed.


6 posted on 10/14/2011 6:48:26 AM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton

It’s actually 23%.

Explanation here: http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=1541&page=NewsArticle&id=8248


7 posted on 10/14/2011 6:49:39 AM PDT by justsaynomore (Cain 2012 - http://teamcain.hermancain.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bitsy

RE: The worry I have with a flat tax that it would be easy just to raise the flat tax as OUR government tries to satiate its craving for more money in the future.

_____________________

First of all, if the base assumption is that no matter how great an idea might be, DC politicians will find a way to corrupt it… why is the flat tax singled out for special treatment? What makes anyone think that Romney’s 87-page PDF Economic Plan won’t also be instantly corrupted and changed? Or the FairTax that many people are gung-ho for, claiming that it is superior to the 999 plan.

Superior how, if the assumption is that Congresscritters will instantly transform it into a basket of giveaways and boondoggles? Or even a Flat Tax?

If the starting point of evaluating any policy proposal or plan is that Congress will get in there and mess it up, I honestly don’t see any reason to support any candidate on the basis of any issue. Because we’d have to assume that his/her great idea would just be transformed into a steaming pile of dung by Congress.

The larger point — one which I’ve raised — is that the only way that the flat tax (or any other plan on any other issue) is not transmogrified into some atrocity is the vigilance of the electorate.

There is simply no way to trust a politician — no matter whom, no matter what — to do the right thing time and again. Absolute the only way we as a nation can defend our rights, get the policies we want, and prevent corruption by politicians is to be vigilant against such things and to keep up the pressure on all of them to do the right thing.


8 posted on 10/14/2011 6:54:45 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bitsy; Pecos
The worry I have with a flat tax that it would be easy just to raise the flat tax as OUR government tries to satiate its craving for more money in the future.

Foolish argument since Congress can change the tax rate at any time. You cannot prevent that with ANY plan.

Your opposition gives support to the current, corrupt, inane tax code and IRS we have today.

Conservatives have supported a flat tax for decades.

With regard to giving the gov't another channel for taxes, that did not stop Obama from trying to madate you buy a product.

By changing our tax system from income to consumption, we make it transparent, fair and simple.

The flat tax will not stop some liberal in the future from trying to impose a VAT or a "fee" on something.

The only thing stopping liberals, now and in the future, is eternal vigilence.

Citizens have a responsibility.

9 posted on 10/14/2011 6:55:03 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Cain for President - Because I like the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: justsaynomore

23% is a bit too high...that will encourage gray and black markets to avoid paying the tax.

That’s why I like the 999 plan as it keeps each tax low enough to make it easier to just pay it vs. trying to find ways around it.


10 posted on 10/14/2011 6:56:31 AM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If it's an "income" tax it's a non starter with me I don't care if it is flat, round, or square and here's why. The very same people who always have would STILL get to define just what is, or is not considered to be "income". No Thanks!

Far better would be the Fairtax which would collect revenue based on what one takes out of the economy in the form of consumption rater than what one puts into the economy in the form of work effort. That and the fact that the fairtax would not require the government to know even so much as anyone's name in order to collect their revenue makes it the hands down winner in my book! It's really ALL about FREEDOM!

11 posted on 10/14/2011 6:58:58 AM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bitsy

Well, who’s responsibility is that? Is it Congress? No. It’s our responsibility. We elect them. Frankly, we’re to blame for the mess we’re in and all the hoopla and back-and-forth on Cain’s plan shows just how in disarray we are. We can’t even come together on a simple little plan. And that’s just what it is. If we hold our government accountable, and are successful in limiting its size and scope, then that should not be a problem.

Cain has already said it’s a start toward a fair/flat tax. It may not have all the elements of what we’d perhaps coalesce around, but it’s simple, fairly basic, and worth considering. If Art Laffer is behind it (which he is) I think it should be given strong consideration. Caveat: I’m not all that enamored over a national sales tax myself, but I believe the idea behind it is to get everyone on board in paying their share of our nation’s taxes. Many here have written about it being an imposition on those with small incomes. Well, here I am. And I’m willing to at least give it some consideration.

