1 25 26

2009-03-26T10:04:40-07:00

425967

false

763

active

1784

425967

Please understand that the FairTax is written to be revenue neutral. Therefore for the sake of argument, if the tax is higher than 30% - that just means that the true cost of government is even more outrageous. The great thing about the FairTax is it reveals the bloated monstrosity of the federal gov't expenditures. The current system hides the true cost thru payroll deductions and other obuscation devices. Citizens will not be bamboozled by the tax code if FairTax becomes a reality and woe unto the politician who tries to raise it once implemented.

Please understand that the FairTax is written to be revenue neutral. Therefore for the sake of argument, if the tax is higher than 30% – that just means that the true cost of government is even more outrageous. The great thing about the FairTax is it reveals the bloated monstrosity of the federal gov’t expenditures. The current system hides the true cost thru payroll deductions and other obuscation devices. Citizens will not be bamboozled by the tax code if FairTax becomes a reality and woe unto the politician who tries to raise it once implemented.

2009-03-26T10:04:40-07:00

17825

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:22:22-07:00

1784

425967

i do believe that citizens will be better able to determine what the function of government should be when they know the cost.

i do believe that citizens will be better able to determine what the function of government should be when they know the cost.

2009-03-26T14:22:02-07:00

17867

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:22:24-07:00

1378

425967

This is a blatant falsehood and misrepresentation of the Fair Tax. The author either has not read the Fair Tax book and / or the 20+ years worth of work and research. One must wonder if this type of misrepresentation is born of deliberation, or if the author suffers from an information deficit. He completely overlooks the current taxes and related compliance costs imbedded in every single item or service that we purchase. The Fair Tax merely replaces this imbedded cost and stops all payroll and withholding taxes. The tax payer needs to know that tax code compliance costs are 250 to 500 billion dollars annually and the average tax payer pays for that.

This is a blatant falsehood and misrepresentation of the Fair Tax. The author either has not read the Fair Tax book and / or the 20+ years worth of work and research. One must wonder if this type of misrepresentation is born of deliberation, or if the author suffers from an information deficit. He completely overlooks the current taxes and related compliance costs imbedded in every single item or service that we purchase. The Fair Tax merely replaces this imbedded cost and stops all payroll and withholding taxes. The tax payer needs to know that tax code compliance costs are 250 to 500 billion dollars annually and the average tax payer pays for that.

2009-04-12T14:31:11-07:00

19854

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:23:46-07:00

8266

425967

The Fair Tax will be the single most transfer of power from the government to the people in history. If the Far Tax was in place during the Irac war, what better way to send a message to Washington by the people who opposed the war than to go on a personal spending freeze. Now that's a protest that would get your voice heard for sure. As soon as the those fed revenues started dissapearing....., you can fill in the rest.

The Fair Tax will be the single most transfer of power from the government to the people in history. If the Far Tax was in place during the Irac war, what better way to send a message to Washington by the people who opposed the war than to go on a personal spending freeze. Now that’s a protest that would get your voice heard for sure. As soon as the those fed revenues started dissapearing….., you can fill in the rest.

2009-04-12T21:21:35-07:00

19882

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:23:46-07:00

7095

425967

I read the Fairtax book -- four times. I have parts of it memorized. I have ten web pages devoted to it. Fairtax would work -- if we cut spending 80% If Fairtax were on the level -- it wouldn't hide the biggest taxes it charges in some fine print, in the back of the book. Fairtax would suddenlyl charge the world's highest sales tax -- and make all cities, counties, and states pay it. That means every police department, every prison, every Veteran's hospital, every city, every county, every state will have to pay this tax. That's what the Fairtax books say. But they hide it, in the back, and hope you slide over it. Read the Fairtax book, page 148 "The federal government ITSELF will become a MAJOR taxpayer. Read the Fairtax Answer Book, pages 138-142, where it actually brags that every city and state -- all government agencies at all levels -- would pay this tax. Where on earth will these governments GET this money to PAY these taxes? And if Fairtax were honest and transparent -- why is it NO city or state or county has ANY idea these clever boys at Fairtax are pushing this plan to tax them. If Fairtax were transparent - wouldnt everyone know what the plan is?

I read the Fairtax book — four times. I have parts of it memorized. I have ten web pages devoted to it. Fairtax would work — if we cut spending 80% If Fairtax were on the level — it wouldn’t hide the biggest taxes it charges in some fine print, in the back of the book. Fairtax would suddenlyl charge the world’s highest sales tax — and make all cities, counties, and states pay it. That means every police department, every prison, every Veteran’s hospital, every city, every county, every state will have to pay this tax. That’s what the Fairtax books say. But they hide it, in the back, and hope you slide over it. Read the Fairtax book, page 148 "The federal government ITSELF will become a MAJOR taxpayer. Read the Fairtax Answer Book, pages 138-142, where it actually brags that every city and state — all government agencies at all levels — would pay this tax. Where on earth will these governments GET this money to PAY these taxes? And if Fairtax were honest and transparent — why is it NO city or state or county has ANY idea these clever boys at Fairtax are pushing this plan to tax them. If Fairtax were transparent – wouldnt everyone know what the plan is?

2009-05-16T09:23:02-07:00

22407

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:25:15-07:00

8593

425967

Missouri (the show me state) passed its state version of the fairtax in its house and its version of the fairtax sits currently in its senate. Kansas, and New Hampshire are getting close to passing their own versions of the a fairtax sales tax with prebate. Your accusations that states and city's are unaware they would be taxed under a fairtax are demonstrable false

Missouri (the show me state) passed its state version of the fairtax in its house and its version of the fairtax sits currently in its senate. Kansas, and New Hampshire are getting close to passing their own versions of the a fairtax sales tax with prebate. Your accusations that states and city’s are unaware they would be taxed under a fairtax are demonstrable false

2009-05-16T14:36:29-07:00

22432

true

false

deleted

2009-05-18T14:25:15-07:00

1378

425967

2009-05-16T14:37:29-07:00

22433

true

false

deleted

2009-05-18T14:25:15-07:00

1378

425967

Mr. Nonsense Missouri (the show me state) passed its state version of the fairtax in its house and its version of the fairtax sits currently in its senate. Kansas, and New Hampshire are getting close to passing their own versions of the a fairtax sales tax with prebate. Your accusations that states and city's are unaware they would be taxed under a fairtax are demonstrable false Some may think it strange to collect a sale tax on government consumption but it is just the same, and no less strange then government collecting taxes on private profits resulting from its purchases or collecting taxes on wages the federal government pays its employees. It needs to be said again and again that the fairtax "REPLACES" the current revenue streams that come from the income, capitol gains corporate income, and payroll taxes.

Mr. Nonsense Missouri (the show me state) passed its state version of the fairtax in its house and its version of the fairtax sits currently in its senate. Kansas, and New Hampshire are getting close to passing their own versions of the a fairtax sales tax with prebate. Your accusations that states and city’s are unaware they would be taxed under a fairtax are demonstrable false Some may think it strange to collect a sale tax on government consumption but it is just the same, and no less strange then government collecting taxes on private profits resulting from its purchases or collecting taxes on wages the federal government pays its employees. It needs to be said again and again that the fairtax “REPLACES” the current revenue streams that come from the income, capitol gains corporate income, and payroll taxes.

2009-05-16T14:44:24-07:00

22434

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:25:16-07:00

1378

425967

"why is it NO city or state or county has ANY idea these clever boys at Fairtax are pushing this plan to tax them." Because there is no chance of HR25 ever being enacted so it's not even on the radar screen for most Americans. It's would be a radical and uncertain change, so if it were ever to get real attention in political debates, it would be brushed aside like Steve Forbes' flat tax was. But these debates are still useful. I've learned enough about the fair tax to understand its flaws. I've heard the talking points and ad hominem tactics to know what comes next in a debate. Like people who believe in Bigfoot, ghosts, and extraterrestrials, supporters of the Fair Tax are mostly harmless. I'm pretty sure, though, that families of Bigfoot will be delivering the Watchtower in Miami before HR25 is ever enacted.

“why is it NO city or state or county has ANY idea these clever boys at Fairtax are pushing this plan to tax them.” Because there is no chance of HR25 ever being enacted so it’s not even on the radar screen for most Americans. It’s would be a radical and uncertain change, so if it were ever to get real attention in political debates, it would be brushed aside like Steve Forbes’ flat tax was. But these debates are still useful. I’ve learned enough about the fair tax to understand its flaws. I’ve heard the talking points and ad hominem tactics to know what comes next in a debate. Like people who believe in Bigfoot, ghosts, and extraterrestrials, supporters of the Fair Tax are mostly harmless. I’m pretty sure, though, that families of Bigfoot will be delivering the Watchtower in Miami before HR25 is ever enacted.

2009-05-16T14:51:25-07:00

22437

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:25:16-07:00

1372

425967

recluse although you may not support the fairtax for your reasons the movement grows and grows and there will be changes, you cant stop it that 3 out of 4 who hear it like it.

recluse although you may not support the fairtax for your reasons the movement grows and grows and there will be changes, you cant stop it that 3 out of 4 who hear it like it.

2009-05-16T15:01:26-07:00

22439

true

false

deleted

2009-05-18T14:25:16-07:00

1378

425967

Recluse although you may not support the fairtax for your reasons ( gives politicians power to regulate behavior though taxes), the fairtax movement grows and grows and there will be changes, you cant change it that 3 out of 4 who hear it like it. Some may think it strange to collect a sale tax on government consumption but it is just the same, and no less strange then government collecting taxes on private profits resulting from its purchases or collecting taxes on wages the federal government pays its employees.

Recluse although you may not support the fairtax for your reasons ( gives politicians power to regulate behavior though taxes), the fairtax movement grows and grows and there will be changes, you cant change it that 3 out of 4 who hear it like it. Some may think it strange to collect a sale tax on government consumption but it is just the same, and no less strange then government collecting taxes on private profits resulting from its purchases or collecting taxes on wages the federal government pays its employees.

2009-05-16T15:05:15-07:00

22440

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:25:16-07:00

1378

425967

Recluse -- no -- sorry. The reason Fairtax never admits that its really a huge shift in taxes to cities and states, is because they don't dare tell anyone. No governor mayor or legislator has any idea that Fairtax would make them pay massive taxes on all government spending. In 13 years, Fairtax has never told one mayor about this. Not one governor. Not one state legislator. Yet its the biggest funding mechanism they have. Fairtax would work fine, if we cut spending by 80%. But the amount you could raise from a 23% sales tax on real people, is a fraction of what the government now spends. Fairtax has counted as income rather surprising "reveneue streams" -- mostly from the government itself. Furthermore, it has hidden in the fine print, in the back of its books, admission that it taxes the government at all levels. Every county, every township, every police department, ever Veterans hospital, every prison, every state, every everything would be paying massive taxes. No government entity pays a sales tax now. If you can make them pay a sales tax -- why not make them pay an income tax? Its exactly as rational. Fairtax supporters insist that they can make the government pay itself -- and count that as income -- because the government pays itself now, in embedded taxes. Well, it doesnt matter if embedded taxes are a valid way to state that principle. It's meaningless. Just because the government USE TO pay a tax in that "embedded" way , does NOT mean it can just now start to write itself massive checks, and pretend thats income. The two issues are totally separate. Even if the government DID pay itself in a round about way, has nothing to do with how a check is presented and paid for by the US Treasury. You cant just start writing yourself checks, and say "Well, people used to pay me in a embedded way, so I will just start writing myself checks"

Recluse <del>- no -</del> sorry. The reason Fairtax never admits that its really a huge shift in taxes to cities and states, is because they don’t dare tell anyone. No governor mayor or legislator has any idea that Fairtax would make them pay massive taxes on all government spending. In 13 years, Fairtax has never told one mayor about this. Not one governor. Not one state legislator. Yet its the biggest funding mechanism they have. Fairtax would work fine, if we cut spending by 80%. But the amount you could raise from a 23% sales tax on real people, is a fraction of what the government now spends. Fairtax has counted as income rather surprising “reveneue streams” — mostly from the government itself. Furthermore, it has hidden in the fine print, in the back of its books, admission that it taxes the government at all levels. Every county, every township, every police department, ever Veterans hospital, every prison, every state, every everything would be paying massive taxes. No government entity pays a sales tax now. If you can make them pay a sales tax — why not make them pay an income tax? Its exactly as rational. Fairtax supporters insist that they can make the government pay itself — and count that as income — because the government pays itself now, in embedded taxes. Well, it doesnt matter if embedded taxes are a valid way to state that principle. It’s meaningless. Just because the government USE TO pay a tax in that “embedded” way , does NOT mean it can just now start to write itself massive checks, and pretend thats income. The two issues are totally separate. Even if the government DID pay itself in a round about way, has nothing to do with how a check is presented and paid for by the US Treasury. You cant just start writing yourself checks, and say “Well, people used to pay me in a embedded way, so I will just start writing myself checks”

2009-05-16T17:04:21-07:00

22447

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:25:16-07:00

8593

425967

Mr Nonsense Presently if you purchase for $100, a chair i make from a tree in my back yard, I'll end up paying roughly $22 in income taxes and self employment taxes. Under the fairtax you still pay $100 and i will remit about $22.75% in sales tax. Either way as my customer, roughly 22% of what you payed is taxes. Be they income and other federal taxes, or a national sales tax. You need to understand that the fairtax replaces most current federal taxes, not adds too them Same condition applies to Federal and State purchases. Roughly 22% of all they purchases pays taxes. Be they income and other federal taxes, or a national sales tax

Mr Nonsense Presently if you purchase for $100, a chair i make from a tree in my back yard, I’ll end up paying roughly $22 in income taxes and self employment taxes. Under the fairtax you still pay $100 and i will remit about $22.75% in sales tax. Either way as my customer, roughly 22% of what you payed is taxes. Be they income and other federal taxes, or a national sales tax. You need to understand that the fairtax replaces most current federal taxes, not adds too them Same condition applies to Federal and State purchases. Roughly 22% of all they purchases pays taxes. Be they income and other federal taxes, or a national sales tax

2009-05-17T11:55:14-07:00

22487

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:25:17-07:00

1378

425967

It doesnt matter what condition you think applies to the government -- Fairtax fine print has all cities, states counties, all government agencies, of any kind, paying this massive new tax. Not only does Fairtax fine print have all cities counties paying this tax -- Fairtax DOESNT TELL THEM. Not one governor, not one mayor, not ONE state legislator knows about Fairtax plan to make them pay this tax on all their purchases. Why hasn't Fairtax made this clear to ANY state official in ANY state? Fairtax has had 13 yeras -- and not ONE official in any state knkows Fairtax would collect from them a massive sales tax? Oh sure -- Faritax says states and cities won't mind - they will save more than that. Well, let the states and cities know about your deal. You haven't told them, That's my point. For 13 years Fairtax has let this tid bit stay in the back of their books, apparently hoping no one would notice. But that's what Fairtax is -- a massive tax shift to city and state government -- as if those levels of government won't have to pass along the cost. Shame on Fairtax for 13 years of pretense and deception.

It doesnt matter what condition you think applies to the government — Fairtax fine print has all cities, states counties, all government agencies, of any kind, paying this massive new tax. Not only does Fairtax fine print have all cities counties paying this tax — Fairtax DOESNT TELL THEM. Not one governor, not one mayor, not ONE state legislator knows about Fairtax plan to make them pay this tax on all their purchases. Why hasn’t Fairtax made this clear to ANY state official in ANY state? Fairtax has had 13 yeras — and not ONE official in any state knkows Fairtax would collect from them a massive sales tax? Oh sure — Faritax says states and cities won’t mind – they will save more than that. Well, let the states and cities know about your deal. You haven’t told them, That’s my point. For 13 years Fairtax has let this tid bit stay in the back of their books, apparently hoping no one would notice. But that’s what Fairtax is — a massive tax shift to city and state government — as if those levels of government won’t have to pass along the cost. Shame on Fairtax for 13 years of pretense and deception.

2009-05-19T11:48:04-07:00

22701

false

true

published

2009-05-19T11:48:04-07:00

8593

425967

Mr Nonsense You suggest that the fairtax is a â€œNEWâ€* tax, suggesting the fairtax is a tax that is in addition to what cities already spend. That is your stumbling block you trip over every time. The fairtax is â€œNEWâ€* in that it â€œREPLACESâ€* the present taxes(cost) government already pays that is embedded in the cost of federal taxes in federal employee wages, and the cost of taxes on profits from purchases from the private sector.

Mr Nonsense You suggest that the fairtax is a â€œNEWâ€* tax, suggesting the fairtax is a tax that is in addition to what cities already spend. That is your stumbling block you trip over every time. The fairtax is â€œNEWâ€* in that it â€œREPLACESâ€* the present taxes(cost) government already pays that is embedded in the cost of federal taxes in federal employee wages, and the cost of taxes on profits from purchases from the private sector.

2009-05-19T14:42:02-07:00

22717

true

false

deleted

2009-05-19T14:48:37-07:00

1378

425967

Mr. Nonsense, The new Paul Revere â€œThe British are coming. The British are comingâ€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.. By the way did you know the British are comingâ€*. Thank you for the warning, but we already know the fairtax taxes government purchases just as the income tax is a revenue stream amounting to some 22% of all government spending that pays the cost of federal taxes on government employee wages, and the embedded cost of taxes on private profits. You suggest that the fairtax is a â€œNEWâ€* tax, suggesting the fairtax is a tax that is in addition to what cities already spend. That is your stumbling block you trip over every time. The fairtax is â€œNEWâ€* in that it â€œREPLACESâ€* the present taxes(cost) government already pays that is embedded in the cost of federal taxes in federal employee wages, and the cost of taxes on profits from purchases from the private sector.

Mr. Nonsense, The new Paul Revere â€œThe British are coming. The British are comingâ€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.. By the way did you know the British are comingâ€*. Thank you for the warning, but we already know the fairtax taxes government purchases just as the income tax is a revenue stream amounting to some 22% of all government spending that pays the cost of federal taxes on government employee wages, and the embedded cost of taxes on private profits. You suggest that the fairtax is a â€œNEWâ€* tax, suggesting the fairtax is a tax that is in addition to what cities already spend. That is your stumbling block you trip over every time. The fairtax is â€œNEWâ€* in that it â€œREPLACESâ€* the present taxes(cost) government already pays that is embedded in the cost of federal taxes in federal employee wages, and the cost of taxes on profits from purchases from the private sector.

