Facts on Fair Tax show it's a great idea

Tribune & Georgian ^ | 9/16/2005 | Jay Moreno

[Man50D]

Dear Editor, I've just read a new best-seller, which I highly recommend to you and your readers: "The Fair Tax Book, Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS."

The co-authors are "reformed lawyer" and syndicated talk show host Neal Boortz, and Congressman John Linder, R-Ga.

Linder is also the principal author/sponsor of The Fair Tax Bill (H.R. 25), currently before Congress.

In the interest of brevity (the book is only 180 pages, by the way), I'll quote from the back of the dust jacket.

"What the Fair Tax will do for America: eliminate the income tax and the dreaded IRS; jump start the U.S. economy; bring businesses and jobs back to the United States; and recapture billions of untaxed dollars currently lost to criminal and offshore businesses.

"What the Fair Tax will do for you: allow you to keep 100 percent of your hard-earned paycheck; let you choose to save all the money you want .... and pay taxes only when you spend it; eliminate countless taxes you don't even know you're paying; lower interest rates; and make April 15th just another beautiful spring day."

The authors provide ample citations from the works of various economic think-tanks to back each of those assertions.

The Fair Tax would replace all current federal, income-based taxes with one universal, federal "consumption tax," on both goods and services, at the retail level only. There would be no exemptions whatsoever. The proposed, "revenue neutral," initial tax rate would be 23 percent. Predictions are that the resulting economic boom would make it possible to lower that rate in short order.

As described so far, the Fair Tax would be so regressive as not to stand a snowball's chance in hell of passage. Here's the solution.

At the first of every month, every head-of-household, irrespective of income/net worth, would receive a federal "pre-bate" check equal to the taxes due on his or her appropriate "poverty level spending" for the coming month. To quote the authors, "'Poverty level spending' is, by definition, that spending necessary for a household of a given size to pay for its necessities. It is adjusted every year by the Department of Health and Human Services."

For example, if the Fair Tax were currently in effect, every family of four would receive a monthly pre-bate of $491.82 to cover the 23 percent tax on its first $2,138.22 spent -- its "poverty level spending." All spending above that level (that month) would have a net federal tax cost of 23 cents on the dollar -- be it for sneakers or a yacht.

The federal sales tax would be collected by the states' sales tax offices. Moreover, don't forget that everyone's "take-home-pay" would be their full, gross earnings under the Fair Tax.

It is a most interesting, concise and thought-provoking read that can be knocked out in two or three sittings. Suggested full retail is $24.95. There is at least one copy available at the Camden County Public Library.

I hope that you and your readers will both enjoy the book and come to support the bill.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

You FairTaxers just kill me. LOL!

Now there is the first good suggestion you have had. :-) (Just kidding, not serious, have no such intentions, see my lawyer,....)

[Mind-numbed Robot]

As I understand, what he said was that retirees are paying embedded taxes now, period, no matter if it is pre or post tax income. They are now paying the taxes which will be replaced by the NRST. The taxes they pay with the NRST simply replace the embedded taxes. It is an even swap, no gain, no loss.

The few retirees I have seen complain about "double taxation" won't be happy unless they get all their income taxes refunded before they support the NRST. They simply don't understand that they are being "double taxed" now, under the present system. Nothing changes along that line with the NRST.

[woodbeez]

Why attempt to mislead people on something as simple as the rate people will pay?

If you have a 23% income tax on a $100,000 income, you pay $23,000 in tax and you get $77,000. Turn that around: if you purchased a $77,000 item and paid $100,000 for it including the tax you would pay $23,000 (29.XX%) in tax and $77,000 for the item. The percentage is compared to current income tax.

[groanup]

fair tax bumperoo

[Your Nightmare]

If you have a 23% income tax on a $100,000 income, you pay $23,000 in tax and you get $77,000. Turn that around: if you purchased a $77,000 item and paid $100,000 for it including the tax you would pay $23,000 (29.XX%) in tax and $77,000 for the item. The percentage is compared to current income tax.

No, if you have a 23% income tax you pay $29,870 tax on $100,000.


Oh, wait. Was that 23% the inclusive rate? Now how were we suppose to know that? Were we just suppose to assume that the 23% was expressed the same way every other income tax is expressed? Why would we do that?

[groanup]

More idiot-level propaganda for the FairTax.

Now there you go again..., oops, that line has been taken by a guy who ended the cold war. I would be curious as to just why you think it's a bad idea. Let's debate, shall we?

[groanup]

great graphics

[groanup]

I can't believe y'all are still trying to pimp this book when it's admittedly full of lies.

Is it? There is one item in contention but you say it is FULL of lies. There's a difference.

History lesson yn:

"General Washington, we are surrounded, out of food and ammunition. We should surrender, sir."

[groanup]

Are you really trying to contend that they just weren't "clear" on the issue and that it was a "minor point"?

Nobody is contending that at all. We are here to debate, not do gotcha's. Are you with us?

[upchuck]

Thanks for your answer. But when you wrote, "The taxes they pay with the NRST" you hit the nail on the head.

The gvt has promised me that when I take money out of my Roth I won't have to pay "income tax" on it. The gvt is willing to do this as I already paid "income tax" on the money I used to buy the Roth. And gvt uses the term "income tax" because that's the way we're taxed now. So to parallel the Fair Tax system, when "income tax" is replaced by "NRST" the gvt should promise, when you take money out of your Roth IRA, you won't have to pay NRST on it when you spend it.