After all, we’re still early in the election cycle. There’s going to be a lot of discussion over this and other issues, and who knows where the candidates will stand come February, April or whenever. Who even knows who we’ll be backing at that time.? Right now, I’m impressed with Cain for some fairly simple reasons: 1) His being Black effectively takes the race card out of the election regardless of what the Black socialists say. They’re scared to death and rightly so. There are a large number of Black conservative voters, mainly in the South, who may well look positively at Cain instead of Obama. 2) Cain is the best spoken of the candidates, appears more a common man, is friendly and comes across well. He will do well in the debates. Do you see Perry beating Obama in a debate based on his record so far? 3) Cain’s lack of political experience is a plus, regardless what the establishment Republicans and Perry supporters say. If we fall for the idea that we have to have someone with political experience in the presidency we are conceding our conservative beliefs to the establishment and will lose all control over the Republican party. It will be a party of elites (even more so than now) and conservatives will either be a minor segment or voting 3rd party. And we don’t want to go there. 4) Cain will be able to surround himself with experienced people in his cabinet and administration. Just as any president is able to do. A presidency is not as strong as the president, it’s as strong as the team he assembles. Just look at the existing administration for an example of that.

Sorry for preaching, but there’s so much garbage being posted lately it has to be countered.


12 posted on 10/14/2011 7:01:06 AM PDT by bcsco (A vote for Cain will cure the Pain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pecos
So you're telling me that all the Fed taxes attached to anything...gasoline for example will go away. And there will be no SS and/or Medicare tax. Of course, there will be no mortgage/taxes deduction, no number of family members deduction etc....

So if you have 3 kids and make $50,000, you will have to pay 9% or $4,500 in taxes. If you have one kid and make $50,000, yopu will pay $4,500 in taxes.

And you will also pay 9% on your purchases....say another $2000 in taxes. And God knows what will happen to SS.

13 posted on 10/14/2011 7:01:44 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton

Fair tax does away with 2 of the 9s, the corporate tax and income tax. That give total control over taxes to the taxpayer.

One benefit of both plans is what happens to embedded taxes. These hidden taxes comprises 22% on every item we buy - you do not see them but they are part of the cost of every prodct.

Under Fair Tax, the embedded tax goes away. Under 999, the embedded tax is greatly reduced.


14 posted on 10/14/2011 7:02:17 AM PDT by justsaynomore (Cain 2012 - http://teamcain.hermancain.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
23% is a bit too high...that will encourage gray and black markets to avoid paying the tax.

All systems will have some element of evasion/fraud. Our current system is rife with it.

23% is not bad if you pay no income taxes and make the same money you make today.

15 posted on 10/14/2011 7:03:27 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Cain for President - Because I like the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: justsaynomore; All

under the fair tax scam you have the government deciding what is or is not a family,

under the fair tax scam all people must register with NuIRS.

under the fair tax scam you have a monthly NEW ENTITLEMENT CHECK called a prebate. it will be mere hours before demands for a “living prebate”, you WILL also have all of K street lining up to the capitol to demand a prebate “subsidy” via having their client’s product determined to be a necessity.

all confirmable in the direct language of the fair tax scam at http://www.thomas.gov no propaganda scam site needed.


16 posted on 10/14/2011 7:07:21 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton

Because the people who wrote the article are unwilling to compare their income tax rates to the Fairtax rate on a level playing field!

If you make $100,000.00 and pay $20.000.00 in taxes you would say that you payed a tax rate of 20%. When calculated the exact same way the fairtax rate is 23% and includes general revenue, social security and medicare. If I used the same method that they are using to calculate the fairtax rate in this article to calculate your income tax rate in the above example the rate would be 25% and that would be on top of your social security and medicare payroll taxes!