2009-05-19T14:48:31-07:00

22722

true

false

published

2009-05-19T14:48:31-07:00

1378

425967

You already know the cities, states, police departments, veterans hospitals, townships -- every government agency and entity at all levels have to pay this tax? Oh thats a relief. Now tell me something -- why in 13 years, haven't you told THEM? Why keep in secret in the back of two books, years apart, in one or two vague sentences? I will tell you why you didn't dare tell cities and states about this massive tax you are going to put on them -- cause cities and states would scream bloody murder. SO you are telling me you KNOW cities and states will have to pay massive taxes -- but the mayors don't know. The governos don't know. The state legislators don't know. But you know? Well them, you better rush right out and tell the cities and states about this trillion dollar plus tax you got for them. Start with California. Tell Arnold. Tell Arnold your Fairtax plan would tax him 200 billion in sales taxes. Cause you see -- Arnold doesn't know about your little plan. Arnold is begging Obama for pocket change -- and your plan is to make California PAY 200 billion in taxes to the federal government? And every city in CA will have to do the same? Well reallyl, you need to tell the cites and counties in California. They need your insights. For some reason -- can't imagine what that would be -- Fairtax forgot to tell the cities and states about this.

You already know the cities, states, police departments, veterans hospitals, townships — every government agency and entity at all levels have to pay this tax? Oh thats a relief. Now tell me something — why in 13 years, haven’t you told THEM? Why keep in secret in the back of two books, years apart, in one or two vague sentences? I will tell you why you didn’t dare tell cities and states about this massive tax you are going to put on them — cause cities and states would scream bloody murder. SO you are telling me you KNOW cities and states will have to pay massive taxes — but the mayors don’t know. The governos don’t know. The state legislators don’t know. But you know? Well them, you better rush right out and tell the cities and states about this trillion dollar plus tax you got for them. Start with California. Tell Arnold. Tell Arnold your Fairtax plan would tax him 200 billion in sales taxes. Cause you see — Arnold doesn’t know about your little plan. Arnold is begging Obama for pocket change — and your plan is to make California PAY 200 billion in taxes to the federal government? And every city in CA will have to do the same? Well reallyl, you need to tell the cites and counties in California. They need your insights. For some reason — can’t imagine what that would be — Fairtax forgot to tell the cities and states about this.

2009-05-19T21:00:43-07:00

22749

false

true

published

2009-05-19T21:00:43-07:00

8593

425967

You have no foundation claim we have hidden the fairtax from cities and state government. Not every one has herd of the fairtax yet and we enjoy sharing it with every one including city and state governments, as a mater of fact state versions of the fairtax are close to being passed in several states. Federal Income and other federal taxes embedded in local, state, and federal purchases as well as government employee wages amounting to some 22% of governments budgets. and collected with a high cost of some $350 billion annually in tax preparation spread out out over 305 million Americans though individual tax preparation and purchases from business tax preparation.

You have no foundation claim we have hidden the fairtax from cities and state government. Not every one has herd of the fairtax yet and we enjoy sharing it with every one including city and state governments, as a mater of fact state versions of the fairtax are close to being passed in several states. Federal Income and other federal taxes embedded in local, state, and federal purchases as well as government employee wages amounting to some 22% of governments budgets. and collected with a high cost of some $350 billion annually in tax preparation spread out out over 305 million Americans though individual tax preparation and purchases from business tax preparation.

2009-05-20T06:12:31-07:00

22761

true

false

published

2009-05-20T06:12:31-07:00

1378

425967

yes â€“ Fairtax has hidden its biggest feature â€” a tax on all cities and states. Fairtax mentions that in the fine print â€” in the backs of their two major books. In the Fairtax book, page 148 â€œThe federal government itself will be a MAJOR taxpayerâ€*. Thatâ€™s just federal. In Fairtax Answers Book, pages 138-142, we find out every city and state pay it too, every government entity, at virtually every level. If you havenâ€™t been hiding this for 13 years â€” why donâ€™t states and cities know about your plan? So your books say it â€” in fine print. Your math assumes these cities and states will pay you this massive tax â€” and your economist supporter admits cities and states would indeed have to pay a huge sales tax. SO why donâ€™t the cities and states know that? I will tell you why â€” becuase Fairtax hid it.

yes â€“ Fairtax has hidden its biggest feature â€” a tax on all cities and states. Fairtax mentions that in the fine print â€” in the backs of their two major books. In the Fairtax book, page 148 â€œThe federal government itself will be a MAJOR taxpayerâ€*. Thatâ€™s just federal. In Fairtax Answers Book, pages 138-142, we find out every city and state pay it too, every government entity, at virtually every level. If you havenâ€™t been hiding this for 13 years â€” why donâ€™t states and cities know about your plan? So your books say it â€” in fine print. Your math assumes these cities and states will pay you this massive tax â€” and your economist supporter admits cities and states would indeed have to pay a huge sales tax. SO why donâ€™t the cities and states know that? I will tell you why â€” becuase Fairtax hid it.

2009-05-20T21:04:53-07:00

22850

false

true

published

2009-05-20T21:04:53-07:00

8593

425967

Mr Nonsense Your point is moot and inconsequential the federal income tax already collects tax from city and state government spending (purchases and employees wages)

Mr Nonsense Your point is moot and inconsequential the federal income tax already collects tax from city and state government spending (purchases and employees wages)

2009-05-20T21:37:04-07:00

22854

true

false

deleted

2009-05-20T21:41:01-07:00

1378

425967

Mr. Nonsense Your point is moot and inconsequential. The federal income tax already collects tax from city and state government spending (profits from purchases and government employees wages)

Mr. Nonsense Your point is moot and inconsequential. The federal income tax already collects tax from city and state government spending (profits from purchases and government employees wages)

2009-05-20T21:40:55-07:00

22856

true

false

published

2009-05-20T21:40:55-07:00

1378

425967

Inconsequential ? California would owe the federal government 200 billion in sales taxes if Fairtax passed. Every city in CA would owe massive sales taxes. :Plus all the people. Fairta has the BIGGEST tax on earth - and they don't MENTION it? This would be the biggest expense cities or states have -- bigger than medical, bigger than pensions -- and you don't MENTION it? You would charge Califorian 200 billion in sales tax -- but CA doesnt know it. Go tell them. Go tell every city in the state. Then get back to me.

Inconsequential ? California would owe the federal government 200 billion in sales taxes if Fairtax passed. Every city in CA would owe massive sales taxes. :Plus all the people. Fairta has the BIGGEST tax on earth – and they don’t MENTION it? This would be the biggest expense cities or states have — bigger than medical, bigger than pensions — and you don’t MENTION it? You would charge Califorian 200 billion in sales tax — but CA doesnt know it. Go tell them. Go tell every city in the state. Then get back to me.

2009-05-21T21:03:38-07:00

22982

false

true

published

2009-05-21T21:03:38-07:00

8593

425967

Mr. Nonsense, If your saying California would have to pay 200 billion in sales taxes, then I will tell you they are already paying some 200 billion to pay for current federal taxes embedded in the cost of it government employees wages and purchases. Present taxes cost California 200 billion or national sales tax cost California 200 billion. No mater hour you cut the cheese 200 billion is 200 billion. Because the fairtax doesn't change the cost to California from federal taxes, the change is inconsequential.

Mr. Nonsense, If your saying California would have to pay 200 billion in sales taxes, then I will tell you they are already paying some 200 billion to pay for current federal taxes embedded in the cost of it government employees wages and purchases. Present taxes cost California 200 billion or national sales tax cost California 200 billion. No mater hour you cut the cheese 200 billion is 200 billion. Because the fairtax doesn’t change the cost to California from federal taxes, the change is inconsequential.

2009-05-21T21:23:37-07:00

22983

true

false

published

2009-05-21T21:23:37-07:00

1378

425967

Fairtax is a massive hidden tax -- the Fairtax leaders are not serious about passing it -- they are terrified their fine print will be exposed. Its a massive tax on cities and states -- that they just mention in passing, in the fine print. But this would be a new and unprecedented tax on cities and states. Fairtax should not hide the biggest revenue source in the fine print.

Fairtax is a massive hidden tax — the Fairtax leaders are not serious about passing it — they are terrified their fine print will be exposed. Its a massive tax on cities and states — that they just mention in passing, in the fine print. But this would be a new and unprecedented tax on cities and states. Fairtax should not hide the biggest revenue source in the fine print.

2009-05-24T15:43:27-07:00

23201

false

true

published

2009-05-24T15:43:27-07:00

8593

425967

im saying Fairtax isnt going to make California - or any state - pay billions of dollars in taxes to the federal government. Its not going to happen. Fairtax hid this nonnsense in their fine print because they KNOW it's a farce. So you think Califromia will pay 200 billion in taxes to the federal government? Think again. YOu think every city in CA will pay this massive tax to the government? Think again . Its total nonsense -- that's why Fairtax hid it.

im saying Fairtax isnt going to make California – or any state – pay billions of dollars in taxes to the federal government. Its not going to happen. Fairtax hid this nonnsense in their fine print because they KNOW it’s a farce. So you think Califromia will pay 200 billion in taxes to the federal government? Think again. YOu think every city in CA will pay this massive tax to the government? Think again . Its total nonsense — that’s why Fairtax hid it.

2009-05-24T15:45:17-07:00

23202

false

true

published

2009-05-24T15:45:17-07:00

8593

2009-06-05T18:37:27-07:00

2009-03-23T05:21:33-07:00

415689

false

763

active

6244

415689

Right now I pay sales tax as well as income tax for a rough total of about 44% of my income. I would much rather pay a 20-25% sals tax and have 100% of my income. Also remember, the tax is on NEW items, there is no sales tax on used items..like a used car for example.

Right now I pay sales tax as well as income tax for a rough total of about 44% of my income. I would much rather pay a 20-25% sals tax and have 100% of my income. Also remember, the tax is on NEW items, there is no sales tax on used items..like a used car for example.

2009-06-01T09:37:24-07:00

23834

true

false

published

2009-06-01T09:37:24-07:00

6244

415689

All of the talking points above are patently false. And with regard to Mr. Bartlett's article FairTax, Flawed Tax, he claims the Fair Tax plan originated with the Church of Scientology. He was soundly corrected. He had Americans for Fair Taxation (AFFT) confused with Citizens for an Alternative Tax System (CATS). Needless to say, AFFT and CATS were both very surprised by Mr. Bartlett's blatant mischaracterization of the Fair Tax plan. He also lacked the integrity and fortitude to publicly admit his mistake, let alone apologize for such poor research on his part. Instead, he's been on the Fair Tax attack ever since, trying to hide the egg on his face, and evading the scorching letter written to him from Leo Linnbeck, founder of AFFT. That letter provided the research and history of the Fair Tax. It's all been documented since the inception of Fair Tax. From that point on, Mr. Bartlett lost any credibility he may have had on this subject. Now I tend to cross check anything he writes. And where on earth do people come with this added 30% to 89% taxes on all purchases?!? How can any self respecting individual with any integrity spread such falsehoods!? The prices of items will stay virtually the same. One has to understand imbedded taxes, what they mean now and what they mean under the Fair Tax. People, get the facts. Go to FairTax.org. Call 'em and ask questions. Or go to fairtaxnation.com. Read the forums, participate and ask questions. You'll get the facts instead of these insidious and outlandish rumors and allegations. FairTax is the only thing that can save our economy. Otherwise, it'll completely derail in 2 to 5 years. We simply cannot sustain the spending with spiraling job losses and debt, flushing jobs out of the country instead of welcoming them in, flushing trillions into offshore tax havens rather than welcoming it back, and putting more money back in the hands of the consumers.

All of the talking points above are patently false. And with regard to Mr. Bartlett’s article FairTax, Flawed Tax, he claims the Fair Tax plan originated with the Church of Scientology. He was soundly corrected. He had Americans for Fair Taxation (AFFT) confused with Citizens for an Alternative Tax System (CATS). Needless to say, AFFT and CATS were both very surprised by Mr. Bartlett’s blatant mischaracterization of the Fair Tax plan. He also lacked the integrity and fortitude to publicly admit his mistake, let alone apologize for such poor research on his part. Instead, he’s been on the Fair Tax attack ever since, trying to hide the egg on his face, and evading the scorching letter written to him from Leo Linnbeck, founder of AFFT. That letter provided the research and history of the Fair Tax. It’s all been documented since the inception of Fair Tax. From that point on, Mr. Bartlett lost any credibility he may have had on this subject. Now I tend to cross check anything he writes. And where on earth do people come with this added 30% to 89% taxes on all purchases?!? How can any self respecting individual with any integrity spread such falsehoods!? The prices of items will stay virtually the same. One has to understand imbedded taxes, what they mean now and what they mean under the Fair Tax. People, get the facts. Go to FairTax.org. Call ‘em and ask questions. Or go to fairtaxnation.com. Read the forums, participate and ask questions. You’ll get the facts instead of these insidious and outlandish rumors and allegations. FairTax is the only thing that can save our economy. Otherwise, it’ll completely derail in 2 to 5 years. We simply cannot sustain the spending with spiraling job losses and debt, flushing jobs out of the country instead of welcoming them in, flushing trillions into offshore tax havens rather than welcoming it back, and putting more money back in the hands of the consumers.

2009-06-05T18:37:27-07:00

24118

true

false

published

2009-06-05T18:37:27-07:00

8266

2009-02-13T15:10:48-08:00

362640

false

763

1158

active

362640

fixing the source link, and indicating it's in opposition. fairtaxers- please stop trying to mess with the system. both sides have a right to make their points.

fixing the source link, and indicating it’s in opposition. fairtaxers- please stop trying to mess with the system. both sides have a right to make their points.

2009-02-13T15:10:48-08:00

11017

false

published

2009-05-18T14:17:41-07:00

362640

Sorry, I didn't know it was going to ERASE what was there. "Is this factually inaccurate? Can you write it better? Go ahead and revise this talking point..." That suggests that perhaps I should correct it. I meant no disrespect.

Sorry, I didn’t know it was going to ERASE what was there. “Is this factually inaccurate? Can you write it better? Go ahead and revise this talking point…” That suggests that perhaps I should correct it. I meant no disrespect.

2009-02-13T15:37:47-08:00

11019

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:17:41-07:00

6005

362640

No problem. There is a lot of controversy on this particular talking point. The change you suggested should be a new talking point, in support of the fair tax. (actually, I'm sure it's already been stated in the pro-fair tax talking points, there are a lot of them already.)

No problem. There is a lot of controversy on this particular talking point. The change you suggested should be a new talking point, in support of the fair tax. (actually, I’m sure it’s already been stated in the pro-fair tax talking points, there are a lot of them already.)

2009-02-13T15:42:21-08:00

11020

false

published

2009-05-18T14:17:41-07:00

2009-02-13T14:44:19-08:00

2009-02-13T14:44:18-08:00

362633

false

763

1156

active

6005

362633

Because the point is just plain wrong.

Because the point is just plain wrong.

2009-02-13T14:44:19-08:00

11012

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:17:40-07:00

6005

2009-01-21T23:31:36-08:00

2009-01-21T18:13:32-08:00

307106

false

763

active

2704

307106

Sorry, but HR 25 is written as 23%. Brookings Institution published 2 opinion article from 1998 by William Gale. Gale does not mention the FairTax. The 57% was in a memo from Lindy Paull Chief of Staff of the Joint Committe to John Buckley and does NOT specify where the number came from. Treasury Department was NOT referencing the FairTax. In conclusion, all those high numbers are wrong and people need to stop quoting Bruce Bartlett.

Sorry, but HR 25 is written as 23%. Brookings Institution published 2 opinion article from 1998 by William Gale. Gale does not mention the FairTax. The 57% was in a memo from Lindy Paull Chief of Staff of the Joint Committe to John Buckley and does NOT specify where the number came from. Treasury Department was NOT referencing the FairTax. In conclusion, all those high numbers are wrong and people need to stop quoting Bruce Bartlett.

2009-01-21T23:31:36-08:00

9066

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:35-07:00

2704

307106

This whole discussion has shown how ill informed people are. I'm glad it's here. People need to get more informed about the issues now facing us besides, NPR, MOVEON and the Alphabet Soup media.. There will be no FairTax under the Democrats, they are consumed by the same arguments offered here by the opposers.. The only way to bring this to the light of day, is have a nationwide series of Boston Tea Parties, burning our 67,000 page tax code. we could have the fires burn year round if we added all the compliance notices the IRS sends out each year. It is measured in tons.. paper work alone has a mighty big carbon footprint... Talk about "de carbonziing" our society? Eliminate our income tax code.. too much common sense makes the socialist's heads hurt.. "I got a headache", they say, "stop talking!" Father O'Malley www.fatheromalley.com

This whole discussion has shown how ill informed people are. I’m glad it’s here. People need to get more informed about the issues now facing us besides, NPR, MOVEON and the Alphabet Soup media.. There will be no FairTax under the Democrats, they are consumed by the same arguments offered here by the opposers.. The only way to bring this to the light of day, is have a nationwide series of Boston Tea Parties, burning our 67,000 page tax code. we could have the fires burn year round if we added all the compliance notices the IRS sends out each year. It is measured in tons.. paper work alone has a mighty big carbon footprint… Talk about “de carbonziing” our society? Eliminate our income tax code.. too much common sense makes the socialist’s heads hurt.. “I got a headache”, they say, “stop talking!” Father O’Malley <a href="http://www.fatheromalley.com" rel="nofollow">www.fatheromalley.com</a>

2009-01-22T07:47:57-08:00

9080

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:36-07:00

1546

307106

I totally agree with Father O'Malley. The idea of a 30% to 89% consumption tax is totally off base - a giant lie. If you read the two books (best sellers) that were written about the fair tax it is easy to see that this plan is the only way to save or economy. No bailout needed just the FairTax.

I totally agree with Father O’Malley. The idea of a 30% to 89% consumption tax is totally off base – a giant lie. If you read the two books (best sellers) that were written about the fair tax it is easy to see that this plan is the only way to save or economy. No bailout needed just the FairTax.

2009-01-24T14:08:38-08:00

9279

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:43-07:00

6529

307106

It's sometimes astounding to see the ignorance shown when the largest database in human history is available for all to look at. There are economists with peer reviewed papers that show the whole boring detail of the FairTax rate being 23% inclusive. We must keep in mind that the main educator of America is government owned schools. Just show them the facts, since the school teach them.

It’s sometimes astounding to see the ignorance shown when the largest database in human history is available for all to look at. There are economists with peer reviewed papers that show the whole boring detail of the FairTax rate being 23% inclusive. We must keep in mind that the main educator of America is government owned schools. Just show them the facts, since the school teach them.

2009-01-24T14:42:48-08:00

9286

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:43-07:00

2704

307106

The comments are exactly right, people will hear what they want to hear. People unfortunately at this time in our history listen to fear and not to reasoned factual dialogue. People should take the time to study Fairtax.org, and the leadership behind it. Look at our current tax system, and look at what the long term impact from the "stimulis package" will be when it comes time to pay it off... The same group, the middle class will bear the burden through higher taxes. Keep up the hard work gang, support the FairTax.

