Posted on 06/13/2013 12:30:28 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Fair Tax didn't get a lot of support in two different presidential-primary cycles. Mike Huckabee tried to win the Republican nomination on the Fair Tax platform in 2008, and Herman Cain tried again in the 2012 cycle with a modified approach to it in his 9-9-9 plan. It didn't have enough political juice to create momentum for either candidate — but that was before the exposure of political corruption at the IRS reaching all the way to its headquarters in Washington DC. Suddenly, any plan that eliminates the IRS looks better, and Americans for Fair Taxation strikes while the iron is hot:
The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake takes care to point out that AFT is headed by a 1%er:
A group advocating for a flat sales tax is going up with a new nationwide ad buy urging members of Congress to abolish the IRS.
Americans for Fair Taxation, a group headed by wealthy super PAC donor Leo Linbeck III, will launch the ads Monday. The ad buy is in the mid-six-figures, according to the group. …
Linbeck made a splash in the 2012 election by founding a super PAC devoted to unseating incumbents in primaries, called the Campaign for Primary Accountability.
How about we just debate it on the grounds that it might be, y’know, a good idea? Switching to a consumption tax has the potential to discourage consumption (taxation usually lowers the incidence of any activity), and passing a constitutional amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment would be a monumental effort. However, the payoff would be that the federal government would no longer need to know all of your income and financial transactions, and that tax collection would focus exclusively on commercial entities rather than private citizens.
After the recent revelations of political targeting by the IRS, that outcome sounds better and better.
Regarding Herman Cain, I believe that he dropped out of race because his wife couldn’t handle media mud-slinging, not because his 9-9-9 plan wasn’t getting attention.
RE: Regarding Herman Cain, I believe that he dropped out of race because his wife couldn’t handle media mud-slinging
Let’s face it, as much as I love his policies, he was too much of a lady’s man. If he were a Democrat, he would have had no shame a continued running. But as a conservative, he’s held to a higher standard.
> “How about we just debate it on the grounds that it might be, y’know, a good idea? Switching to a consumption tax has the potential to discourage consumption (taxation usually lowers the incidence of any activity)...”
Prices will first be lowered because embedded corporate and payroll taxes will be eliminated. This is price parity.
The FairTax does not add an extra tax, it replaces myriad taxes that are embedded into the prices of retail goods and services.
EXAMPLE:
2 X 4 in a local lumber yard sits on the shelf at $2.
Embedded taxes make up 22% of the $2, therefore price now without federal taxation is $1.56.
Under the FairTax, take the 2 X 4 at $1.56 and walk it to the cashier. Pay 30% NRST on top of $1.56 for a final purchase price of $2.03.
The NRST is the National Retail Sales Tax component of the FairTax tax code.
It’s important to note that it is the National RETAIL Sales Tax. It is never a tax on businesses, it always charged to the end consumers.
For example, a Boeing 737 sold to an Airline would have no NRST. However, a passenger buying a ticket from that Airline would pay the NRST. But the Airline’s operating costs would be lower under the FairTax and the price of the ticket would be about the same when the NRST is charged.
THE FAIRTAX IS A ***REPLACEMENT TAX***, NOT A VAT, NOT AN ADDITIONAL TAX.
IT ***REPLACES*** all federal income and payroll taxes, therefore prices are not changed much.
The Fair Tax is a fine idea. However the problem is the following: Every country that has put a NRST or VAT in place ended up with that and an income tax.
The only way this works is if the 16 Amendment was repealed, and that simply won’t happen.
If for example the Fair tax was passed during the Bush years, is there ANY doubt that Obama, Reid & Pelosi would have put a millionaires ‘only’ income tax in place in 2009/2010, in the name of fairness of course. I have no doubt that that will happen if the Fair Tax is passed as soon as the rats control the gov in the future.
The Flat Tax isn’t perfect but it is safer politically at this point and would accomplish the same goal, Especially if dividends and cap gains are taxed at the same rate and business taxes are eliminated.
Embedded taxes make up 22% of the $2, therefore price now without federal taxation is $1.56.LOL! Talk about stuck on stupid.