17 posted on 10/14/2011 7:08:47 AM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bigun

RE: The very same people who always have would STILL get to define just what is, or is not considered to be “income”.

______________

Yes, I agree with you there.

If I happen to find a $100.00 bill on the street and no one claimed it, would that be an income for me?

I live in NYC, a very cosmopolitan city with people from all over the world living and working here.

Let me tell you this, A LOT OF THEM are for the purposes of our tax code, practically CRIMINALS.

Why is that? Many of them came to the USA as immigrants but have property (which they rent out before coming here ) or bank accounts back home. Many of them have families who might even have willed their money to these immigrants should they die.

I know for a fact that almost everyone I know who meet the above conditions DON’T declare the rental income back home ( be it Korea, Taiwan or India ) or the interest on their bank account in say the Indian Bank of Bangalore.

But according to US law YOU HAVE TO DECLARE INCOME FROM ALL SOURCES.

Are we going to hire more IRS agents to go after hundreds of thousands of people’s bank accounts overseas because BY LAW, they should have declared their ‘income’?

Suffice it to say that because of our tax laws, we have hundreds of thousands of (in most case, law-abiding ) ‘criminals’ living among us now.


18 posted on 10/14/2011 7:08:55 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The answer is:

Limit the Federal government to 10% of our gross cumulative incomes. So if you add all of our gross incomes, and you come up with $100, the Feds could spend only $10.00. Of that $10.00, $3.33 would be raise through a national sales tax (so as not to hurt business and to collect money from people who do not declare income) and $6.67 through a flat income tax. So it is not one or the other, but both. And the only deduction there would be would be for charitable donations.


19 posted on 10/14/2011 7:09:10 AM PDT by DennisR (Look around - God gives countless, indisputable clues that He does, indeed, exist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justsaynomore

I think the solution to collecting the sales tax is simple.

Let the states collect it. Most already have the mechanism in place to do this.

Then, we move away from a national sales tax and let each state set the sales tax where they want.

The federal gov’t, limited by a balanced budget amendment, can only spend so much. That amount is divided by the number of citizens in the last census.

Each state is required to submit the amount to the federal gov’t based on the number of citizens in their state.

This will solve several issues:

1) It eliminates federal taxes completely.
2) It eliminates block grants and the federal “cut” taken by bureacracy before the money gets to the states.
3) It returns fiscal control to the states.
4) It takes away the incentive to count illegal immigrants as citizens. Counting them increases your tax bill.
5) It encourages states to stop being sanctuaries for illegals as more enforcement will be used to get them off programs that cost the states money.
6) Each state can be creative in their sales taxes and what is being taxed. Some might tax services, some might not. Each state can experiment with their taxes and tailor it to suit the types of industries they have in those states.


20 posted on 10/14/2011 7:11:52 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Cain for President - Because I like the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
One nice thing about an energy tax is that it would reduce our reliance on foreign oil and environmentally-destructive energy practices. The other nice thing is that it is easy to avoid – just use less energy.

Sorry this writer just showed himself to be and idiot. You would not be able to avoid the impact of an energy tax because it would show up in everything you buy. Prices at Walmart would go up because all of the goods are brought in by Truck. Prices at DisneyWorld would go up because all of those rides and exhibits use vast amount of electricity. Do you ride the bus or a train to work. The price just went up.

21 posted on 10/14/2011 7:12:13 AM PDT by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein


22 posted on 10/14/2011 7:12:25 AM PDT by bolobaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bitsy
The worry I have with a flat tax that it would be easy just to raise the flat tax as OUR government tries to satiate its craving for more money in the future.

No tax system seems fair if governmental spending is too high.

23 posted on 10/14/2011 7:14:40 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bitsy
The worry I have with a flat tax that it would be easy just to raise the flat tax as OUR government tries to satiate its craving for more money in the future.