The comments are exactly right, people will hear what they want to hear. People unfortunately at this time in our history listen to fear and not to reasoned factual dialogue. People should take the time to study Fairtax.org, and the leadership behind it. Look at our current tax system, and look at what the long term impact from the “stimulis package” will be when it comes time to pay it off… The same group, the middle class will bear the burden through higher taxes. Keep up the hard work gang, support the FairTax.

2009-01-28T20:15:27-08:00

9719

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:57-07:00

6380

307106

Absolutely amazing. Some people have no shame at all. There is a book out called the "Fair Tax" that completely and clearly spells out the fair tax rate is 23 %. Also, clearly explains how the tax works. The same so-called Congress Tax experts says we have a Social Security Fund. Yeah right!!!! Why is Social Security in the red if we got all these trustworthy and honest bureaucrats taking care of everything. Wake up People.

Absolutely amazing. Some people have no shame at all. There is a book out called the “Fair Tax” that completely and clearly spells out the fair tax rate is 23 %. Also, clearly explains how the tax works. The same so-called Congress Tax experts says we have a Social Security Fund. Yeah right!!!! Why is Social Security in the red if we got all these trustworthy and honest bureaucrats taking care of everything. Wake up People.

2009-02-02T16:37:07-08:00

10118

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:17:09-07:00

4178

2009-01-08T22:43:05-08:00

2009-01-08T22:28:08-08:00

277209

false

763

active

6711

277209

I say if it takes an 89% sales tax to equal the amount needed to fund the government the same as now--then that tells me that it is costing us 89% NOW and if you add up all the taxes we do pay that the FairTax will eliminate--not just payroll taxes and social security and medicare deductions--but people forget and do not see that every product they buy now from a loaf of bread to a house has imbedded invisible taxes by as much as 20%. This also does not take into account that the millions of illegal aliens living in this country that pay NO taxes and the millions of foreign travelers that pay NO taxes will NOW be contributing to our tax system which will lower the taxes needed to pay by law abiding Americans. Wake up Americans...we are paying far more than you think you are paying in taxes! I believe the FairTax with the millions they invested in research with well known scholars and professionals that say a 23% tax at the cash register will be equivalent to the taxes needed to keep up with the ridiculous spending habits of today's government (that is another comment). But, the FairTax will help every American see at every cash register just how much the government is costing us and with that visibility--hopefully, Americans will get active and vote out those pork-barrel politicians and elect those that can be fiscal with our money. The ISSUE is not 23% or 89%. The issue is what are we actually spending now! I do not think their is a professional anywhere that can answer that question effectively or definitively because it is riddled in 70,000 pages of tax codes and taxes at so many levels of our economy and production it would be almost impossible to accurately say or calculate. All the more reason to pass the FairTax and eliminate all the hidden, corrupt, lobbying taxes we pay now and level the playing field for all Americans and untax the poor, bring back economic prosperity and make America the greatest tax haven in the world so foreigners will start flooding our shores with their investments and coin a new term "in-sourcing" to America.

I say if it takes an 89% sales tax to equal the amount needed to fund the government the same as now—then that tells me that it is costing us 89% NOW and if you add up all the taxes we do pay that the FairTax will eliminate—not just payroll taxes and social security and medicare deductions—but people forget and do not see that every product they buy now from a loaf of bread to a house has imbedded invisible taxes by as much as 20%. This also does not take into account that the millions of illegal aliens living in this country that pay NO taxes and the millions of foreign travelers that pay NO taxes will NOW be contributing to our tax system which will lower the taxes needed to pay by law abiding Americans. Wake up Americans…we are paying far more than you think you are paying in taxes! I believe the FairTax with the millions they invested in research with well known scholars and professionals that say a 23% tax at the cash register will be equivalent to the taxes needed to keep up with the ridiculous spending habits of today’s government (that is another comment). But, the FairTax will help every American see at every cash register just how much the government is costing us and with that visibility—hopefully, Americans will get active and vote out those pork-barrel politicians and elect those that can be fiscal with our money. The ISSUE is not 23% or 89%. The issue is what are we actually spending now! I do not think their is a professional anywhere that can answer that question effectively or definitively because it is riddled in 70,000 pages of tax codes and taxes at so many levels of our economy and production it would be almost impossible to accurately say or calculate. All the more reason to pass the FairTax and eliminate all the hidden, corrupt, lobbying taxes we pay now and level the playing field for all Americans and untax the poor, bring back economic prosperity and make America the greatest tax haven in the world so foreigners will start flooding our shores with their investments and coin a new term “in-sourcing” to America.

2009-01-08T22:43:05-08:00

8172

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:00-07:00

6711

277209

Right on here.

Right on here.

2009-01-13T11:38:11-08:00

8378

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:11-07:00

6585

277209

Nice to see if laid out in plain English. But we'll still get the people throwing around the 30% tax rate and all the misconceptions they hear on the news <lol>

Nice to see if laid out in plain English. But we’ll still get the people throwing around the 30% tax rate and all the misconceptions they hear on the news <lol>

2009-01-13T12:22:16-08:00

8388

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:11-07:00

4634

277209

Excellent work OPC. We are getting clobbered now on our taxes. So time for real change. Obama promised change, but we are not going to get the right kind of change. We are just going to get hope and a new version of the dust bowl/ Great Depression.

Excellent work OPC. We are getting clobbered now on our taxes. So time for real change. Obama promised change, but we are not going to get the right kind of change. We are just going to get hope and a new version of the dust bowl/ Great Depression.

2009-01-24T14:11:43-08:00

9280

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:43-07:00

6529

2009-01-07T16:25:09-08:00

2009-01-06T15:55:22-08:00

271483

false

763

active

3117

271483

Have you read the FairTax book? What is the basis for the numbers you quote?

Have you read the FairTax book? What is the basis for the numbers you quote?

2009-01-07T12:23:37-08:00

8008

true

false

deleted

2009-05-18T14:15:52-07:00

6533

271483

I've read enough on the FairTax site and of others' calculations to recognize that 23% =30%) far understates the real tax rate that will be necessary to provide the same revenue. 23% may be the highest palatable figure, but it doesn't even BEGIN to approach supplying the revenue we need. Are you going to tax churches on their purchases? No? The rate goes up to subsidize them. Are you going to tax schools on their purchases? No? The rate goes up to subsidize them. Are you going to tax nursing home care? No? Ditto. Are you going to tax new homes? No? Ditto. (And if you ARE going to tax new homes, we aren't going to see much housing built; the data I've seen says that normal demand for new housing is 1.7 million units per year. (source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/business/economy/03econ.html). Guess what happens to that demand when we impose even a mere 23%/30% tax on that new house?? And will mortgage lenders finance that 23%? I don't think so! How many people are employed by the residential construction business? Probably more than are employed in the auto industry. Sorry, friends. Your kids want to move out and start their own families? Hope you've got a McMansion with a second kitchen, because there just isn't going to be new construction so that others can move up. And do you think we should be paying 23%/30% more for our cars than we do now? (And will GMAC finance that 23%/30%? How much will most of us need to pay to insure the long period when we are upside down on our car loans?) And when our federal government pays for vehicles, tanks, airplanes, etc., I assume that they (we!) will be paying the 23%/30% on those purchases. No? Raise the rate! And do we assume 100% compliance -- that every corner store, every hot dog vendor, every parking lot owner, every babysitter, every childcare provider, etc., is going to declare 100% of your purchases and forward we-the-people's share into whatever you would like to call the replacement for the IRS. No? Raise the rate to account for the underground economy and the noncompliance. I could continue, but you probably see a pattern here. The proponents haven't got their facts straight. And I haven't even begun to touch the issue that "prebates" at the federal poverty line are far below what the sales taxes would be on a barebones lifestyle in the counties where 95% of us live. Or the fact that the taxes paid by the top 1% of us will drop like a rock, and that the increase will be coming from the bottom 90% of us. And have you looked at the effect on elderly people? Their fixed incomes are not going to go far. "FairTax" may sound really, well, fair. But it is actually worse than our income tax. We're barking up the wrong tree.

I’ve read enough on the FairTax site and of others’ calculations to recognize that 23% =30%) far understates the real tax rate that will be necessary to provide the same revenue. 23% may be the highest palatable figure, but it doesn’t even BEGIN to approach supplying the revenue we need. Are you going to tax churches on their purchases? No? The rate goes up to subsidize them. Are you going to tax schools on their purchases? No? The rate goes up to subsidize them. Are you going to tax nursing home care? No? Ditto. Are you going to tax new homes? No? Ditto. (And if you ARE going to tax new homes, we aren’t going to see much housing built; the data I’ve seen says that normal demand for new housing is 1.7 million units per year. (source: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/business/economy/03econ.html)" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/business/economy/03econ.html)</a>. Guess what happens to that demand when we impose even a mere 23%/30% tax on that new house?? And will mortgage lenders finance that 23%? I don’t think so! How many people are employed by the residential construction business? Probably more than are employed in the auto industry. Sorry, friends. Your kids want to move out and start their own families? Hope you’ve got a McMansion with a second kitchen, because there just isn’t going to be new construction so that others can move up. And do you think we should be paying 23%/30% more for our cars than we do now? (And will GMAC finance that 23%/30%? How much will most of us need to pay to insure the long period when we are upside down on our car loans?) And when our federal government pays for vehicles, tanks, airplanes, etc., I assume that they (we!) will be paying the 23%/30% on those purchases. No? Raise the rate! And do we assume 100% compliance — that every corner store, every hot dog vendor, every parking lot owner, every babysitter, every childcare provider, etc., is going to declare 100% of your purchases and forward we-the-people’s share into whatever you would like to call the replacement for the IRS. No? Raise the rate to account for the underground economy and the noncompliance. I could continue, but you probably see a pattern here. The proponents haven’t got their facts straight. And I haven’t even begun to touch the issue that “prebates” at the federal poverty line are far below what the sales taxes would be on a barebones lifestyle in the counties where 95% of us live. Or the fact that the taxes paid by the top 1% of us will drop like a rock, and that the increase will be coming from the bottom 90% of us. And have you looked at the effect on elderly people? Their fixed incomes are not going to go far. “FairTax” may sound really, well, fair. But it is actually worse than our income tax. We’re barking up the wrong tree.

2009-01-07T16:25:09-08:00

8107

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:55-07:00

6601

271483

lvtfan, there are several points of the FairTax that you are blatantly ignoring. The only exemptions are for education, items purchased to produce other items to sell, and used items. Most, if not all of your exemption examples already have embedded taxes included in their prices, that would be REPLACED by the FairTax. On average, 26% of the price of medical care (leaving insurance aside, for this discussion) represents taxes that someone, somewhere along the lines has to pay. Maybe it's the doctor's own income taxes, maybe it's the taxes the practice had to pay on equipment, maybe it's the taxes their suppliers pay. All those are eliminated, and replaced with the 23% OF THE PRICE for that office visit, urine test, or x-ray. When it comes to new homes, 25% of the price is the embedded taxes. Seems like 23% of the selling price would be about a 2% break. As for mortgage lenders not financing the 23%...do they currently knock off the 25% of the price that comes from taxes, and reduce the amount of the loan based on that? Not likely! The same concept goes for car loans, except at a different (current) rate. Would the government have to pay the tax? It doesn't really matter, since they'd just get it back, once the money cycles back through the system. Do we assume 100% compliance? Of course not. Do we assume a much higher compliance rate than the current system? Do I even have to answer that? Under the current system, it only takes one person's dishonesty to evade taxes: the taxpayer. Under FairTax, it would take both the taxpayer (customer) and the collector (retailer) being dishonest, to evade the single tax. It would be a simple matter to include an incentive for customers to turn in retailers who don't charge the tax. And if a customer tried to get out of paying the tax, an honest retailer would simply refuse to sell to them. Of the companies that would be expected to collect the FairTax, 80% of sales tax collections would come from about 20% of businesses. Think Wal-Mart or Home Depot are going to risk potential multi-million dollar fines for tax evasion? Under the current system, the IRS collects roughly 75% of the taxes owed. Under the FairTax, even if the 80% of businesses that would make up the remaining 20% of sales tax revenue paid NONE of what they owed of the FairTax, that'd be a virtually instantaneous 5% increase in compliance! Considering all the red ink flying around Washington, I think they could find a good use for that extra 5%. Your other "points" are just as easily debunked, but quite honestly, I'm just tired of typing at the moment, so I'll leave them for someone else to refute.

lvtfan, there are several points of the FairTax that you are blatantly ignoring. The only exemptions are for education, items purchased to produce other items to sell, and used items. Most, if not all of your exemption examples already have embedded taxes included in their prices, that would be REPLACED by the FairTax. On average, 26% of the price of medical care (leaving insurance aside, for this discussion) represents taxes that someone, somewhere along the lines has to pay. Maybe it’s the doctor’s own income taxes, maybe it’s the taxes the practice had to pay on equipment, maybe it’s the taxes their suppliers pay. All those are eliminated, and replaced with the 23% OF THE PRICE for that office visit, urine test, or x-ray. When it comes to new homes, 25% of the price is the embedded taxes. Seems like 23% of the selling price would be about a 2% break. As for mortgage lenders not financing the 23%…do they currently knock off the 25% of the price that comes from taxes, and reduce the amount of the loan based on that? Not likely! The same concept goes for car loans, except at a different (current) rate. Would the government have to pay the tax? It doesn’t really matter, since they’d just get it back, once the money cycles back through the system. Do we assume 100% compliance? Of course not. Do we assume a much higher compliance rate than the current system? Do I even have to answer that? Under the current system, it only takes one person’s dishonesty to evade taxes: the taxpayer. Under FairTax, it would take both the taxpayer (customer) and the collector (retailer) being dishonest, to evade the single tax. It would be a simple matter to include an incentive for customers to turn in retailers who don’t charge the tax. And if a customer tried to get out of paying the tax, an honest retailer would simply refuse to sell to them. Of the companies that would be expected to collect the FairTax, 80% of sales tax collections would come from about 20% of businesses. Think Wal-Mart or Home Depot are going to risk potential multi-million dollar fines for tax evasion? Under the current system, the IRS collects roughly 75% of the taxes owed. Under the FairTax, even if the 80% of businesses that would make up the remaining 20% of sales tax revenue paid NONE of what they owed of the FairTax, that’d be a virtually instantaneous 5% increase in compliance! Considering all the red ink flying around Washington, I think they could find a good use for that extra 5%. Your other “points” are just as easily debunked, but quite honestly, I’m just tired of typing at the moment, so I’ll leave them for someone else to refute.

2009-01-10T23:08:25-08:00

8249

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:05-07:00

6740

271483

lvtfan: it is very evident that you have not read nor understand the FairTax. First, 23% is the tax inclusive rate. This is the rate used as it is a direct comparison to the way current income tax rate calculated. Assuming you are in the 25% income tax bracket, for each $100 you earn you pay $25 in income taxes, leaving you with $75. If you calculate the income tax rate on a tax exclusive basis (the way that you derive the 30% FairTax rate) then that 25% tax bracket is actually 33% because $25 is 33% of $75. Are you in the 35% tax bracket? Well, that's almost 54% on a tax exclusive basis ($35 divided by $65). Of course, that's doesn't even include the almost 8% in payroll taxes you pay, Also, since payroll taxes are not deductible from your income taxes, you are paying them with after tax dollars meaning the rate is actually higher than 8% for most people. I'll bet that 23% FairTax rate is starting to look a lot more attractive now. Second, nearly all the reasons you gave for increases would require fundamental changes to the FairTax. Under the FairTax all services and NEW goods sold at the RETAIL level are subject to the FairTax, regardless of who is making the purchase. The government should be neutral, meaning no one should receive special treatment or special tax exemptions. That's how we ended up with over 60,000 pages to the current tax code. (To expand on what k1darkknight said above, education, i.e. tuition, is considered an investment under the FairTax, thus not taxed). And yes, new homes would be subject to the FairTax. What you fail to realize is that when you purchase a home under the current income tax system the price you pay includes the income taxes of the developers, the contractors, the manufacturers of the materials used to build the house, the wholesaler who sold the materials, the shipping companies that deliver the materials, etc, etc, etc. The prices of new homes would decline, as k1darkknight mentioned, by around 25% when these companies no longer had to pay income taxes, resulting in little net change in price. And of course mortgage lenders would include the tax in the loan because it is part of the value of the home. To illustrate my point, let's assume you purchased a new home for $1 million, then decided to sell it the next day. Would you sell the house for $770,000 when the new house next door is still priced at $1 million? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. You would sell it for $1 million and recoup those taxes you paid. k1darkknight already gave an excellent response to your point on 100% compliance. I would only add that under the current tax code there are about 140 million "collection points" for taxes, that is American wage earners and businesses paying income taxes. Under the FairTax the number of collection points would drop to around 20 million. It would be much more likely that a tax cheat would be caught when the number of collection points drops by around 86%. You also mention the underground economy. Do you think that the those people earning a living outside the law (drug dealers or illegal immigrants, for example) are paying any income taxes? Of course not. But those people do purchase goods and services. Under the FairTax, those people would become tax payers, regardless of how or where they earned their money. Now let's take a look at the impact on the poor. To start, they would have the prebate to cover the taxes on purchases up to the poverty level. The poor, just like everyone else, would receive their entire paycheck. No income tax withholding. No 7.6% payroll taxes. Many of the poor pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes. Of course, they will still be entitled to Social Security and Medicare, in effect getting them free. Let's not forget that, like new homes, the price of goods would drop when the embedded taxes are removed. The estimated decline would be about 22% on average, all but negating the FairTax. Much of the same could be said for the elderly who would no longer owe taxes on their investment accounts, pensions, and social security benefits. They would also get the added benefit of the prebate, and again prices would remain very close to where they are today after all the embedded taxes are removed. By all accounts, the poor and the elderly would be much better off under the FairTax. In conclusion, I would really encourage you to actually take the time to visit FairTax.org and/or read The FairTax Book and educate yourself on the topic. While it may not change your mind, I honestly believe that it would, you would at least not be misrepresenting the FairTax because of your lack of knowledge or understanding.

lvtfan: it is very evident that you have not read nor understand the FairTax. First, 23% is the tax inclusive rate. This is the rate used as it is a direct comparison to the way current income tax rate calculated. Assuming you are in the 25% income tax bracket, for each $100 you earn you pay $25 in income taxes, leaving you with $75. If you calculate the income tax rate on a tax exclusive basis (the way that you derive the 30% FairTax rate) then that 25% tax bracket is actually 33% because $25 is 33% of $75. Are you in the 35% tax bracket? Well, that’s almost 54% on a tax exclusive basis ($35 divided by $65). Of course, that’s doesn’t even include the almost 8% in payroll taxes you pay, Also, since payroll taxes are not deductible from your income taxes, you are paying them with after tax dollars meaning the rate is actually higher than 8% for most people. I’ll bet that 23% FairTax rate is starting to look a lot more attractive now. Second, nearly all the reasons you gave for increases would require fundamental changes to the FairTax. Under the FairTax all services and NEW goods sold at the RETAIL level are subject to the FairTax, regardless of who is making the purchase. The government should be neutral, meaning no one should receive special treatment or special tax exemptions. That’s how we ended up with over 60,000 pages to the current tax code. (To expand on what k1darkknight said above, education, i.e. tuition, is considered an investment under the FairTax, thus not taxed). And yes, new homes would be subject to the FairTax. What you fail to realize is that when you purchase a home under the current income tax system the price you pay includes the income taxes of the developers, the contractors, the manufacturers of the materials used to build the house, the wholesaler who sold the materials, the shipping companies that deliver the materials, etc, etc, etc. The prices of new homes would decline, as k1darkknight mentioned, by around 25% when these companies no longer had to pay income taxes, resulting in little net change in price. And of course mortgage lenders would include the tax in the loan because it is part of the value of the home. To illustrate my point, let’s assume you purchased a new home for $1 million, then decided to sell it the next day. Would you sell the house for $770,000 when the new house next door is still priced at $1 million? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. You would sell it for $1 million and recoup those taxes you paid. k1darkknight already gave an excellent response to your point on 100% compliance. I would only add that under the current tax code there are about 140 million “collection points” for taxes, that is American wage earners and businesses paying income taxes. Under the FairTax the number of collection points would drop to around 20 million. It would be much more likely that a tax cheat would be caught when the number of collection points drops by around 86%. You also mention the underground economy. Do you think that the those people earning a living outside the law (drug dealers or illegal immigrants, for example) are paying any income taxes? Of course not. But those people do purchase goods and services. Under the FairTax, those people would become tax payers, regardless of how or where they earned their money. Now let’s take a look at the impact on the poor. To start, they would have the prebate to cover the taxes on purchases up to the poverty level. The poor, just like everyone else, would receive their entire paycheck. No income tax withholding. No 7.6% payroll taxes. Many of the poor pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes. Of course, they will still be entitled to Social Security and Medicare, in effect getting them free. Let’s not forget that, like new homes, the price of goods would drop when the embedded taxes are removed. The estimated decline would be about 22% on average, all but negating the FairTax. Much of the same could be said for the elderly who would no longer owe taxes on their investment accounts, pensions, and social security benefits. They would also get the added benefit of the prebate, and again prices would remain very close to where they are today after all the embedded taxes are removed. By all accounts, the poor and the elderly would be much better off under the FairTax. In conclusion, I would really encourage you to actually take the time to visit FairTax.org and/or read The FairTax Book and educate yourself on the topic. While it may not change your mind, I honestly believe that it would, you would at least not be misrepresenting the FairTax because of your lack of knowledge or understanding.