Otherwise, where is the advantage to the Roth IRA under the NRST?

For the record, I am very much in favor of the NRST. But I'm not willing to blindly follow Neal Boortz, et al in promoting it.

IMHO, there are "sticking points" with the NRST that need to be addressed. This business with the Roth IRA is one of them.

Another sticking point, IMHO, is municipal bonds. Munis have been used for years to finance this country's infrastructure. With no tax advantage, why will people buy these bonds?

[groanup]

Neal has a real problem with this. I agree. The idiot is about to screw up the concept which is absolutely viable. He is such an ego head that he can't see his idiotic mistake. I have been listening to him since about 1972 and this is his albatross. He has always been a talk-show host which I consider a lowly profession. Personally, I don't think experts are experts and that is why I give Neal a big banana for the book, but he made a major gaffe in the book and his stupid explanation is close to jeopardizing the whole thing. I agree that the book has garnered the attention of a lot of Pols but if he doesn't address the big gorilla in the middle of the room he has lost all credibility and he will go out like Dan Rather.

This concept has always been too important to leave up to a minor prophet like a talk show host but I have to give the guy credit, he probably created more dialogue about the subject than we have here on FR.

[woodbeez]

if you have a 23% income tax you pay $29,870 tax on $100,000.

To get $29,870 from an income of $100,000, the income tax rate would be 29.87% not 23%.

[kellynla]

I was proud to serve with some of the finest Marines the Corps has ever produced.

Semper Fi,
Kelly

[lewislynn]

I also don't see how 20% is so controversial when the employer sees a 15% reduction in FICA costs alone in gross employee cost.

I guess if "gross employee cost" is 100% of retail prices that could be true.

The controversy is the 20% price reduction and what has to be eliminated to achieve it...giving up wages is only part of it.

Do you think if employee's at Walmart took a 20% wage cut that the prices could also be reduced 20%?

[Mind-numbed Robot]

You raise valid points. However, I am reminded of the fellow who would hit himself in the head with a hammer because it felt so good when he stopped. I am also reminded of hazing where past sufferers are intent on imposing the same pain on the next group.

I don't intend that as insulting to those in the position you describe but to point out that the problem lies with politicians and the present system, not with the NRST.

The way the present system became 60,000+ pages is by politicians trying to address a myriad of problems caused by a dysfunctional tax system, a system that starts in the wrong place, on income. That is the case with most liberal ideas. They call it unintended consequences and instead of admitting error they keep jumping through hoops trying to defray bad consequences.

When you say that the government promised you that... I am reminded of the 80's real estate bust and the S&L crash. That happened because the government changed the rules in the middle of the game. What had been passed to give incentives to investment was suddenly reversed. Did the government lie? I guess they just changed their mind.

The recent Enron, Global Crossing, etc., scandals resulted from Congress, Chris Dodd was the instigator as I recall, changing the generally accepted accounting rules. This allowed the shenanigans which followed and those kinds of shenanigans were purposely encouraged.

How is this relevant? Who is to say that if we stay with the present system that Congress won't change its mind on Roth IRAs or anything else? If we keep a Republican majority it is less likely but we can't be sure of that. If the Democrats win we can be sure that all of Bush's tax cuts will be repealed and an additional increase is also likely. Will they honor their commitment to the Roths? I wouldn't bet on it. That sounds like a good place to eliminate "tax havens for the rich".

The whole point is why stay with a failed system based on a past government promise? As I said, you really won't be taxed any more when you spend your money than you are being taxed now. The only difference is it will be called a tax rather than hidden as a price.

If you start exempting Roth or any other taxed money you have opened the door to all kinds of emotional appeals for other exemptions and the whole deal is dead.

The NRST is a better deal for America and everyone in it and we should all support it.

[groanup]

Do you think if employee's at Walmart took a 20% wage cut that the prices could also be reduced 20%?

Guess what. Not everyone in America works for Wal-Mart. Are you still sitting on the 23%-30% divergence? LoL. Well, Looey, Huey, Dooey and Looey. You have a good point. The prices cannot go down if the workers don't take a pay cut..., hmmm, I guess we should continue with the Income Tax as it stands. Please. Should we?

[lewislynn]

Should we?

Of course, untill something better comes along...Sorry, your fraudtax ain't it.

Are you still sitting on the 23%-30% divergence? LoL

No, the Fairtax is..LOL yourself.

Guess what. Not everyone in America works for Wal-Mart.

Guess what else. Relatively speaking, almost nothing is made in America either...What does that do for your price reduction scam after you fools give up your wage for lower prices?

[groanup]

What does that do for your price reduction scam after you fools give up your wage for lower prices?

Good to know your feelings about American productivity. But, if I may, what in the hell are you talking about? Of course, you ARE lewislyn. LOL.

[groanup]

ll, please don't relegate this thread to the smokey back room. Please?

[GregoryFul]

This is one "big lie" the "Fair Tax" mavens are selling. Retail prices will fall such that the gross price for goods will not change - because the manufacturer will save the amount of taxes in the production of the good - in corporate taxes. This is absurd on the face - corporations do not pay the entire tax burden in this country, so they cannot reduce the wholesale price to that which would equalize the "Fair Tax". Gross prices would go up.

Now, a wage earner perhaps would not be bothered by this, because his gross wages would go up sufficiently to account for the tax, perhaps. Fixed income people, and those with savings would see an immediate 30% charge on their savings and reduction in their fixed income.

Its a "shaft the provident" tax, from what I see.