As hard as they have tried at times, Congress has never been able to change the tax system to make Federal revenues more than 20% of GDP. Federal Revenue has remained at 18 - 20% of GDP back to the origination of the income tax. Whenever they try to raise it more, markets and behaviour adapt and the government never really nets more income. The only thing that nets the Feds more is growth of the GDP.

24 posted on 10/14/2011 7:16:50 AM PDT by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DennisR; SeekAndFind; Bitsy; Pecos; for-q-clinton; justsaynomore; Erik Latranyi; Bigun; bcsco; ...
DennisR: Limit the Federal government to 10% of our gross cumulative incomes.

Other than DennisR's comment, the entire thread is arguing over HOW to collect a tax.

Nobody is talking about HOW MUCH is acceptable.

Seems like, until we can all agree on what an "ALTERNATIVE MAXIMUM TAX" is, that all these plans are just book-selling vehicles.

Is it 10% of gross domestic incomes? Is it $40,000 per person? $50,000?

If you can't put a max on per person contributions, then we can't put a limit on government spending, or tax chicanery.

25 posted on 10/14/2011 7:17:00 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

I’m not judging based on personal gain of any of the systems.

But under the Fair Tax I think I’d do worse vs. today’s system (assuming I actually spend everything I make...which I don’t). So I guess it would be ok. But then my State would need to switch to a higher sales tax as well as the income tax wouldn’t be viable. So that 23% would be more like 33% (assuming an 10% sales tax for the state).

Still not saying that’s a killer, but man that is inviting black markets. The 999 plan is better to me as it will reduce fraud and it doesn’t tax any one area of our economy with stifling high rates.

But just about anything is better than today’s system (even though I probably pay less under todays system). Today’s system is pay to play...Company/Union/People pay lobbyist. Lobbyist pays Politician. Politician passes laws giving company/union/people money from the tax coffers. Repeat cycle.

Fair tax fixes this as does a true flat tax (no deductions) and the 999 plan. Of course they will still lobby but it will be more transparent what they are getting as it will hit the governments budget as a payout and not hidden in a tax loophole.

But according to Boortz the 999 plan is a transition to the Fair tax. So if one prefers the Fair Tax, I’d think they’d support the 999 plan.


26 posted on 10/14/2011 7:18:43 AM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

You have a good point, but I don’t think there should be a max tax per person. That’s crazy.

Instead we should (like this article did discuss) have a max tax based on GDP. What should our revenues be based on our GDP?


27 posted on 10/14/2011 7:21:48 AM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

No one is talking about “cutting” the Fed budget!!


28 posted on 10/14/2011 7:22:55 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This fellow is grossly misinformed or deliberately misleading, Warning to others, don’t waste your time here, there is nothing worth reading.


29 posted on 10/14/2011 7:26:13 AM PDT by Hostage (The revolution needs a spark. The Constitution is dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bitsy
"...The worry I have with a flat tax that it would be easy just to raise the flat tax as OUR government tries to satiate its craving for more money in the future....."

Bitsy, we have that problem right now with our current tax code. These loons can raise/lower capital gains, personal marginal rates, corporate taxes....etc., at will by legislation with an agreeable President.

I have been saying let's do the flat tax but with significant congressional oversight that would put a lot of stopbap measures in place to prevent easy access/change to the rates. Super majorities, in other words.

30 posted on 10/14/2011 7:26:23 AM PDT by Victor (If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert." -David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
You have a good point, but I don’t think there should be a max tax per person. That’s crazy.

lol.

Gale: All right, ya hayseeds, it's a good point. But it's crazy! 
Feisty Hayseed: Well, which is it, young feller? 
    You think I have a good point or that I'm a crazy? 
    Mean to say, if'n I have a good point, I ain't a crazy. 
    And if'n I'm a crazy, I'm not a-gonna have a good point. You see... 
Gale: Shut up! 
Feisty Hayseed: Okay then. 
Gale: Everybody has a good point! 
Evelle: Y'all can just forget that part about bein' crazy now. 
Gale: Better still to get down to the point. 
Evelle: Yeah, y'all hear that, don't ya? 
 [Everybody makes a good point. Gale looks at the now-empty thread] 
Gale: Shit! Where'd all the Freepers go? 
Teller's voices: We're still here, sir. 
Evelle: They're making their point as you commanded, Gale.