2009-01-11T02:09:49-08:00

8250

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:05-07:00

4092

271483

Thanks, JamesUSC, for rounding out the stuff I left out of my comment. One last thing neither of us mentioned is that some people try to make the argument that customers will avoid paying any taxes at all, by only purchasing used goods. Granted, many people will reduce their tax burden this way, but there are certain items that I doubt even the thriftiest of individuals would consider purchasing used: - Used bread or produce? - Used toilet paper, toothpaste, or dental floss? - Used tax forms? (whoops, how'd that slip in there?) - Used electricity? Anyone? - How 'bout a used doctor's visit? Let's see someone pull THAT off! So yeah, there are ways to skirt around the FairTax, partially. And no, it's not PERFECT. But if you look at the various tax plans out there, consider them TRULY objectively, and with the honest, clearly understood facts, it's certainly the best tax plan anyone has come up with yet. Well...unless you're a tax lobbyist...

Thanks, JamesUSC, for rounding out the stuff I left out of my comment. One last thing neither of us mentioned is that some people try to make the argument that customers will avoid paying any taxes at all, by only purchasing used goods. Granted, many people will reduce their tax burden this way, but there are certain items that I doubt even the thriftiest of individuals would consider purchasing used: - Used bread or produce? - Used toilet paper, toothpaste, or dental floss? - Used tax forms? (whoops, how’d that slip in there?) - Used electricity? Anyone? - How ‘bout a used doctor’s visit? Let’s see someone pull THAT off! So yeah, there are ways to skirt around the FairTax, partially. And no, it’s not PERFECT. But if you look at the various tax plans out there, consider them TRULY objectively, and with the honest, clearly understood facts, it’s certainly the best tax plan anyone has come up with yet. Well…unless you’re a tax lobbyist…

2009-01-11T02:25:23-08:00

8251

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:05-07:00

6740

271483

K1darkknight, You write that the price of an office visit to a doctor will go down when we have the FairTax. I don't think you understand supply and demand. There are not so many doctors that they are going to compete for our business on the basis of price. Bright young people are not choosing Med School; not preparing for Med School, not applying to Med School. Many of our young doctors are coming from other countries ... depriving their fellow citizens there of the medical care they might otherwise have. The FairTax will not reduce the price we pay for medical care. Only when we have "too many" doctors competing for our business will be bring down many of those costs. Young doctors have huge amounts of student loans to pay off, and, like the rest of us, they'd like to own a home, preferably fairly close to their place of work, and in a good school district. Will FairTax reduce the price of urine test kits? Maybe. But I don't think so. And that isn't a large piece of the cost of medical care. And are we going to exempt ultrasound machines, scalpels, medical waste handling equipment from the FairTax? No? Whose prices are going to go down? (Ultimately, when we trace it back, it will be the price of labor that gets hit, I think.) New houses are generally about 25% land value and 75% house value and builder's profit. If we have to pay a 30% sales tax on a $200,000 new house, that's $60,000. Some of us will be able to afford that out of pocket, but most of us will need to finance it. Do you really want to be paying 6% interest for 30 years on 30% more? Do you expect to be able to afford a new house some day? And new homes will not be built with the most efficient furnaces, or insulation, or other things which drive up the price. If the builder is not going to make his profit, he's not going to build. If he must charge his buyer $260,000 for that $200,000 house, he's not going to find many buyers. This will help the home maintenance businesses -- but they must charge the 30% on their services, too. And ultimately, many of us will become do-it-yourselfers, in order to save paying the 30% bounty on others' labor. We lose the benefits of division of labor, of specialized equipment, of specialized knowledge and skill being rewarded. Those with old houses to resell will find the price they can get being driven up ... maybe that's what appeals to you about this? I'm not so worried about small retailers who have all-cash businesses. We have them today. It would grow. But think of the retailers who will collect the 30% tax and then keep it a few extra days for the float. Or not declare 100% of it. Did they sell that coat at its MSRP, or 10% off, or 20% off, or 30% off? The question becomes relevant to federal taxation! If we can't get voting machines that can't be hacked, think of what cash registers will have to be! Wal-Mart and other retailers already get to keep 1/4% of the state and local sales tax it collects in most places -- a sort of a service charge. Think what we'll be paying them when we turn them into FEDERAL tax collectors, too! And think what sort of compliance systems. Do you really want WalMart being the collector of, say, 5% of our Federal Taxes? If they have cash flow problems, those cash flow problems suddenly become our problem. Talk about too big to fail. They'll have the Federal government over a barrel.

K1darkknight, You write that the price of an office visit to a doctor will go down when we have the FairTax. I don’t think you understand supply and demand. There are not so many doctors that they are going to compete for our business on the basis of price. Bright young people are not choosing Med School; not preparing for Med School, not applying to Med School. Many of our young doctors are coming from other countries … depriving their fellow citizens there of the medical care they might otherwise have. The FairTax will not reduce the price we pay for medical care. Only when we have “too many” doctors competing for our business will be bring down many of those costs. Young doctors have huge amounts of student loans to pay off, and, like the rest of us, they’d like to own a home, preferably fairly close to their place of work, and in a good school district. Will FairTax reduce the price of urine test kits? Maybe. But I don’t think so. And that isn’t a large piece of the cost of medical care. And are we going to exempt ultrasound machines, scalpels, medical waste handling equipment from the FairTax? No? Whose prices are going to go down? (Ultimately, when we trace it back, it will be the price of labor that gets hit, I think.) New houses are generally about 25% land value and 75% house value and builder’s profit. If we have to pay a 30% sales tax on a $200,000 new house, that’s $60,000. Some of us will be able to afford that out of pocket, but most of us will need to finance it. Do you really want to be paying 6% interest for 30 years on 30% more? Do you expect to be able to afford a new house some day? And new homes will not be built with the most efficient furnaces, or insulation, or other things which drive up the price. If the builder is not going to make his profit, he’s not going to build. If he must charge his buyer $260,000 for that $200,000 house, he’s not going to find many buyers. This will help the home maintenance businesses — but they must charge the 30% on their services, too. And ultimately, many of us will become do-it-yourselfers, in order to save paying the 30% bounty on others’ labor. We lose the benefits of division of labor, of specialized equipment, of specialized knowledge and skill being rewarded. Those with old houses to resell will find the price they can get being driven up … maybe that’s what appeals to you about this? I’m not so worried about small retailers who have all-cash businesses. We have them today. It would grow. But think of the retailers who will collect the 30% tax and then keep it a few extra days for the float. Or not declare 100% of it. Did they sell that coat at its MSRP, or 10% off, or 20% off, or 30% off? The question becomes relevant to federal taxation! If we can’t get voting machines that can’t be hacked, think of what cash registers will have to be! Wal-Mart and other retailers already get to keep 1/4% of the state and local sales tax it collects in most places — a sort of a service charge. Think what we’ll be paying them when we turn them into FEDERAL tax collectors, too! And think what sort of compliance systems. Do you really want WalMart being the collector of, say, 5% of our Federal Taxes? If they have cash flow problems, those cash flow problems suddenly become our problem. Talk about too big to fail. They’ll have the Federal government over a barrel.

2009-01-11T11:33:30-08:00

8258

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:06-07:00

6601

271483

JamesUSC, I understand more than you realize. I've read not only what its proponents say, but what those who have thought beyond what its proponents offer in support of it. I understand inclusive/exclusive. I've thought about it a great deal, and can find nothing to recommend a federal sales tax. I'm not sure you've got a firm grasp on the laws of supply and demand, and the dynamics of various kinds of taxes. When you reduce the supply of new houses ... as a 23% tax, or a 30% tax, or, more realistically, a 50+% tax will do, you reduce the demand for new houses, and raise the demand for untaxed older homes -- and the benefit goes to the sellers, not to the federal coffers. You say "mortgage lenders would include the tax in the loan because it is part of the value of the home." Do you really think that? I buy a $300,000 new home. I pay $300,000 times 1.3, or $390,000. The bank is going to loan me $390,000 for that asset which, if they must foreclose, would only bring $300,000? I don't think so! And will the insurance company insure the $390,000? The mortgage lender wants his downside covered. Your example of selling a $700,000 house for which you paid $1 million shows the folly of this thing. Yes -- you could underprice the builder, and get back most of what you paid, if there was demand for homes in that neighborhood. But do you think the builder would have taken that chance? Not likely. So much for increasing the supply of housing. So much for replacing obsolete buildings. So much for meeting the needs of the next generation. To your point about every tax payer being a compliance point. Those who are employed by others already have withholding. The big problem is seems to be the self-employed, who can report whatever they like, and shareholders who, when they sell their stock, get to tell the IRS whatever they want for the basis in their stock, and compute their capital gains on whatever gain they report. I was shocked when I learned this. The poor can afford very little now. They have little purchasing power. The "prebate" may sound huge to you, but in practice, it is pretty trivial, in part because it is based on a yardstick which is largely unrelated to the cost of living anywhere in America. Yes, we will collect a lot more of our federal taxes from poor people and a lot less from rich people. You must have great expectations, high hopes and a lot of optimism if you think that you are going to be one of them, particularly under a "FairTax" scenario. Recall that the top 1% of us received 22.90% of the income in 2006. Do you think they did 22.90% of the spending? I don't think so. The top 10% of us received 49.66% of the income. Do you think that they did 49.66% of the spending? I don't think so. And so what you're advocating is shifting the burden of taxation off them and onto those who must spend every penny they receive (and, in the case of retired people, their savings) on necessities. If you're proud of that, shout it! You write "Many o the poor pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes." It isn't just the poor. I have in mind that somewhere between 66% and 75% of us pay more in payroll taxes than we do in income taxes -- assuming that you allocate the employer's share to the employee (which most observers say is entirely appropriate). You say that the price of goods would drop when the embedded taxes are taken out. Does that mean that if today you earn, say, $50 per hour for your work, you will immediately start charging your customers 22% less -- and accept $39 per hour? Does that mean that if you produce a product -- say, a bushel of wheat -- that you will accept 22% less for it? If you are the fellow who moves it from the farm to the processor, will you accept 22% less for your labor and the equipment you bring to that work? If you process it, will you accept 22% for doing the processing? If so, will your employees accept 22% less pay, or no benefits? Will either of these be good for your community? I must be very thickheaded, because I fail to see where the benefits you are describing are going to come from. They don't come out of thin air. I'm glad you live in a place where the elderly have investment accounts and pensions. In most parts of the US, most elderly people rely mostly on Social Security, according to the data I've seen. Most don't have enough other income to pay federal taxes on their Social Security. Those who have paid off their homes and can manage in their current home may be okay. Those who need or want something else may have a problem. You write "by all accounts, the poor and the elderly would be much better off under the FairTax." As long as they can live on air and don't require heat and don't mind used clothes, they'll manage. But they won't be better off.

JamesUSC, I understand more than you realize. I’ve read not only what its proponents say, but what those who have thought beyond what its proponents offer in support of it. I understand inclusive/exclusive. I’ve thought about it a great deal, and can find nothing to recommend a federal sales tax. I’m not sure you’ve got a firm grasp on the laws of supply and demand, and the dynamics of various kinds of taxes. When you reduce the supply of new houses … as a 23% tax, or a 30% tax, or, more realistically, a 50+% tax will do, you reduce the demand for new houses, and raise the demand for untaxed older homes — and the benefit goes to the sellers, not to the federal coffers. You say “mortgage lenders would include the tax in the loan because it is part of the value of the home.” Do you really think that? I buy a $300,000 new home. I pay $300,000 times 1.3, or $390,000. The bank is going to loan me $390,000 for that asset which, if they must foreclose, would only bring $300,000? I don’t think so! And will the insurance company insure the $390,000? The mortgage lender wants his downside covered. Your example of selling a $700,000 house for which you paid $1 million shows the folly of this thing. Yes — you could underprice the builder, and get back most of what you paid, if there was demand for homes in that neighborhood. But do you think the builder would have taken that chance? Not likely. So much for increasing the supply of housing. So much for replacing obsolete buildings. So much for meeting the needs of the next generation. To your point about every tax payer being a compliance point. Those who are employed by others already have withholding. The big problem is seems to be the self-employed, who can report whatever they like, and shareholders who, when they sell their stock, get to tell the IRS whatever they want for the basis in their stock, and compute their capital gains on whatever gain they report. I was shocked when I learned this. The poor can afford very little now. They have little purchasing power. The “prebate” may sound huge to you, but in practice, it is pretty trivial, in part because it is based on a yardstick which is largely unrelated to the cost of living anywhere in America. Yes, we will collect a lot more of our federal taxes from poor people and a lot less from rich people. You must have great expectations, high hopes and a lot of optimism if you think that you are going to be one of them, particularly under a “FairTax” scenario. Recall that the top 1% of us received 22.90% of the income in 2006. Do you think they did 22.90% of the spending? I don’t think so. The top 10% of us received 49.66% of the income. Do you think that they did 49.66% of the spending? I don’t think so. And so what you’re advocating is shifting the burden of taxation off them and onto those who must spend every penny they receive (and, in the case of retired people, their savings) on necessities. If you’re proud of that, shout it! You write “Many o the poor pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes.” It isn’t just the poor. I have in mind that somewhere between 66% and 75% of us pay more in payroll taxes than we do in income taxes — assuming that you allocate the employer’s share to the employee (which most observers say is entirely appropriate). You say that the price of goods would drop when the embedded taxes are taken out. Does that mean that if today you earn, say, $50 per hour for your work, you will immediately start charging your customers 22% less — and accept $39 per hour? Does that mean that if you produce a product — say, a bushel of wheat — that you will accept 22% less for it? If you are the fellow who moves it from the farm to the processor, will you accept 22% less for your labor and the equipment you bring to that work? If you process it, will you accept 22% for doing the processing? If so, will your employees accept 22% less pay, or no benefits? Will either of these be good for your community? I must be very thickheaded, because I fail to see where the benefits you are describing are going to come from. They don’t come out of thin air. I’m glad you live in a place where the elderly have investment accounts and pensions. In most parts of the US, most elderly people rely mostly on Social Security, according to the data I’ve seen. Most don’t have enough other income to pay federal taxes on their Social Security. Those who have paid off their homes and can manage in their current home may be okay. Those who need or want something else may have a problem. You write “by all accounts, the poor and the elderly would be much better off under the FairTax.” As long as they can live on air and don’t require heat and don’t mind used clothes, they’ll manage. But they won’t be better off.

2009-01-11T12:08:04-08:00

8260

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:06-07:00

6601

271483

k1darknight, you may have hit on the one major benefit that the FairTax will have, and for that I thank you! Our landfills will not fill up nearly as quickly. We will be on our way to Depression era and World War II era living: "Use it up wear it out make it do or do without!" Do you think WalMart will approve of that? How will you make a living in the FairTax economy? No, I'll stick with my preferred alternative to the current tax structure: Tax land value. Milton Friedman called it the "least bad" tax. http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Friedman.html William F. Buckley thought highly of it. http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Buckley.html and a lot of other wise folks have seen the wisdom, too: http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/quotable_notables.htm End the income tax, by all means. But don't replace it with something equally bad, or something worse. Let's move forward, toward a vibrant economy and toward social and economic justice ... a tax structure that doesn't create victims. Land Value Taxation seems to me to be best suited to that goal. Check out the link at the top of http://www.answersanswers.com/

k1darknight, you may have hit on the one major benefit that the FairTax will have, and for that I thank you! Our landfills will not fill up nearly as quickly. We will be on our way to Depression era and World War II era living: “Use it up wear it out make it do or do without!” Do you think WalMart will approve of that? How will you make a living in the FairTax economy? No, I’ll stick with my preferred alternative to the current tax structure: Tax land value. Milton Friedman called it the “least bad” tax. <a href="http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Friedman.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Friedman.html</a> William F. Buckley thought highly of it. <a href="http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Buckley.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Buckley.html</a> and a lot of other wise folks have seen the wisdom, too: <a href="http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/quotable_notables.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/quotable_notables.htm</a> End the income tax, by all means. But don’t replace it with something equally bad, or something worse. Let’s move forward, toward a vibrant economy and toward social and economic justice … a tax structure that doesn’t create victims. Land Value Taxation seems to me to be best suited to that goal. Check out the link at the top of <a href="http://www.answersanswers.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.answersanswers.com/</a>

2009-01-11T12:19:26-08:00

8261

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:06-07:00

6601

271483

lvtfan: Ok, I have tried to reason with you. From what I have read from your other posts you are simply here in attempts to spread disinformation and use scare tactics in a weak attempt to draw people away from the FairTax and towards your cause. Anyone with the most simple understanding of economics, not to mention common sense, will see through your incredibly flawed logic, poorly written rhetoric, and flat out lies. The majority of your statements fail to even make a logical point, which is the mark of someone who does not understand the topic or is deliberately misrepresenting the facts. I will agree with you on one point though, you must be very thickheaded.

lvtfan: Ok, I have tried to reason with you. From what I have read from your other posts you are simply here in attempts to spread disinformation and use scare tactics in a weak attempt to draw people away from the FairTax and towards your cause. Anyone with the most simple understanding of economics, not to mention common sense, will see through your incredibly flawed logic, poorly written rhetoric, and flat out lies. The majority of your statements fail to even make a logical point, which is the mark of someone who does not understand the topic or is deliberately misrepresenting the facts. I will agree with you on one point though, you must be very thickheaded.