Someone needs to take a grade school math class before they play with the calculator again.
It is mathematically impossible for any product to have 22% imbedded federal income taxes...unless you include wages
Does the Fairtax plan include wage reductions to offset prices?...Please say yes.
The timber company sells at:
10% profit minus 35% tax = 3.5% of their gross that can be reduced if federal income taxes are eliminated.You can take that formula through the trucking company,
to the mill,
the broker,
trucking/transportation from the mill,
Home Depot = 3.5%
a tract of homes.
Total percentage of taxes = 3.5%... NOT 22%, NOT 24.5%, NOT 350000%
Home depot buys hundreds of thousands of 2X4's
If Home Depot gets 10% profit on each 2X4 and pays 35% tax ON PROFITS their tax on the profit from hundreds of thousand of 2X4's is...3.5% of their gross not 100,000 X 3.5%.
Just the silence from Bohner and McConnel should be enough for anyone paying attention to know there will never be another tax system to replace the income tax...an additional tax is more possible.
The GOP and the Democrats both are happy to see the Tea Parties catching hell and who do you think approved the NSA, secret courts etc? They wouldn't exist if Congress didn't approve.
“Every country that has put a NRST or VAT in place ended up with that and an income tax.”
The FairTax is not a VAT and eliminates any potential VATs.
The FairTax abolishes the Income Tax and sets in motion a repeal of the 16th Amendment else the FairTax ‘sunsets’ meaning it ceases to be law.
The American public will not allow both taxes to exist simultaneously. A fine example existed right here in liberal Washington State when the father of billionaire Bill Gates III tried the old ploy of introducing a 1% income tax and was soundly defeated.
The Washington State sales tax is near 10% but takes care of most government functions. Even among the liberal minded voters of this state there is no appetite to add a millionaire’s tax and I can assure anyone that is the way it will be under the FairTax.
Repeal of the 16th Amendment is not impossible and not far fetched. In fact it is now more popular to discuss its repeal than ever before. And under the FairTax it will become a national priority.
Ah yes, the anti-FairTax troll appears right on schedule.
> “It is mathematically impossible for any product to have 22% imbedded federal income taxes...unless you include wages”
My oh my....so now you are saying that wages are taxes. What will you think of next? The Income tax is a foundation of freedom? It would almost be funny if it were not so imbecilic.
How many times in our history has a constitutional amendment been repealed?
BTW as to the history, I said an income tax has always returned if EITHER a VAT OR a NRST was put in place.
The facts are the facts.
> “BTW as to the history, I said an income tax has always returned if EITHER VAT OR a NRST was put in place.”
You possess very poor knowledge of history, VATs or the FairTax National Retail Sales Tax NRST.
The NRST has never been in place in the United States or any other country.
As I said previously and as you chose to ignore, the NRST is not a VAT, not even close to one.
> “The facts are the facts.”
As hardheaded as you appear, you do not own the facts nor are you aware of them. As the saying goes, you are entitled to your opinion but not to your own set of facts.
My oh my....so now you are saying that wages are taxes.I didn't think you were that dense. Wages are not taxes but wages ARE taxed.
The only way you can get to 22% price reduction would be for employers to retain employee withholding (wages), then use it (employee wages) for price reductions. IOW 100% paychecks AND 22% price reductions isn't possible.
Look at yourself the mirror.
Here’s what you wrote:
“It is mathematically impossible for any product to have 22% imbedded federal income taxes...unless you include wages”
I can look past your spelling and grammar errors but your statements are taken as you write them.
You wrote that federal embedded income taxes need to include ***wages***. That’s imbecilic.
Try again, and fail again.
I can look past your spelling and grammar errorsLOL!but your statements are taken as you write them."Look at yourself the mirror."[sic]
Thanks for putting what I actually did write in quotes but somehow (because I didn't write them) you couldn't find the words YOU said I wrote.
Fraud?
Liar?
All of the above.
Post #6: You write and it is still there:
“It is mathematically impossible for any product to have 22% imbedded federal income taxes...unless you include wages”
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.