31 posted on 10/14/2011 7:30:27 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: justsaynomore
- because everyone is paying, there is no class warfare. If they try to raise the rates, there will be public outcry of raising taxes on the poor.

Oh, but there would be if the 'Rats were back in: they'd immediately start monkeying around with the simple concept to make it complicated in the name of their twisted notion of "fairness". Let's see, were to start: they'd exclude food and medicine from the sales tax, raise rates across the board with an emphasis on the corporate tax and reintroduce a bracketed income tax.

The only ways to make Cain's proposal entirely salutary involve Constitutional amendments: repealing the 16th and/or a Constitutionally required supermajority requirement for tax rate increases. I still like Cain, probably better than anyone else in the race (though Gingrich and Santorum would be fine, too, and I could take Perry or Bachmann), but as proposed 9-9-9 isn't entirely something I could get behind.

32 posted on 10/14/2011 7:30:55 AM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton

I agree.
And the enforcement against such black marketing will have to be that much higher than it is now.
Not to mention my philosophical and practical concerns over the prebate.
In fact, my biggest beef against the triple nine plan is that it is being touted as a middle step to the fair tax. I am fine with it needing to be tweaked over time, but not with that particular end game.


33 posted on 10/14/2011 7:31:47 AM PDT by Apogee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The author, Lewis, may be more or less on our side, but his preference for an energy tax over a sales tax is coastal urbanite prejudice. An energy tax shifts the tax burden to the heartland, and out in these parts is probably more regressive than a sales tax.


34 posted on 10/14/2011 7:33:05 AM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
No one is talking about “cutting” the Fed budget!!

No need to. There is no necessary constraint.

Nobody talks about cutting a household budget until something happens...until a breadwinner loses a job, unexpected car repair, etc.

Needs to be some "rock and hardplace" pincer move around congress before a budget even has meaning.

35 posted on 10/14/2011 7:33:17 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
"....Let the states collect it. Most already have the mechanism in place to do this....."

I like some of your ideas, but you are talking about largely dismantling the Federal structure. Good luck with that....

36 posted on 10/14/2011 7:33:41 AM PDT by Victor (If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert." -David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

YOU are flat out, bald faced LIAR!

The Fairtax does not require that anyone register for the prebate period! If they want a prebate check they must register to receive it and show that they are in the country legally and have a legal social security number.


37 posted on 10/14/2011 7:37:12 AM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Apogee

The propensity for folks to engage in “black marketing” is in direct correlation to the pain involved in staying above board.

Keep that pain low, and there will be little black marketing.


38 posted on 10/14/2011 7:41:09 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

As always the devil is in the details.

(Of course, that dictum suggests that with its layer upon layer of intricate detail, our present tax code is of demonic origin.)


39 posted on 10/14/2011 7:41:28 AM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

I agree!

Most people in this country today have absolutely NO idea as to how much tax the REALLY pay and we are going to have GREAT difficulty getting spending under control until they do! The fairtax would make that abundantly clear to them and THEN we can get some REAL spending restraint on the federal government


40 posted on 10/14/2011 7:47:07 AM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton

I think you are right about the government payment. If every quarter everyone in the country receives a check from the government rather than has to pay estimated income taxes, the the sales tax will be a very popular program.

The problem is getting there from here and assuring by constitutional amendment that the income tax is completely dead.

Other great things about a sales tax is that the exception carved out to the 5th amendment goes away too. A sales tax keeps the government much more out of everyones business.