2009-01-11T13:08:54-08:00

8262

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:06-07:00

4092

271483

JamesUSC, I'll leave you with one question. How will we finance the period "FairTax holidays" when people are desperate to buy but simply can't afford goods? I assume you've heard about the requests for federally funded holidays from state and local sales taxes, which amount to a small fraction of what you say the "FairTax" would be, and a minute fraction of what I think the rate on the "FairTax" would have to be to provide the necessary revenue. I'll leave it to the readers to decide who understands economics, and who is interested in the common good versus the interests of small special interest groups who feel they are overtaxed today. But while you're thinking about it, take a look at http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/income/income_distribution.html, and see whether the interests of the bottom 90% of us ... "our neighbors" who we are supposed to love and respect ... are being served as we currently structure ourselves, and which direction you are seeking to shift the balance. Yes, I think the income tax is wrong. I think the FairTax is at least equally wrong, and perhaps more wrong. And I think I have a far better alternative, one which will reward work, not penalize it or reduce the demand for it. Guilty as charged -- but no disinformation. Have you bothered to read the links I've posted?

JamesUSC, I’ll leave you with one question. How will we finance the period “FairTax holidays” when people are desperate to buy but simply can’t afford goods? I assume you’ve heard about the requests for federally funded holidays from state and local sales taxes, which amount to a small fraction of what you say the “FairTax” would be, and a minute fraction of what I think the rate on the “FairTax” would have to be to provide the necessary revenue. I’ll leave it to the readers to decide who understands economics, and who is interested in the common good versus the interests of small special interest groups who feel they are overtaxed today. But while you’re thinking about it, take a look at <a href="http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/income/income_distribution.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/income/income_distribution.html</a>, and see whether the interests of the bottom 90% of us … “our neighbors” who we are supposed to love and respect … are being served as we currently structure ourselves, and which direction you are seeking to shift the balance. Yes, I think the income tax is wrong. I think the FairTax is at least equally wrong, and perhaps more wrong. And I think I have a far better alternative, one which will reward work, not penalize it or reduce the demand for it. Guilty as charged — but no disinformation. Have you bothered to read the links I’ve posted?

2009-01-11T14:20:30-08:00

8264

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:06-07:00

6601

271483

We'll bother to read your links when it seems like you have read some FairTax information and comprehend it. Why don't you start your own topic on White House 2 called "Repossess all land and rent it out to people who do what the government wants them to do with it" and see how many followers you get? Please stop junking up the FairTax topic with your uneducated responses to FairTax topics.

We’ll bother to read your links when it seems like you have read some FairTax information and comprehend it. Why don’t you start your own topic on White House 2 called “Repossess all land and rent it out to people who do what the government wants them to do with it” and see how many followers you get? Please stop junking up the FairTax topic with your uneducated responses to FairTax topics.

2009-01-11T17:20:32-08:00

8276

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:06-07:00

3064

271483

I am at least as opposed to the income tax as you are, and suspect that there might be a curious mind or two within the community of people who have bothered to read this far. Land value taxation is actually about as far away from "command and control" and close to "laissez faire" as one could get. I seek a healthy marketplace where all can prosper. Neither the income tax nor a national sales tax will produce that. I have no interest in "repossessing" land. Like Thomas Jefferson, I believe that land belongs in usufruct to the living ... to all of us. Am I in bad company? See http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Usufruct.html Land rent, collected by the community, can set us all free. Create equal liberty for all. Does that sound un-American to your ear? Sorry. It is why my ancestors came here, and why some gave their lives. If you think they died to give you, or me, special privileges -- private law -- over their fellow citizens, you've got it wrong. Most likely I have more formal education than you do, and have spent more time thinking about and reading about public finance issues and economic and social justice than you have. Fruit punch doesn't appeal to me, and I sense that that is what you're peddling. Sorry if you disapprove.

I am at least as opposed to the income tax as you are, and suspect that there might be a curious mind or two within the community of people who have bothered to read this far. Land value taxation is actually about as far away from “command and control” and close to “laissez faire” as one could get. I seek a healthy marketplace where all can prosper. Neither the income tax nor a national sales tax will produce that. I have no interest in “repossessing” land. Like Thomas Jefferson, I believe that land belongs in usufruct to the living … to all of us. Am I in bad company? See <a href="http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Usufruct.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Usufruct.html</a> Land rent, collected by the community, can set us all free. Create equal liberty for all. Does that sound un-American to your ear? Sorry. It is why my ancestors came here, and why some gave their lives. If you think they died to give you, or me, special privileges — private law — over their fellow citizens, you’ve got it wrong. Most likely I have more formal education than you do, and have spent more time thinking about and reading about public finance issues and economic and social justice than you have. Fruit punch doesn’t appeal to me, and I sense that that is what you’re peddling. Sorry if you disapprove.

2009-01-11T19:02:08-08:00

8280

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:07-07:00

6601

271483

Yes... it does sound un-American.!!! Your ancestors came here so that they can pay their "Lords" for the right to use their land? So that they can form a nation of nomads who roam around according to financial trends that change the use of the region they are in? If you have more formal education than me then it doesn't show. You only site your "wealth and want" page for all sorts of nonsensical links that do very little to argue your case. You obviously either do not grasp or are purposely distorting the fundamental concepts of the FairTax. Again, if your "Land Tax" idea is so great. Go make your own topic on White House 2 and see how much traction it gets. You are not going to win over any FairTax supporters for your cause. It is polar opposite from the American way of thinking.

Yes… it does sound un-American.!!! Your ancestors came here so that they can pay their “Lords” for the right to use their land? So that they can form a nation of nomads who roam around according to financial trends that change the use of the region they are in? If you have more formal education than me then it doesn’t show. You only site your “wealth and want” page for all sorts of nonsensical links that do very little to argue your case. You obviously either do not grasp or are purposely distorting the fundamental concepts of the FairTax. Again, if your “Land Tax” idea is so great. Go make your own topic on White House 2 and see how much traction it gets. You are not going to win over any FairTax supporters for your cause. It is polar opposite from the American way of thinking.

2009-01-12T07:35:59-08:00

8296

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:07-07:00

3064

271483

Your second paragraph's first line speaks for itself. If any of your ancestors came to this country from the British Isles in the mid 19th century, you might be interested in http://www.wealthandwant.com/HG/SP/SP11_Dumping_Garbage.htm And then you might move on to http://www.wealthandwant.com/HG/SP/SP19_The_First_Great_Reform.htm These are two essays by Henry George (1839-1897). They might provide some perspective. The language might be a bit dated; the ideas are timeless and speak of justice and a world that works for all of us, not just the lucky few above the wedge. I suppose you won't consider "a world that works for all of us" American, ... too much like "of, by and FOR the people." How we collect our public revenue ought to be consistent with our ideals, not in opposition to them.

Your second paragraph’s first line speaks for itself. If any of your ancestors came to this country from the British Isles in the mid 19th century, you might be interested in <a href="http://www.wealthandwant.com/HG/SP/SP11_Dumping_Garbage.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.wealthandwant.com/HG/SP/SP11_Dumping_Garbage.htm</a> And then you might move on to <a href="http://www.wealthandwant.com/HG/SP/SP19_The_First_Great_Reform.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.wealthandwant.com/HG/SP/SP19_The_First_Great_Reform.htm</a> These are two essays by Henry George (1839-1897). They might provide some perspective. The language might be a bit dated; the ideas are timeless and speak of justice and a world that works for all of us, not just the lucky few above the wedge. I suppose you won’t consider “a world that works for all of us” American, … too much like “of, by and FOR the people.” How we collect our public revenue ought to be consistent with our ideals, not in opposition to them.

2009-01-12T08:17:09-08:00

8299

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:07-07:00

6601

271483

lvtfan, you and SO many others are ignoring on VERY important bit of information regarding FairTax. First off, it is not 30% ADDED to the price of whatever is being sold, it is 23% INCLUDED in the price. Second off, anything you pay for already has embedded taxes, from every stage of development of, on average, 22% INCLUDED in the final price. So, using your example of a $200,000 home...nearly 25% of the cost of construction is taxes at various stages. Lumber is closer to the 22-23% range. Just to keep the numbers simple, we'll assume that 23% of the cost of building a new home (including supplies, labor, and everything else) goes to taxes at some stage of the process. This means that, for a $200,000 home: $46,000 (approximately) goes toward taxes, under the current system. Those taxes would be removed under FairTax. $154,000 (approximately) is what that home costs with all those embedded taxes removed. With the FairTax, the final price of that home would, once again, be $200,000, since 23% of $200,000 is still $46,000. This is not a matter of adding 30% of the cost onto the home, after reducing only 23% initially. It is a matter of replacing (roughly) 23% in a myriad of hidden taxes, with 23% in a single, clearly understood, easy to calculate, sales tax. 23% of $200,000 is $46,000 with the current tax system. 23% of $200,000 is $46,000 with the FairTax. The price, after taxes, stays the same. Yes, if there's currently less than 23% in taxes, it could go up slightly. But if there's currently a little MORE than 23% in taxes, it could go DOWN slightly. Or it could stay the same, and the workers would make a little more. But (roughly) 23% of the current asking price would be removed, and exactly 23% of the final asking price would be included, under FairTax. or, put more simply: $200,000 -$46,000 +$46,000 -------------- $200,000 Do we REALLY need to make it any clearer than that?

lvtfan, you and SO many others are ignoring on VERY important bit of information regarding FairTax. First off, it is not 30% ADDED to the price of whatever is being sold, it is 23% INCLUDED in the price. Second off, anything you pay for already has embedded taxes, from every stage of development of, on average, 22% INCLUDED in the final price. So, using your example of a $200,000 home…nearly 25% of the cost of construction is taxes at various stages. Lumber is closer to the 22-23% range. Just to keep the numbers simple, we’ll assume that 23% of the cost of building a new home (including supplies, labor, and everything else) goes to taxes at some stage of the process. This means that, for a $200,000 home: $46,000 (approximately) goes toward taxes, under the current system. Those taxes would be removed under FairTax. $154,000 (approximately) is what that home costs with all those embedded taxes removed. With the FairTax, the final price of that home would, once again, be $200,000, since 23% of $200,000 is still $46,000. This is not a matter of adding 30% of the cost onto the home, after reducing only 23% initially. It is a matter of replacing (roughly) 23% in a myriad of hidden taxes, with 23% in a single, clearly understood, easy to calculate, sales tax. 23% of $200,000 is $46,000 with the current tax system. 23% of $200,000 is $46,000 with the FairTax. The price, after taxes, stays the same. Yes, if there’s currently less than 23% in taxes, it could go up slightly. But if there’s currently a little MORE than 23% in taxes, it could go DOWN slightly. Or it could stay the same, and the workers would make a little more. But (roughly) 23% of the current asking price would be removed, and exactly 23% of the final asking price would be included, under FairTax. or, put more simply: $200,000 <del>$46,000 +$46,000 -</del>—————— $200,000 Do we REALLY need to make it any clearer than that?

2009-01-12T10:17:20-08:00

8304

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:07-07:00

6740

271483

And before you try any funny "23% vs 30%" math games, I'll even put it another way. Before all the hidden, embedded taxes our current system adds, the untaxed cost of that home would be $154,000. Taxes currently add 30% to THAT cost, making the home $200,000. Those taxes would be removed before the FairTax gets added back in. Thus, the final asking price for that home would still be $200,000. $154,000 + $46,000 = $200,000 with current taxes. $154,000 + $46,000 = $200,000 with the FairTax.

And before you try any funny “23% vs 30%” math games, I’ll even put it another way. Before all the hidden, embedded taxes our current system adds, the untaxed cost of that home would be $154,000. Taxes currently add 30% to THAT cost, making the home $200,000. Those taxes would be removed before the FairTax gets added back in. Thus, the final asking price for that home would still be $200,000. $154,000 + $46,000 = $200,000 with current taxes. $154,000 + $46,000 = $200,000 with the FairTax.

2009-01-12T10:24:17-08:00

8305

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:07-07:00

6740

271483

So the builder buys a teardown from the estate of someone who has let the cottage run down. He pays the estate, say, $50,000 for the land. Since it is not a new house, he pays no FairTax. He must pay for the removal of the old cottage, say, $5,000. That costs the $5,000 he pays the wrecking company and the trash removal folks, plus the 30% FairTax surcharge, or $6,500. (I doubt that the wrecking company is going to lower their price for him. They like to eat, too, and their fuel costs a lot, and their specialized equipment is depreciating, and they must replace it eventually, and will pay a 30% surcharge on it. Yes, they will do the very best maintenance they can.) He buys plans, hires subcontractors, purchases materials, and builds a new house on that $56,500 site. You claim that the wholesale price of the materials is going to decrease by 23%. Is that because the loggers will work for less? (Most of them tend to be in the lower half of the income spectrum, the grou Or the lumber companies? Or the railroads which transport it, using lots of diesel?

So the builder buys a teardown from the estate of someone who has let the cottage run down. He pays the estate, say, $50,000 for the land. Since it is not a new house, he pays no FairTax. He must pay for the removal of the old cottage, say, $5,000. That costs the $5,000 he pays the wrecking company and the trash removal folks, plus the 30% FairTax surcharge, or $6,500. (I doubt that the wrecking company is going to lower their price for him. They like to eat, too, and their fuel costs a lot, and their specialized equipment is depreciating, and they must replace it eventually, and will pay a 30% surcharge on it. Yes, they will do the very best maintenance they can.) He buys plans, hires subcontractors, purchases materials, and builds a new house on that $56,500 site. You claim that the wholesale price of the materials is going to decrease by 23%. Is that because the loggers will work for less? (Most of them tend to be in the lower half of the income spectrum, the grou Or the lumber companies? Or the railroads which transport it, using lots of diesel?

2009-01-12T10:35:11-08:00

8307

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:07-07:00

6601

271483

oops ... that got posted before it was done. Sorry! to continue: You're telling me that the price of materials the builder and his subcontractors use will go down, and that they will pass 100% of that price decrease along to their customers, and that the price of labor will go down, and they'll pass that along too. Really? You believe that?? And the builder will reduce his profits on his labor and risk of capital on the project? Really? The house next door is older and well maintained. The previous owners have added on to it and modernized it, before they had to pay the 30% surcharge the FairTax imposes on their spending. They paid good contractors what they were worth, and got a good house for it. Isn't the selling price of their house going to be increased by the imposition of the FairTax on your new house, since it will come with no 30% surcharge? This will be a lovely windfall for them ... without them lifting a finger (sort of like California's Prop 13, but I digress) ... but after, say, 10 years, we are going to see little new housing being built. Current demand is something like 1.7 million housing units, according to a recent NYT article. What happens when only half of those folks can afford to commission a new house? Prices of existing housing rise, even if the quality doesn't and the locations are way out on the fringe. (Unless young people like living with their in-laws.) I think your grasp of economics is lacking. I like fairy tales -- "and they all lived happily ever after" -- as well as the next person, but I just can't see that your logic fits reality. I don't expect to convince you, but I hope readers will test your logic against what they know about how markets work.

oops … that got posted before it was done. Sorry! to continue: You’re telling me that the price of materials the builder and his subcontractors use will go down, and that they will pass 100% of that price decrease along to their customers, and that the price of labor will go down, and they’ll pass that along too. Really? You believe that?? And the builder will reduce his profits on his labor and risk of capital on the project? Really? The house next door is older and well maintained. The previous owners have added on to it and modernized it, before they had to pay the 30% surcharge the FairTax imposes on their spending. They paid good contractors what they were worth, and got a good house for it. Isn’t the selling price of their house going to be increased by the imposition of the FairTax on your new house, since it will come with no 30% surcharge? This will be a lovely windfall for them … without them lifting a finger (sort of like California’s Prop 13, but I digress) … but after, say, 10 years, we are going to see little new housing being built. Current demand is something like 1.7 million housing units, according to a recent NYT article. What happens when only half of those folks can afford to commission a new house? Prices of existing housing rise, even if the quality doesn’t and the locations are way out on the fringe. (Unless young people like living with their in-laws.) I think your grasp of economics is lacking. I like fairy tales — “and they all lived happily ever after” — as well as the next person, but I just can’t see that your logic fits reality. I don’t expect to convince you, but I hope readers will test your logic against what they know about how markets work.

2009-01-12T10:48:07-08:00

8308

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:07-07:00

6601

271483

I am not saying that NET prices, overall, will lower. Once again, you are ignoring the fact that EVERYTHING you pay for, currently has taxes embedded in the price. Everything that the developer pays for has taxes embedded, every expense that the trash removal guys have, has taxes embedded. The equipment they use to haul the stuff away? You think there was no tax burden on that? What I am saying, is that there is, on average, a NET taxation of 22% of EVERYTHING that ANYONE has to pay for, under the current system. Under FairTax, there is a single, one-time tax of the final product or service, of 23%. That is a NET difference of 1%. That means that, on average, prices MAY raise by 1%. Some prices may lower SLIGHTLY, some may go up by 2 or 3%. But on average, net prices AFTER TAX would go up by 1%. This is not even a question of "passing savings on", because the FairTax does not eliminate taxes without replacing them. It is a tax REPLACEMENT, to simplify how taxes are paid. Prices of existing houses would, by and large, stay the same. Prices of new homes would, by and large, stay the same. For even simpler math, still, let's take a $100,000, and assume there is 23% of THAT price paid, NET, in taxes. This figure is the sum total of ALL taxes that are paid by the developer, suppliers, contractors, including taxes on the process of shipping, creating, or paying for ANYTHING in the process of building that house. Those taxes, under the FairTax would be GONE. They would be REPLACED, one time, at the final sale, by the 23% FairTax. Cost subtracting taxes: without ANY current embedded taxes - $77,000 without the FairTax - $77,000 So, if ALL taxes were removed, the price of that home would be $77,000. Taxes: current tax system, all taxes, at all stages of development combined - $23,000. FairTax - $23,000. Final selling price: with ALL current, embedded taxes factored back in - $100,000. with FairTax - $100,000. As to your argument about the neighbors who already owned their house. Any improvements they have made on the house would have the embedded taxes removed, and replaced by FairTax. Anything the contractors charged would be subject to this same tax replacement as well. On average, as I previously stated, the embedded taxes on construction currently come to just a hair under 25% of the cost. So, let's say the owner of this house has $10,000 of improvements done, final price, including all materials, labor, fees, taxes, and anything else involved in paying for the improvements. Current system: $10,000 = $7,500 + $2,500 in combined taxes, from ALL costs for the improvements (including roof shingles, bricks, nails, nailguns the contractors purchased at some point...taxes paid in the process of making said nailguns...etc, etc.) FairTax: Assuming the contractor charges the same final price: $10,000 = $7,700 + $2,300 FairTax. Now, the contractor has a choice. He now makes $7,700 (after tax, before expenses) on this improvement. He can keep the extra $200, paying the employees a little more for the job, which gives them more money to spend. Or he can pass that $200 back to the customer, allowing them to enjoy the small amount of savings the FairTax allowed them, in this instance. Either way, the homeowner hasn't paid anything more for the improvement, but they haven't reaped some massive windfall, just because they added on to their home's value. They've still had to pay taxes, they just now know how much they paid in taxes, rather than having it hidden in the cost of doing the improvement.

I am not saying that NET prices, overall, will lower. Once again, you are ignoring the fact that EVERYTHING you pay for, currently has taxes embedded in the price. Everything that the developer pays for has taxes embedded, every expense that the trash removal guys have, has taxes embedded. The equipment they use to haul the stuff away? You think there was no tax burden on that? What I am saying, is that there is, on average, a NET taxation of 22% of EVERYTHING that ANYONE has to pay for, under the current system. Under FairTax, there is a single, one-time tax of the final product or service, of 23%. That is a NET difference of 1%. That means that, on average, prices MAY raise by 1%. Some prices may lower SLIGHTLY, some may go up by 2 or 3%. But on average, net prices AFTER TAX would go up by 1%. This is not even a question of “passing savings on”, because the FairTax does not eliminate taxes without replacing them. It is a tax REPLACEMENT, to simplify how taxes are paid. Prices of existing houses would, by and large, stay the same. Prices of new homes would, by and large, stay the same. For even simpler math, still, let’s take a $100,000, and assume there is 23% of THAT price paid, NET, in taxes. This figure is the sum total of ALL taxes that are paid by the developer, suppliers, contractors, including taxes on the process of shipping, creating, or paying for ANYTHING in the process of building that house. Those taxes, under the FairTax would be GONE. They would be REPLACED, one time, at the final sale, by the 23% FairTax. Cost subtracting taxes: without ANY current embedded taxes – $77,000 without the FairTax – $77,000 So, if ALL taxes were removed, the price of that home would be $77,000. Taxes: current tax system, all taxes, at all stages of development combined – $23,000. FairTax – $23,000. Final selling price: with ALL current, embedded taxes factored back in – $100,000. with FairTax – $100,000. As to your argument about the neighbors who already owned their house. Any improvements they have made on the house would have the embedded taxes removed, and replaced by FairTax. Anything the contractors charged would be subject to this same tax replacement as well. On average, as I previously stated, the embedded taxes on construction currently come to just a hair under 25% of the cost. So, let’s say the owner of this house has $10,000 of improvements done, final price, including all materials, labor, fees, taxes, and anything else involved in paying for the improvements. Current system: $10,000 = $7,500 + $2,500 in combined taxes, from ALL costs for the improvements (including roof shingles, bricks, nails, nailguns the contractors purchased at some point…taxes paid in the process of making said nailguns…etc, etc.) FairTax: Assuming the contractor charges the same final price: $10,000 = $7,700 + $2,300 FairTax. Now, the contractor has a choice. He now makes $7,700 (after tax, before expenses) on this improvement. He can keep the extra $200, paying the employees a little more for the job, which gives them more money to spend. Or he can pass that $200 back to the customer, allowing them to enjoy the small amount of savings the FairTax allowed them, in this instance. Either way, the homeowner hasn’t paid anything more for the improvement, but they haven’t reaped some massive windfall, just because they added on to their home’s value. They’ve still had to pay taxes, they just now know how much they paid in taxes, rather than having it hidden in the cost of doing the improvement.

2009-01-12T11:21:12-08:00

8310

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:08-07:00

6740

271483

In short, the whole point of the FairTax is not to REDUCE the overall amount of taxes paid. It is to simply replace an unnecessarily complex system of "tax income, tax corporations, tax everything" with a simple system of "tax everything, one time, when paid for by the consumer". It replaces an average, collective tax of 22% we already pay, with a simpler, one-time tax of 23%. This difference would be easily offset by the fact that all these corporations no longer need to spend many, many hours and dollars calculating the amounts they have to remit to the federal government. True, whatever these corporations save in tax preparation and time making multitudes of tax-based decisions, they could keep for themselves. But if their competitor down the street is passing the savings on to their customers, and they themselves are not, they will loose business to their competitor. THIS is basic economics.

In short, the whole point of the FairTax is not to REDUCE the overall amount of taxes paid. It is to simply replace an unnecessarily complex system of “tax income, tax corporations, tax everything” with a simple system of “tax everything, one time, when paid for by the consumer”. It replaces an average, collective tax of 22% we already pay, with a simpler, one-time tax of 23%. This difference would be easily offset by the fact that all these corporations no longer need to spend many, many hours and dollars calculating the amounts they have to remit to the federal government. True, whatever these corporations save in tax preparation and time making multitudes of tax-based decisions, they could keep for themselves. But if their competitor down the street is passing the savings on to their customers, and they themselves are not, they will loose business to their competitor. THIS is basic economics.

2009-01-12T11:28:08-08:00

8312

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:08-07:00

6740

271483

It's obviously time to stop feeding the troll. Logic, economics, business and the Fairtax are obviously outside his realm of comprehension and/or he is hellbent on distorting the facts in an attempt to draw attention away from the FairTax. It is obvious that he has not taken the time to actually learn about the FairTax, but rather has likely not done much more than read some of Bruce Bartlett's anti-FairTax propaganda. In fact, he has copied word-for-word from one of his writings in the threads on this talking point. He also makes the same ridiculous assumptions. For instance that labor is apparently the only cost of goods, income taxes don't factor in to the price of goods and services whatsoever, competition as no effect the price of goods and services, and that there will be exemptions made for special interests. There are some people that you could show a goose laying a golden egg and they would still complain that you have to feed the goose. I am not saying that the FairTax is perfect, but it is leaps and bounds better than the current system or any alternative that I have found.

It’s obviously time to stop feeding the troll. Logic, economics, business and the Fairtax are obviously outside his realm of comprehension and/or he is hellbent on distorting the facts in an attempt to draw attention away from the FairTax. It is obvious that he has not taken the time to actually learn about the FairTax, but rather has likely not done much more than read some of Bruce Bartlett’s anti-FairTax propaganda. In fact, he has copied word-for-word from one of his writings in the threads on this talking point. He also makes the same ridiculous assumptions. For instance that labor is apparently the only cost of goods, income taxes don’t factor in to the price of goods and services whatsoever, competition as no effect the price of goods and services, and that there will be exemptions made for special interests. There are some people that you could show a goose laying a golden egg and they would still complain that you have to feed the goose. I am not saying that the FairTax is perfect, but it is leaps and bounds better than the current system or any alternative that I have found.

2009-01-12T12:04:01-08:00

8313

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:08-07:00

4092

271483

JamesUSC, Open your mind to a goose that lays a golden egg for all of us, not one whose benefits accrue mainly to those most favored by our current system. I am in favor of direct taxation, http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/underpop/direct_taxes.htm which is far more efficient than indirect taxation. Adam Smith told us, in The Wealth of Nations, how to judge a tax, and the FairTax doesn't cut it. Neither does the income tax. But Land Value Taxation does. I don't agree with Milton Friedman on much, but he did get this one right, both in 1978 and in an interview published in a California newspaper (San Jose Mercury, I think) a few weeks before he died. He called land value taxation the "least bad" tax. He did not have kind things to say about the FairTax. Indirect taxes mushroom as they ripple through the system. You understand that with respect to the income tax, but you don't seem to see it in the FairTax. What we tax, we get less of, if it depends on supply and demand and production. You intend for us to get less of everything! The anti-landfill crowd will appreciate your efforts, but those who work for a living shouldn't, and those who appreciate what advances in technology and division of labor have produced for America shouldn't either. And if you like promoting the interests of middlemen, and think it works to society's benefit, you might check out http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/underpop/middlemen.htm. If every business, at every step of the way, must pay even a mere 30% sales tax on its purchases (e.g., computers, printing paper, printing cartridges, desks), that 30% tax gets rolled into their cost structure. The print shop which prints the sales brochures by which grocery companies sell their products to grocery wholesalers must charge the 23% because they are selling a finished product. That gets rolled up into the price we pay for groceries. Oh! You're not going to require the print shop to charge the tax, because they're selling the product to a manufacturer? That will require a lot of detailed recordkeeping, and invite an incredible amount of fraud and evasion, to keep straight my print job which must pay it, and theirs which must not. And I'm sure that those who own businesses won't be tempted to ask their printer to slip personal jobs onto the untaxed business invoice. Is that the golden goose you're referring to? Seems like an explosive goose egg to me.

JamesUSC, Open your mind to a goose that lays a golden egg for all of us, not one whose benefits accrue mainly to those most favored by our current system. I am in favor of direct taxation, <a href="http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/underpop/direct_taxes.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/underpop/direct_taxes.htm</a> which is far more efficient than indirect taxation. Adam Smith told us, in The Wealth of Nations, how to judge a tax, and the FairTax doesn’t cut it. Neither does the income tax. But Land Value Taxation does. I don’t agree with Milton Friedman on much, but he did get this one right, both in 1978 and in an interview published in a California newspaper (San Jose Mercury, I think) a few weeks before he died. He called land value taxation the “least bad” tax. He did not have kind things to say about the FairTax. Indirect taxes mushroom as they ripple through the system. You understand that with respect to the income tax, but you don’t seem to see it in the FairTax. What we tax, we get less of, if it depends on supply and demand and production. You intend for us to get less of everything! The anti-landfill crowd will appreciate your efforts, but those who work for a living shouldn’t, and those who appreciate what advances in technology and division of labor have produced for America shouldn’t either. And if you like promoting the interests of middlemen, and think it works to society’s benefit, you might check out <a href="http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/underpop/middlemen.htm.</p" rel="nofollow">http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/underpop/middlemen.htm.</p</a>> If every business, at every step of the way, must pay even a mere 30% sales tax on its purchases (e.g., computers, printing paper, printing cartridges, desks), that 30% tax gets rolled into their cost structure. The print shop which prints the sales brochures by which grocery companies sell their products to grocery wholesalers must charge the 23% because they are selling a finished product. That gets rolled up into the price we pay for groceries. Oh! You’re not going to require the print shop to charge the tax, because they’re selling the product to a manufacturer? That will require a lot of detailed recordkeeping, and invite an incredible amount of fraud and evasion, to keep straight my print job which must pay it, and theirs which must not. And I’m sure that those who own businesses won’t be tempted to ask their printer to slip personal jobs onto the untaxed business invoice. Is that the golden goose you’re referring to? Seems like an explosive goose egg to me.

2009-01-12T13:25:16-08:00

8316

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:08-07:00

6601

271483

"If every business, at every step of the way, must pay even a mere 30% sales tax on its purchases (e.g., computers, printing paper, printing cartridges, desks), that 30% tax gets rolled into their cost structure." That would be true, if this were a "Value Added Tax". It is not. One of the fundamental points of the FairTax is that it is charged ONE TIME, at the point of sale, to the END CONSUMER. It is either not charged, or is refunded, when businesses purchase things that they will use in the process of making or distributing their end product, or in the case of services, whatever they use in the process of providing that service. lvtfan, you REALLY need to read AND understand either the FairTax book (and optionally, but highly recommended FairTax - The Truth: Answering the Critics) or the information on the FairTax website (fairtax.org). I don't understand why, unless you are one of the multitude of lobbyists benefiting from the current tax structure, but I honestly can't think of a single, fundamental point of the FairTax that you have NOT misrepresented in some way. That said, I'm sure you'll come up with yet another for us to refute, but come on! Read the info from the source, rather than from misinformed or intentionally distorting critics, before you go ranting about "flaws" in the FairTax that aren't even true.

“If every business, at every step of the way, must pay even a mere 30% sales tax on its purchases (e.g., computers, printing paper, printing cartridges, desks), that 30% tax gets rolled into their cost structure.” That would be true, if this were a “Value Added Tax”. It is not. One of the fundamental points of the FairTax is that it is charged ONE TIME, at the point of sale, to the END CONSUMER. It is either not charged, or is refunded, when businesses purchase things that they will use in the process of making or distributing their end product, or in the case of services, whatever they use in the process of providing that service. lvtfan, you REALLY need to read AND understand either the FairTax book (and optionally, but highly recommended FairTax – The Truth: Answering the Critics) or the information on the FairTax website (fairtax.org). I don’t understand why, unless you are one of the multitude of lobbyists benefiting from the current tax structure, but I honestly can’t think of a single, fundamental point of the FairTax that you have NOT misrepresented in some way. That said, I’m sure you’ll come up with yet another for us to refute, but come on! Read the info from the source, rather than from misinformed or intentionally distorting critics, before you go ranting about “flaws” in the FairTax that aren’t even true.

2009-01-12T13:34:34-08:00

8317

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:08-07:00

6740

271483

So Staples will need to know, for every purchase I make, whether it is for my own use or for use in my business, in order to know whether to charge me the tax or exempt my purchase. WalMart and Sam's Club, too. Will the cashier decide? Will the government issue cards which identify the nature of my business and what I may buy tax-free? How will we train those cashiers adequately to make tax-collection decisions on behalf of the federal commons? So the local printer will have to accept my assertion that my print job is something I will be selling to someone else, and not charge me the FairTax on it? Got it! Makes sense. I like my printer, and I'm sure he'll accept my assertion and not charge me the tax, in order to keep my business. You're telling me that no business will pay the FairTax on their purchases, since they sell a product to a customer. When the employer provides a free lunch for their staff, they won't have to pay the FairTax because it is a benefit to their employees. When pharmaceutical company "A" provides a catered lunch for the doctor's office staff every Monday, they won't have to pay the FairTax on that transaction, because that's part of their marketing effort, and someone else is the ultimate customer, the buyer of the pills. (Some faceless insurance company pays that bill.) Got it. Thanks! But I can't imagine that 23%/30% will begin to cover that. And when the staff pays for its own lunches, they WILL pay the "FairTax." Makes a lot of sense? No opportunities for evasion? Nice and simple? Cut and dried? Fair to .... whom? I dislike the income tax intensely, and want to see it gone. But I do not want us doing something equally bad, or worse, and you've not given me any reason to think this is not worse, in a number of important dimensions. Think it through. This is not the answer to our current mess. It is just a different mess.

So Staples will need to know, for every purchase I make, whether it is for my own use or for use in my business, in order to know whether to charge me the tax or exempt my purchase. WalMart and Sam’s Club, too. Will the cashier decide? Will the government issue cards which identify the nature of my business and what I may buy tax-free? How will we train those cashiers adequately to make tax-collection decisions on behalf of the federal commons? So the local printer will have to accept my assertion that my print job is something I will be selling to someone else, and not charge me the FairTax on it? Got it! Makes sense. I like my printer, and I’m sure he’ll accept my assertion and not charge me the tax, in order to keep my business. You’re telling me that no business will pay the FairTax on their purchases, since they sell a product to a customer. When the employer provides a free lunch for their staff, they won’t have to pay the FairTax because it is a benefit to their employees. When pharmaceutical company “A” provides a catered lunch for the doctor’s office staff every Monday, they won’t have to pay the FairTax on that transaction, because that’s part of their marketing effort, and someone else is the ultimate customer, the buyer of the pills. (Some faceless insurance company pays that bill.) Got it. Thanks! But I can’t imagine that 23%/30% will begin to cover that. And when the staff pays for its own lunches, they WILL pay the “FairTax.” Makes a lot of sense? No opportunities for evasion? Nice and simple? Cut and dried? Fair to …. whom? I dislike the income tax intensely, and want to see it gone. But I do not want us doing something equally bad, or worse, and you’ve not given me any reason to think this is not worse, in a number of important dimensions. Think it through. This is not the answer to our current mess. It is just a different mess.

2009-01-12T13:57:53-08:00

8318

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:08-07:00

6601

271483

Ah, I see now. As the main thrust of your arguments falls apart you start grasping at straws, trying to find any niggling detail to pick at, with the FairTax. Okay, I'll play, for now. Most likely, businesses will be responsible for filing for refunds for purchases that they make at regular retail stores. I'd imagine that companies that sell supplies EXCLUSIVELY to businesses will not have to charge the tax, as ALL of their clinets will be, in turn, charging their customers. A company that, for example, sells concrete mix to developers, would not have to charge tax on it. If the same company sells to individuals, they likely either sell through various hardware stores (Lowes, Home Depot, etc.) who would charge the tax when THEY sell, or the concrete mix company would sell via a small storefront at their business location, using a different method (like an inexpensive cash register, or even a program on their office computer), and charge the tax to the individual. Companies like that are much more likely to know which of their customers are builders (et al), and which are individual homeowners. Besides, a homeowner isn't likely to be buying said concrete mix in bulk, anyway. So likely, yes, anything purchased at Staples, will have the tax charged, and businesses will have to file for a refund of the tax. Same as they do now. The agency that reviews those filings (from roughly 20 million businesses, instead of 100-150 million taxpaying citizens), would be the one to determine, in the event of an audit, what would qualify and what would not. As for the "local printer", if you're talking something like Kinko's, again, you would pay the tax initially, and file for a refund. This would be done once a year (or more often, if businesses do so at present), much like income taxes are filed now, but again, with MUCH fewer businesses than citizens. If this is a printer who routinely (and almost exclusively) does print jobs for businesses, they will NOT charge the tax. Typically, if you need a print job from such a printer (B2B-type, rather than a Kinko's), if anyone DID want a smaller print job from them, on a scale that usually only individuals would need, they'd charge high enough prices that the individual would likely just go somewhere like Kinko's. Some businesses simply have the scale of their production geared toward B2B sales, while others are geared more toward retail customer sales. I'm NOT saying that no business will pay the FairTax on NONE of their purchases. A lunch for the staff certainly would NOT qualify for exemption, because it is not something being used in the production of their end product or service. If the staff has to pay the tax on their lunches, purchased individually, then the business would too. If, however, the business is a catering business, purchasing cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, lunchmeat, and the like, they'd likely pay the tax up front, unless they're purchasing from a B2B-type business (catering supplier, or somesuch), and simply file for a refund at the end of the year (or possibly quarterly). And a catered lunch for the staff most certainly would NOT qualify as part of their marketing effort, as the lunch itself isn't involved in the marketing of THEIR product or service. If anything, it would be marketing for the caterer, but certainly not the business purchasing the lunch. If the pharmaceutical company is providing this lunch for the doctors, the consumer is the one who ultimately pays the tax. If the lunch is free to the doctors, the pharm. company is the one who pays the tax. That aside, the cost of the lunch (tax or no tax) would ultimately be passed on to the consumer anyway, the same as any company's advertising budget is, the same as ANY part of ANY company's budget is ultimately passed on to the consumer. Really, do you think the executives of large corporations take anything out-of-pocket, to pay for the operational costs of their company? If you do, then you are more naive than I thought. The whole issue of catering aside, there are two basic kinds of businesses that sell products or services. Those that sell primarily to consumers (retailers, et al), and those that sell primarily to other businesses (B2B, for our purposes). Retailers will charge the tax, unless they have a separate B2B division that only businesses are permitted to purchase from. B2B companies will NOT charge the tax, unless they sell smaller quantities of their product, through a small storefront, at which point they would be REQUIRED to charge the tax. If a small business needs a consumer-level quantity of their product, they pay the tax, then file for a refund. Any other niggling details you'd like to pick over?