41 posted on 10/14/2011 7:50:39 AM PDT by JLS (How to turn a recession into a depression: elect a Dem president with a big majorities in Congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton

That’s why I like the 999 plan as it keeps each tax low enough to make it easier to just pay it vs. trying to find ways around it.


I agree.


42 posted on 10/14/2011 7:52:02 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Author of BullionBible.com - Makes You a Precious Metal Expert, Guaranteed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Victor
but with significant congressional oversight that would put a lot of stopbap measures in place to prevent easy access/change to the rates. Super majorities,

If I had complete faith, or even a little faith, in our government, I would be all for a simpler,fairer flat tax. You mention an oversight - a super majority - correct me if I am wrong, but didn't that majority bring us obamacare? If we were dealing with statesmen, I wouldn't be as apprehensive, but we are dealing with a bunch of career politicians and a democratic party that has been hijacked by leftists.

43 posted on 10/14/2011 7:52:02 AM PDT by Bitsy (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Bigun; All

Truth is thre for ALL to read:

From the text of the proposed legislation under “fair tax act”
===== = =
SEC. 302. QUALIFIED FAMILY.
.....
`(d) Annual Registration- In order to receive the family consumption allowance provided by section 301, a qualified family must register with the sales tax administering authority in a form prescribed by the Secretary. The annual registration form shall provide—
`(1) the name of each family member who shared the qualified family’s residence on the family determination date,
`(2) the Social Security number of each family member on the family determination date who shared the qualified family’s residence on the family determination date,
`(3) the family member or family members to whom the family consumption allowance should be paid,
`(4) a certification that all listed family members are lawful residents of the United States,
`(5) a certification that all family members sharing the common residence are listed,
`(6) a certification that no family members were incarcerated on the family determination date (within the meaning of subsection (l)), and
`(7) the address of the qualified family.
Said registration shall be signed by all members of the qualified family that have attained the age of 21 years as of the date of filing.

... ...

====== = = =

But wait there is more:

+++ ++

`SEC. 502. REGISTRATION.

`(a) In General- Any person liable to collect and remit taxes pursuant to section 103(a) who is engaged in a trade or business shall register as a seller with the sales tax administering authority administering the taxes imposed by this subtitle.
`(b) Affiliated Firms- Affiliated firms shall be treated as 1 person for purposes of this section. Affiliated firms may elect, upon giving notice to the Secretary in a form prescribed by the Secretary, to treat separate firms as separate persons for purposes of this subtitle.
`(c) Designation of Tax Matters Person- Every person registered pursuant to subsection (a) shall designate a tax matters person who shall be an individual whom the sales tax administering authority may contact regarding tax matters. Each person registered must provide notice of a change in the identity of the tax matters person within 30 days of said change.
`(d) Effect of Failure To Register- Any person that is required to register and who fails to do so is prohibited from selling taxable property or services. The Secretary or a sales tax administering authority may bring an action seeking a temporary restraining order, an injunction, or such other order as may be appropriate to enforce this section.

+++ + + +++

You can plainly see ALL have to register and be part of the system in order to participate if your MERELY TRANSACT. It is every PERSON, not corporation, person.

Your comment has been disproven.


44 posted on 10/14/2011 7:56:08 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Bigun; All

Truth is thre for ALL to read:

From the text of the proposed legislation under “fair tax act”
===== = =
SEC. 302. QUALIFIED FAMILY.
.....
`(d) Annual Registration- In order to receive the family consumption allowance provided by section 301, a qualified family must register with the sales tax administering authority in a form prescribed by the Secretary. The annual registration form shall provide—
`(1) the name of each family member who shared the qualified family’s residence on the family determination date,
`(2) the Social Security number of each family member on the family determination date who shared the qualified family’s residence on the family determination date,
`(3) the family member or family members to whom the family consumption allowance should be paid,
`(4) a certification that all listed family members are lawful residents of the United States,
`(5) a certification that all family members sharing the common residence are listed,
`(6) a certification that no family members were incarcerated on the family determination date (within the meaning of subsection (l)), and
`(7) the address of the qualified family.
Said registration shall be signed by all members of the qualified family that have attained the age of 21 years as of the date of filing.