Ah, I see now. As the main thrust of your arguments falls apart you start grasping at straws, trying to find any niggling detail to pick at, with the FairTax. Okay, I’ll play, for now. Most likely, businesses will be responsible for filing for refunds for purchases that they make at regular retail stores. I’d imagine that companies that sell supplies EXCLUSIVELY to businesses will not have to charge the tax, as ALL of their clinets will be, in turn, charging their customers. A company that, for example, sells concrete mix to developers, would not have to charge tax on it. If the same company sells to individuals, they likely either sell through various hardware stores (Lowes, Home Depot, etc.) who would charge the tax when THEY sell, or the concrete mix company would sell via a small storefront at their business location, using a different method (like an inexpensive cash register, or even a program on their office computer), and charge the tax to the individual. Companies like that are much more likely to know which of their customers are builders (et al), and which are individual homeowners. Besides, a homeowner isn’t likely to be buying said concrete mix in bulk, anyway. So likely, yes, anything purchased at Staples, will have the tax charged, and businesses will have to file for a refund of the tax. Same as they do now. The agency that reviews those filings (from roughly 20 million businesses, instead of 100-150 million taxpaying citizens), would be the one to determine, in the event of an audit, what would qualify and what would not. As for the “local printer”, if you’re talking something like Kinko’s, again, you would pay the tax initially, and file for a refund. This would be done once a year (or more often, if businesses do so at present), much like income taxes are filed now, but again, with MUCH fewer businesses than citizens. If this is a printer who routinely (and almost exclusively) does print jobs for businesses, they will NOT charge the tax. Typically, if you need a print job from such a printer (B2B-type, rather than a Kinko’s), if anyone DID want a smaller print job from them, on a scale that usually only individuals would need, they’d charge high enough prices that the individual would likely just go somewhere like Kinko’s. Some businesses simply have the scale of their production geared toward B2B sales, while others are geared more toward retail customer sales. I’m NOT saying that no business will pay the FairTax on NONE of their purchases. A lunch for the staff certainly would NOT qualify for exemption, because it is not something being used in the production of their end product or service. If the staff has to pay the tax on their lunches, purchased individually, then the business would too. If, however, the business is a catering business, purchasing cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, lunchmeat, and the like, they’d likely pay the tax up front, unless they’re purchasing from a B2B-type business (catering supplier, or somesuch), and simply file for a refund at the end of the year (or possibly quarterly). And a catered lunch for the staff most certainly would NOT qualify as part of their marketing effort, as the lunch itself isn’t involved in the marketing of THEIR product or service. If anything, it would be marketing for the caterer, but certainly not the business purchasing the lunch. If the pharmaceutical company is providing this lunch for the doctors, the consumer is the one who ultimately pays the tax. If the lunch is free to the doctors, the pharm. company is the one who pays the tax. That aside, the cost of the lunch (tax or no tax) would ultimately be passed on to the consumer anyway, the same as any company’s advertising budget is, the same as ANY part of ANY company’s budget is ultimately passed on to the consumer. Really, do you think the executives of large corporations take anything out-of-pocket, to pay for the operational costs of their company? If you do, then you are more naive than I thought. The whole issue of catering aside, there are two basic kinds of businesses that sell products or services. Those that sell primarily to consumers (retailers, et al), and those that sell primarily to other businesses (B2B, for our purposes). Retailers will charge the tax, unless they have a separate B2B division that only businesses are permitted to purchase from. B2B companies will NOT charge the tax, unless they sell smaller quantities of their product, through a small storefront, at which point they would be REQUIRED to charge the tax. If a small business needs a consumer-level quantity of their product, they pay the tax, then file for a refund. Any other niggling details you’d like to pick over?

2009-01-12T14:33:15-08:00

8320

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:09-07:00

6740

271483

So Wal-Mart customers would pay the tax, and Sam's Club -- which caters to small businesses (the Main Street type) -- customers might or might not. And we'd be saving our receipts and filing annually or quarterly for refunds. Would those returns be blessed by accountants? And those catered lunches are not just for the doctors, by the way ... the pharmaceutical companies feed the entire practice -- office staff, doctors, PA's and nurses. I used to see the caterers' trucks lined up outside the medical office buildings where I took an elderly relative around lunch time. And each pharmaceutical company's business card gets attached to an office calendar to show which date each was covering. Absolutely amazing. But clearly B2B, and definitely part of the marketing effort, and therefore not subject to the FairTax. A way to reach the folks who prescribe, the folks who do the ordering for the office. I assume that the reps would come in and do their pitch during the lunch, but could never tell for sure; some of the offices had signs on the door saying which days they would accept visits from detailers. The tax on that Tax-Free Lunch gets paid by someone .... who do you think it might be. Don't tax you, don't tax me -- tax that guy behind the tree! I know! Let's have the tourists and immigrants pay it! And we won't send them prebates, right? Problem solved, right? No, just other problems created.

So Wal-Mart customers would pay the tax, and Sam’s Club — which caters to small businesses (the Main Street type) — customers might or might not. And we’d be saving our receipts and filing annually or quarterly for refunds. Would those returns be blessed by accountants? And those catered lunches are not just for the doctors, by the way … the pharmaceutical companies feed the entire practice — office staff, doctors, PA’s and nurses. I used to see the caterers’ trucks lined up outside the medical office buildings where I took an elderly relative around lunch time. And each pharmaceutical company’s business card gets attached to an office calendar to show which date each was covering. Absolutely amazing. But clearly B2B, and definitely part of the marketing effort, and therefore not subject to the FairTax. A way to reach the folks who prescribe, the folks who do the ordering for the office. I assume that the reps would come in and do their pitch during the lunch, but could never tell for sure; some of the offices had signs on the door saying which days they would accept visits from detailers. The tax on that Tax-Free Lunch gets paid by someone …. who do you think it might be. Don’t tax you, don’t tax me — tax that guy behind the tree! I know! Let’s have the tourists and immigrants pay it! And we won’t send them prebates, right? Problem solved, right? No, just other problems created.

2009-01-12T15:34:51-08:00

8322

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:09-07:00

6601

271483

lvtfan... What is your purpose here? Just because YOU don't understand something doesn't mean it's not true. The pharmaceutical reps are buying an end product/service that is being consumed at the lunch... The reps pay the FairTax right there... The doctors aren't going to vomit the food up and sell it to someone else later. "And we'd be saving our receipts and filing annually or quarterly for refunds. Would those returns be blessed by accountants?" Say a business buys something for resale to another business and pays the FairTax on the item. That business is then able to recoup the amount they paid from the pool of money they collected from their sales for the month. Why don't you start reading here: http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/PlainEnglishSummary_TheFairTaxAct2007.pdf And when you come up with a new question go read this again: http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/PlainEnglishSummary_TheFairTaxAct2007.pdf And then then you still want to ask a convoluted bastardized scenario that may squeak by the FairTax go read this: http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/PlainEnglishSummary_TheFairTaxAct2007.pdf Then post a new comment...

lvtfan… What is your purpose here? Just because YOU don’t understand something doesn’t mean it’s not true. The pharmaceutical reps are buying an end product/service that is being consumed at the lunch… The reps pay the FairTax right there… The doctors aren’t going to vomit the food up and sell it to someone else later. “And we’d be saving our receipts and filing annually or quarterly for refunds. Would those returns be blessed by accountants?” Say a business buys something for resale to another business and pays the FairTax on the item. That business is then able to recoup the amount they paid from the pool of money they collected from their sales for the month. Why don’t you start reading here: <a href="http://www.fairtax.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.fairtax.org/</a>PDF/PlainEnglishSummary_TheFairTaxAct2007.pdf And when you come up with a new question go read this again: <a href="http://www.fairtax.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.fairtax.org/</a>PDF/PlainEnglishSummary_TheFairTaxAct2007.pdf And then then you still want to ask a convoluted bastardized scenario that may squeak by the FairTax go read this: <a href="http://www.fairtax.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.fairtax.org/</a>PDF/PlainEnglishSummary_TheFairTaxAct2007.pdf Then post a new comment…

2009-01-12T18:06:04-08:00

8325

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:09-07:00

3064

271483

Your third paragraph answers my question. The business DOES pay the FairTax. You'd asserted before that they were exempt from it, I thought. And they are paying it out of the amount they can charge a customer. To keep their ordinary profit level, they must mark that FairTax up. Thank you for clarifying for me. Why do you like this so-called FairTax again??? I just don't see anything attractive about it.

Your third paragraph answers my question. The business DOES pay the FairTax. You’d asserted before that they were exempt from it, I thought. And they are paying it out of the amount they can charge a customer. To keep their ordinary profit level, they must mark that FairTax up. Thank you for clarifying for me. Why do you like this so-called FairTax again??? I just don’t see anything attractive about it.

2009-01-12T18:26:33-08:00

8328

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:09-07:00

6601

271483

sometimes when a business makes a purchase business to business purchase it may pay the fairtax after which they apply for a credit.

sometimes when a business makes a purchase business to business purchase it may pay the fairtax after which they apply for a credit.

2009-01-12T18:37:14-08:00

8329

true

false

deleted

2009-05-18T14:16:09-07:00

1378

271483

sometimes when a business makes a business to business purchase it may pay the fairtax after which they apply for a credit.

sometimes when a business makes a business to business purchase it may pay the fairtax after which they apply for a credit.

2009-01-12T18:37:39-08:00

8330

true

false

deleted

2009-05-18T14:16:09-07:00

1378

271483

The business did not have to pay the FairTax. That is the reason why they are able to recoup that cost from the taxes they collect. Why in the living He!! won't you do some reading? Honestly, you're the most dense person I've ever had an idiotic conversation with. PLEASE READ ABOUT THE FAIRTAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OR GO AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"

The business did not have to pay the FairTax. That is the reason why they are able to recoup that cost from the taxes they collect. Why in the living He!! won’t you do some reading? Honestly, you’re the most dense person I’ve ever had an idiotic conversation with. PLEASE READ ABOUT THE FAIRTAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OR GO AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! “Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience”

2009-01-12T18:40:19-08:00

8331

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:09-07:00

3064

271483

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-25&version=ih&nid=t0%3Aih%3A223 Seller Relieved of Liability in Certain Cases- In the case of any taxable property or service which is sold untaxed pursuant to section 102(a), the seller shall be relieved of the duty to collect and remit the tax imposed under section 101 on such purchase if the seller-- (1) received in good faith, and retains on file for the period set forth in section 509, a copy of a registration certificate from the purchaser, and (2) did not, at the time of sale, have reasonable cause to believe that the buyer was not registered pursuant to section 502. Sometimes when a business makes a business to business purchase it may pay the fairtax after which they apply for a credit. Credits and refunds are discussed hear http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-25&version=ih&nid=t0%3Aih%3A229

<a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-25&version=ih&nid=t0%3Aih%3A223" rel="nofollow">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-25&version=ih&nid=t0%3Aih%3A223</a> Seller Relieved of Liability in Certain Cases- In the case of any taxable property or service which is sold untaxed pursuant to section 102(a), the seller shall be relieved of the duty to collect and remit the tax imposed under section 101 on such purchase if the seller— (1) received in good faith, and retains on file for the period set forth in section 509, a copy of a registration certificate from the purchaser, and (2) did not, at the time of sale, have reasonable cause to believe that the buyer was not registered pursuant to section 502. Sometimes when a business makes a business to business purchase it may pay the fairtax after which they apply for a credit. Credits and refunds are discussed hear <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-25&version=ih&nid=t0%3Aih%3A229" rel="nofollow">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-25&version=ih&nid=t0%3Aih%3A229</a>

2009-01-12T18:52:07-08:00

8332

true

false

deleted

2009-05-18T14:16:09-07:00

1378

271483

<a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-25&version=ih&nid=t0%3Aih%3A223" rel="nofollow">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-25&version=ih&nid=t0%3Aih%3A223</a> Seller Relieved of Liability in Certain Cases- In the case of any taxable property or service which is sold untaxed pursuant to section 102(a), the seller shall be relieved of the duty to collect and remit the tax imposed under section 101 on such purchase if the seller— (1) received in good faith, and retains on file for the period set forth in section 509, a copy of a registration certificate from the purchaser, and (2) did not, at the time of sale, have reasonable cause to believe that the buyer was not registered pursuant to section 502. Sometimes when a business makes a business to business purchase it may pay the fairtax after which they apply for a credit. Credits and refunds are discussed hear <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-25&version=ih&nid=t0%3Aih%3A229" rel="nofollow">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-25&version=ih&nid=t0%3Aih%3A229</a> CHAPTER 2—CREDITS; REFUNDS Sec. 201. Credits and refunds. Sec. 202. Business use conversion credit. Sec. 203. Intermediate and export sales credit. Sec. 204. Administration credit. Sec. 205. Bad debt credit. Sec. 206. Insurance proceeds credit. Sec. 207. Refunds.

2009-01-12T18:54:54-08:00

8333

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:09-07:00

1378

271483

Reading your "plain English summary," this says that we will no longer be paying individual and payroll taxes including Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment Taxes. If you don't mean to get rid of Social Security and Unemployment Tax eligibility and payment levels for individual employees in proportion to their wages or earnings history, all the data needs to be transmitted, even if the employer is not remitting taxes. Big savings on record keeping and paperwork?? The Estate and Gift Tax. That affects perhaps 2% of us ... the 2% who are already grossing and netting the biggest share of the goodies. Let's make things even better for them, right? Call that Fair. The summary says that it allows a family of four to spend $27,380 tax free each year, and strongly implies that all their essentials can be covered by spending of $27,380. That might be true in a couple of dozen counties in America. So it may be literally true. (And where does that $27,380 figure come from? The Federal Poverty Guideline for a family of 4 in 2008 was $21,200. $27,380 is 29% more than that. Oh -- you mean that they can spend $21,200 on goods and 6,180 on taxes. Nice. Currently, a married couple with 2 children gets a standard deduction of $10,900 and exemptions of $14,000. And on $24,900 they are paying $1900 of payroll taxes (and their employer pays another $900). So they have available, under current laws, $23,000 to meet their needs. You lower that to $21,200 -- $1800 per year is not insignificant to them. And you tax the next dollar after $21,200 at 30%! Current practice places a 10% tax on it. Still on the first page of http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/PlainEnglishSummary_TheFairTaxAct2007.pdf we learn that "The Social Security and Medicare trust funds receive the same amount of money as they do under current law." Is that the LOCKBOX we learned about 8 years ago? Continuing: 1/4% goes to the state, and 1/4% goes to the retailer as an administrative fee. Does that also mean that barbers, lawyers, doctors, hospitals, insurers of all kinds, hot dog vendors, airlines, hotels, travel consolidators, WalMart, gas stations, Starbucks, McDonalds, Amazon, Canadian pharmacies, the local bar, the soda vending machine servicer, the cable tv company, the cell phone company, the snow-plow guy, the childcare mother, the landlord (for your home and your boatslip, but not for your business, unless the boat is a business expense!), the teenage babysitter, your child's college (yes, room, board, books, fees are not tax exempt), and, for the first 10 or so years, most ebay sellers (see "Used Property," page 6) -- all become federal tax collectors? Nice and simple, huh? Light recordkeeping, huh? "Strong taxpayer rights" ... which rights are those? The right not to comply? Page 5: privacy? presumption of innocence? presumption of lawful behavior?? when the opportunities for diversion are so high? r-i-g-h-t! "Taxable property or services purchased on behalf of an insured person are treated as purchases for business purposes and not taxed if sales tax was paid on the premium ..." So when I am paying out of pocket on my healthcare, I DO pay "FairTax" if I am not insured at all, but DO NOT pay it if I am working on my deductible? Really? Nice and simple ... and loads it on to people who are already struggling ... not paying group rates for medical care, for whatever reason, and then you are going to add a 23% tax on top of that? (which they are not likely to have cash for, so they will be paying interest on all of it?? Whee!!! What sort of Grinches are you folks?) It goes on to say, "Therefore, no family pays federal sales tax on essential goods and services and middle-class families are effectively exempted on a large part of their annual spending." What do you consider middle class? The middle quintile in 2005 earned $58,500, on average [Table 1, line 3 at http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/income/income_distribution.html ] If you accept that this 20% is our Middle Class, then