... ...

====== = = =

But wait there is more:

+++ ++

`SEC. 502. REGISTRATION.

`(a) In General- Any person liable to collect and remit taxes pursuant to section 103(a) who is engaged in a trade or business shall register as a seller with the sales tax administering authority administering the taxes imposed by this subtitle.
`(b) Affiliated Firms- Affiliated firms shall be treated as 1 person for purposes of this section. Affiliated firms may elect, upon giving notice to the Secretary in a form prescribed by the Secretary, to treat separate firms as separate persons for purposes of this subtitle.
`(c) Designation of Tax Matters Person- Every person registered pursuant to subsection (a) shall designate a tax matters person who shall be an individual whom the sales tax administering authority may contact regarding tax matters. Each person registered must provide notice of a change in the identity of the tax matters person within 30 days of said change.
`(d) Effect of Failure To Register- Any person that is required to register and who fails to do so is prohibited from selling taxable property or services. The Secretary or a sales tax administering authority may bring an action seeking a temporary restraining order, an injunction, or such other order as may be appropriate to enforce this section.

+++ + + +++

You can plainly see ALL have to register and be part of the system in order to participate if your MERELY TRANSACT. It is every PERSON, not corporation, person.

Your comment has been disproven.


45 posted on 10/14/2011 7:56:19 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton

What is the rationale for that? I understand that there are necessities and it helps people out, but why don’t just exempt food and medicine?

I am extremely uncomfortable with everyone getting a check from the government. Too bureaucratic and big brother-ish.


46 posted on 10/14/2011 7:59:26 AM PDT by GatorGirl (Herman Cain 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
15% - 23% - 30% - whatever. All these arguments that it is too high actually make the argument in favor of the FairTax. The rate is set to be revenue neutral meaning you already pay that anyway. If you think it is too high you are right. However, that is not the fault of the FairTax. That is the cost of the government you have. To me the brilliance of it is the transparency. When people see the tax bill on everything they buy on a daily basis they will demand accountability. Taxes are a business cost and get passed on. Whether it is employer paid FICA tax or corporate income tax it is coming from somewhere in the form of depressed wages or higher prices. Progressives love taxes that can be hidden and people don't realize they are paying. I am all for people looking at their receipts and saying “that is too high.”
47 posted on 10/14/2011 8:04:47 AM PDT by Armando Guerra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Perhaps YOU should learn how to read and interpret the plain English!

"Annual Registration- In order to receive the family consumption allowance provided by section 301, a qualified family must register with the sales tax administering authority in a form prescribed by the Secretary"

If you don't want a prebate check then you need not register just as I said!

"Any person liable to collect and remit taxes pursuant to section 103(a) who is engaged in a trade or business shall register as a seller with the sales tax administering authority administering the taxes imposed by this subtitle."

That is an number FAR fewer than your EVERYONE liar!

48 posted on 10/14/2011 8:11:34 AM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
No one is talking about “cutting” the Fed budget!!

Why has the fed budget ballooned? 1) Because you have people that are taking from the system who don't pay into the current system; and 2) People paying into the system who don't realize what they are truly paying.

Progressives hate the FairTax because everyone will have to pay and everyone will see exactly how much. How many people here have objected to the FairTax because of the rate? The rate is revenue neutral so we already pay that whether directly or in the form of depressed wages or higher prices. I want people to look at their sales receipts and say "that is too much." Then is when we will truly get everyone interested in cutting the Federal budget.

49 posted on 10/14/2011 8:14:19 AM PDT by Armando Guerra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Armando Guerra

Amen Armando! AMEN!


50 posted on 10/14/2011 8:24:37 AM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 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