Reading your “plain English summary,” this says that we will no longer be paying individual and payroll taxes including Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment Taxes. If you don’t mean to get rid of Social Security and Unemployment Tax eligibility and payment levels for individual employees in proportion to their wages or earnings history, all the data needs to be transmitted, even if the employer is not remitting taxes. Big savings on record keeping and paperwork?? The Estate and Gift Tax. That affects perhaps 2% of us … the 2% who are already grossing and netting the biggest share of the goodies. Let’s make things even better for them, right? Call that Fair. The summary says that it allows a family of four to spend $27,380 tax free each year, and strongly implies that all their essentials can be covered by spending of $27,380. That might be true in a couple of dozen counties in America. So it may be literally true. (And where does that $27,380 figure come from? The Federal Poverty Guideline for a family of 4 in 2008 was $21,200. $27,380 is 29% more than that. Oh — you mean that they can spend $21,200 on goods and 6,180 on taxes. Nice. Currently, a married couple with 2 children gets a standard deduction of $10,900 and exemptions of $14,000. And on $24,900 they are paying $1900 of payroll taxes (and their employer pays another $900). So they have available, under current laws, $23,000 to meet their needs. You lower that to $21,200 — $1800 per year is not insignificant to them. And you tax the next dollar after $21,200 at 30%! Current practice places a 10% tax on it. Still on the first page of <a href="http://www.fairtax.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.fairtax.org/</a>PDF/PlainEnglishSummary_TheFairTaxAct2007.pdf we learn that “The Social Security and Medicare trust funds receive the same amount of money as they do under current law.” Is that the LOCKBOX we learned about 8 years ago? Continuing: 1/4% goes to the state, and 1/4% goes to the retailer as an administrative fee. Does that also mean that barbers, lawyers, doctors, hospitals, insurers of all kinds, hot dog vendors, airlines, hotels, travel consolidators, WalMart, gas stations, Starbucks, McDonalds, Amazon, Canadian pharmacies, the local bar, the soda vending machine servicer, the cable tv company, the cell phone company, the snow-plow guy, the childcare mother, the landlord (for your home and your boatslip, but not for your business, unless the boat is a business expense!), the teenage babysitter, your child’s college (yes, room, board, books, fees are not tax exempt), and, for the first 10 or so years, most ebay sellers (see “Used Property,” page 6) — all become federal tax collectors? Nice and simple, huh? Light recordkeeping, huh? “Strong taxpayer rights” … which rights are those? The right not to comply? Page 5: privacy? presumption of innocence? presumption of lawful behavior?? when the opportunities for diversion are so high? r-i-g-h-t! “Taxable property or services purchased on behalf of an insured person are treated as purchases for business purposes and not taxed if sales tax was paid on the premium …” So when I am paying out of pocket on my healthcare, I DO pay “FairTax” if I am not insured at all, but DO NOT pay it if I am working on my deductible? Really? Nice and simple … and loads it on to people who are already struggling … not paying group rates for medical care, for whatever reason, and then you are going to add a 23% tax on top of that? (which they are not likely to have cash for, so they will be paying interest on all of it?? Whee!!! What sort of Grinches are you folks?) It goes on to say, “Therefore, no family pays federal sales tax on essential goods and services and middle-class families are effectively exempted on a large part of their annual spending.” What do you consider middle class? The middle quintile in 2005 earned $58,500, on average [Table 1, line 3 at <a href="http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/income/income_distribution.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/income/income_distribution.html</a> ] If you accept that this 20% is our Middle Class, then

2009-01-12T19:12:03-08:00

8335

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:09-07:00

6601

271483

Please explain to the curious why it is a good thing for a taxable employer to have to pay a 23% tax on what they pay to "domestic services" like a "nanny, housekeeper or gardener." Currently, they pay, or are supposed to withhold for social insurance and whatever goes on a W-2, but then the employee, who is likely not to be in a very high tax bracket, gets to pocket their earnings. You propose to charge the employer a 23% surcharge, and then turn around and charge the employee 23% on their spending. What a DEAL you're offering! I thought that an important part of trickle-down economics related to all the jobs that rich people create in their multiple homes. This doesn't seem to trickle so well. And to the extent that domestic employees work for someone who happens to be a business owners -- as many of us would choose to become under the FairTax -- they are likely to be treated as somehow part of the business, along with a lot of the entrepreneur's other necessary spending, including his club memberships and rounds of golf, and therefore magically exempt from the "FairTax." Those who are unfortunate enough to live in less populated places, where prices are higher, are going to be paying high amounts of FairTax relative to the value of the goods they purchase. Similarly, those in poor neighborhoods with few grocery stores and many corner stores will be paying FairTax on corner-store prices, while their better-off suburban counterparts, shopping at large efficient grocery stores, will be paying less for their purchases and less in FairTax. Fair to whom? Please explain. I don't think http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/PlainEnglishSummary_TheFairTaxAct2007.pdf touches on such details, but they are reality for many of our fellow Americans.

Please explain to the curious why it is a good thing for a taxable employer to have to pay a 23% tax on what they pay to “domestic services” like a “nanny, housekeeper or gardener.” Currently, they pay, or are supposed to withhold for social insurance and whatever goes on a W-2, but then the employee, who is likely not to be in a very high tax bracket, gets to pocket their earnings. You propose to charge the employer a 23% surcharge, and then turn around and charge the employee 23% on their spending. What a DEAL you’re offering! I thought that an important part of trickle-down economics related to all the jobs that rich people create in their multiple homes. This doesn’t seem to trickle so well. And to the extent that domestic employees work for someone who happens to be a business owners — as many of us would choose to become under the FairTax — they are likely to be treated as somehow part of the business, along with a lot of the entrepreneur’s other necessary spending, including his club memberships and rounds of golf, and therefore magically exempt from the “FairTax.” Those who are unfortunate enough to live in less populated places, where prices are higher, are going to be paying high amounts of FairTax relative to the value of the goods they purchase. Similarly, those in poor neighborhoods with few grocery stores and many corner stores will be paying FairTax on corner-store prices, while their better-off suburban counterparts, shopping at large efficient grocery stores, will be paying less for their purchases and less in FairTax. Fair to whom? Please explain. I don’t think <a href="http://www.fairtax.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.fairtax.org/</a>PDF/PlainEnglishSummary_TheFairTaxAct2007.pdf touches on such details, but they are reality for many of our fellow Americans.

2009-01-12T19:34:00-08:00

8337

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:09-07:00

6601

271483

Page 11 of http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/PlainEnglishSummary_TheFairTaxAct2007.pdf says that "And the business wonâ€™t have to deal with income tax withholding and payroll tax deductions for their employees" ... so how will Social Security know how much to credit their account with? That recordkeeping doesn't go away; the dollars just flow somewhat differently, and, for those whose product is a service rather than a good, previously untaxed, the complications of being in business rise. And on page 12: "An accountant bills a client on a quarterly basis, and because he uses the accrual method, he pays the FairTax during the month he invoices. Six months later, his client has not paid the invoice. The accountant is able to get a credit of the taxes he remitted when he issued the invoice, since the invoice has not been paid." And will he be able to collect interest on that? I'm glad your example is an accountant. He is able to keep track of that sort of stuff. The rest of us will be paying a pretty penny (no FairTax, though, if I've got it straight) to services which will handle these details for us, just as payroll companies do now ... and the payroll companies won't go away, and their services will not be taxed either.

Page 11 of <a href="http://www.fairtax.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.fairtax.org/</a>PDF/PlainEnglishSummary_TheFairTaxAct2007.pdf says that “And the business wonâ€™t have to deal with income tax withholding and payroll tax deductions for their employees” … so how will Social Security know how much to credit their account with? That recordkeeping doesn’t go away; the dollars just flow somewhat differently, and, for those whose product is a service rather than a good, previously untaxed, the complications of being in business rise. And on page 12: “An accountant bills a client on a quarterly basis, and because he uses the accrual method, he pays the FairTax during the month he invoices. Six months later, his client has not paid the invoice. The accountant is able to get a credit of the taxes he remitted when he issued the invoice, since the invoice has not been paid.” And will he be able to collect interest on that? I’m glad your example is an accountant. He is able to keep track of that sort of stuff. The rest of us will be paying a pretty penny (no FairTax, though, if I’ve got it straight) to services which will handle these details for us, just as payroll companies do now … and the payroll companies won’t go away, and their services will not be taxed either.

2009-01-12T19:44:55-08:00

8338

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:09-07:00

6601

271483

This statement, from page 13, is flat out untrue: "Poverty level spending is calculated annually by the Department of Health and Human Services to represent what it costs families of varying household size and composition to buy their necessities." To be true, it would have to take into account the difference between the cost of living in Wilcox County, Alabama, and the Bronx or Manhattan, New York. "The Essentials" have very different costs in those two places.

This statement, from page 13, is flat out untrue: “Poverty level spending is calculated annually by the Department of Health and Human Services to represent what it costs families of varying household size and composition to buy their necessities.” To be true, it would have to take into account the difference between the cost of living in Wilcox County, Alabama, and the Bronx or Manhattan, New York. “The Essentials” have very different costs in those two places.

2009-01-12T19:46:38-08:00

8339

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:09-07:00

6601

271483

Go take some economics courses....

Go take some economics courses….

2009-01-12T19:48:36-08:00

8341

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:09-07:00

3064

271483

Go take a course on our current income tax system too while you're at it...

Go take a course on our current income tax system too while you’re at it…

2009-01-12T19:55:02-08:00

8343

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:09-07:00

3064

271483

Page 13: How do you propose to handle five individuals, unrelated, who live together in order to reduce their expenses? Is each its own one-person family? Do you consider it government business to inquire about the nature of their living arrangements or configuration of the household to determine what each person's prebate should be? Will the marriage laws in each state have any effect on their prebate? Must register annually with the state. You ARE into privacy, aren't you? What provision do you make for frail elderly people? Will you deny their prebate if they fail to register, and how will you penalize when they fail to notify of a death? And think how far the funds of the frail elderly person will go when they must pay not only the wages of their aides, but also a 30% surcharge. And when they become forgetful, who will pursue them for payment? And when you drive down their savings that much faster, will Medicaid be there to meet their needs?

Page 13: How do you propose to handle five individuals, unrelated, who live together in order to reduce their expenses? Is each its own one-person family? Do you consider it government business to inquire about the nature of their living arrangements or configuration of the household to determine what each person’s prebate should be? Will the marriage laws in each state have any effect on their prebate? Must register annually with the state. You ARE into privacy, aren’t you? What provision do you make for frail elderly people? Will you deny their prebate if they fail to register, and how will you penalize when they fail to notify of a death? And think how far the funds of the frail elderly person will go when they must pay not only the wages of their aides, but also a 30% surcharge. And when they become forgetful, who will pursue them for payment? And when you drive down their savings that much faster, will Medicaid be there to meet their needs?

2009-01-12T20:05:57-08:00

8345

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:10-07:00

6601

271483

Your attempts to nit pick the FairTax are pathetic... Here, I'll write your next post for you: "What about people in comas? How will they ever apply for their prebate? What about a gay couple where one of the partners is also a secret polygamist? How will he be able to claim both of his households without being found out by his partners? You're anti-privacy aren't you? I don't know why you feel so entitled and above polygamist gay couples... but that's not why my ancestors came to america... See here: http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/underpop/ltvfan_is_a_poo_poo_head " P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C!!!

Your attempts to nit pick the FairTax are pathetic… Here, I’ll write your next post for you: “What about people in comas? How will they ever apply for their prebate? What about a gay couple where one of the partners is also a secret polygamist? How will he be able to claim both of his households without being found out by his partners? You’re anti-privacy aren’t you? I don’t know why you feel so entitled and above polygamist gay couples… but that’s not why my ancestors came to america… See here: <a href="http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/underpop/ltvfan_is_a_poo_poo_head" rel="nofollow">http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/underpop/ltvfan_is_a_poo_poo_head</a> " P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C!!!

2009-01-12T20:20:43-08:00

8348

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:10-07:00

3064

271483

There is really no point in continuing this. He is just trolling and simply takes a portion of what you say, twists it out of context and uses it to make his "arguments". I particularly like how he says something that is clearly covered in the FairTax information like he is discovering some flaw or deception, like the fact that employers would still have to report employee incomes to the Social Security Administration for the purposes of calculating Social Security benefits. Guess what, reporting income to the SSA is not dealing with income tax withholding or payroll deductions. If you took the time to think and research before you posted you might be able to make a cogent argument. But as I said, it is evident you are simply trolling and not actually trying to stimulate real debate to help people develop an opinion about the FairTax. This ceased to be a debate around the 6th post.

There is really no point in continuing this. He is just trolling and simply takes a portion of what you say, twists it out of context and uses it to make his “arguments”. I particularly like how he says something that is clearly covered in the FairTax information like he is discovering some flaw or deception, like the fact that employers would still have to report employee incomes to the Social Security Administration for the purposes of calculating Social Security benefits. Guess what, reporting income to the SSA is not dealing with income tax withholding or payroll deductions. If you took the time to think and research before you posted you might be able to make a cogent argument. But as I said, it is evident you are simply trolling and not actually trying to stimulate real debate to help people develop an opinion about the FairTax. This ceased to be a debate around the 6th post.

2009-01-12T20:21:16-08:00

8349

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:10-07:00

4092

271483

Lottery Tickets are free from the FairTax! (Page 25) Will the state which runs a lottery be paying the FairTax on its net proceeds? Will Indian Tribes running casinos be paying FairTax on their net proceeds? Will consumer purchases on the tribal property be paying the FairTax??? The interest and fees on payday loans will be subject to the FairTax? Leased cars will incur a FairTax on the value of the lease, but not the remainder of its value when the car is turned in? (page 29) Additional Matters: page 36 -- "De minimis payments. Up to $1,200 per year of gross payments received by a person not in connection with a trade or business are exempt. Example: The neighborhood teenager doing odd jobs or occasional babysitting is able to receive payments up to $1200 and not be required to collect the FairTax on the services they provide." -- But the teenager is not the one paying the tax ... the employer pays it. Is that $1200 per employer, or $1200 in total? Page 32: Funding Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds ... 6.31% plus 1.78% = 8.09% ... does that substitute for the existing 7.65% of wages, or for the 15.3% of wages including the employer's portion? Is personal consumption really that high? Page 34: Social Security Benefits will rise by 30% to maintain purchasing power. Will this reduce the size and viability of the Trust Fund? Those receiving other kinds of pensions will see their buying power drop. Sorry, older friends!

Lottery Tickets are free from the FairTax! (Page 25) Will the state which runs a lottery be paying the FairTax on its net proceeds? Will Indian Tribes running casinos be paying FairTax on their net proceeds? Will consumer purchases on the tribal property be paying the FairTax??? The interest and fees on payday loans will be subject to the FairTax? Leased cars will incur a FairTax on the value of the lease, but not the remainder of its value when the car is turned in? (page 29) Additional Matters: page 36 — “De minimis payments. Up to $1,200 per year of gross payments received by a person not in connection with a trade or business are exempt. Example: The neighborhood teenager doing odd jobs or occasional babysitting is able to receive payments up to $1200 and not be required to collect the FairTax on the services they provide.” — But the teenager is not the one paying the tax … the employer pays it. Is that $1200 per employer, or $1200 in total? Page 32: Funding Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds … 6.31% plus 1.78% = 8.09% … does that substitute for the existing 7.65% of wages, or for the 15.3% of wages including the employer’s portion? Is personal consumption really that high? Page 34: Social Security Benefits will rise by 30% to maintain purchasing power. Will this reduce the size and viability of the Trust Fund? Those receiving other kinds of pensions will see their buying power drop. Sorry, older friends!

2009-01-12T20:30:47-08:00

8350

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:10-07:00

6601

271483

Mhalavo, Did you read this before you sent me to read it? http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/PlainEnglishSummary_TheFairTaxAct2007.pdf

Mhalavo, Did you read this before you sent me to read it? <a href="http://www.fairtax.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.fairtax.org/</a>PDF/PlainEnglishSummary_TheFairTaxAct2007.pdf

2009-01-12T20:32:59-08:00

8351

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:10-07:00

6601

271483

I agree with the other posters that lvtfan's nitpicks are becoming tiresome. lvtfan, I tried to play your game, assuming you were actually asking questions you wanted answers to, but instead I realize your whole point is to discredit the FairTax by the same means as any other critics: confusion, removing information from context, and playing games with details that likely have already been worked out. Like the others in here, I'm tired of your distortions and half-truths. And I'm immediately unsubscribing from this thread, so don't even bother replying to this post.

I agree with the other posters that lvtfan’s nitpicks are becoming tiresome. lvtfan, I tried to play your game, assuming you were actually asking questions you wanted answers to, but instead I realize your whole point is to discredit the FairTax by the same means as any other critics: confusion, removing information from context, and playing games with details that likely have already been worked out. Like the others in here, I’m tired of your distortions and half-truths. And I’m immediately unsubscribing from this thread, so don’t even bother replying to this post.

2009-01-12T20:43:56-08:00

8352

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:10-07:00

6740

271483

Yes... I read it and UNDERSTOOD it....

Yes… I read it and UNDERSTOOD it….

2009-01-12T20:48:31-08:00

8353

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:10-07:00

3064

271483

As I've noted, I am heartily in favor of getting rid of the income tax. It is wrong, it is complex, it deadens our economy. But replacing it with something as perverse as a National Sales Tax, even one entitled "FairTax" does not move us ahead. There is a far better aIternative. A smarter idea, one which will have desirable effects on our suffering economy, will make life easier for the poor without depriving anyone of something they created themselves, will make our cities better places to live, will shorten commutes, make housing affordable. Does that sound like too much to ask of simple tax reform? Well, if you think that all those issues are unrelated, you'd probably say so. But they all stem from a single fallacy in how we've structured ourselves. Henry George laid it out in his book, "Progress & Poverty" and developed some of the themes further in a collection of essays entitled "Social Problems," both of which you can read online. Check out http://www.wealthandwant.com/ for links. Look particularly for Fred Foldvary's paper "The Ultimate Tax Reform" -- I think I linked to it further up on this page. Bon chance, America! We *can* fix our messes, and move this country toward living up to its ideals and away from "dog eat dog."

As I’ve noted, I am heartily in favor of getting rid of the income tax. It is wrong, it is complex, it deadens our economy. But replacing it with something as perverse as a National Sales Tax, even one entitled “FairTax” does not move us ahead. There is a far better aIternative. A smarter idea, one which will have desirable effects on our suffering economy, will make life easier for the poor without depriving anyone of something they created themselves, will make our cities better places to live, will shorten commutes, make housing affordable. Does that sound like too much to ask of simple tax reform? Well, if you think that all those issues are unrelated, you’d probably say so. But they all stem from a single fallacy in how we’ve structured ourselves. Henry George laid it out in his book, “Progress & Poverty” and developed some of the themes further in a collection of essays entitled “Social Problems,” both of which you can read online. Check out <a href="http://www.wealthandwant.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wealthandwant.com/</a> for links. Look particularly for Fred Foldvary’s paper “The Ultimate Tax Reform” — I think I linked to it further up on this page. Bon chance, America! We can fix our messes, and move this country toward living up to its ideals and away from “dog eat dog.”

2009-01-13T06:15:49-08:00

8358

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:10-07:00

6601

271483

'one which will have desirable effects on our suffering economy, will make life easier for the poor without depriving anyone of something they created themselves, will make our cities better places to live, will shorten commutes, make housing affordable' Yeah.....its called the FairTax.

‘one which will have desirable effects on our suffering economy, will make life easier for the poor without depriving anyone of something they created themselves, will make our cities better places to live, will shorten commutes, make housing affordable’ Yeah…..its called the FairTax.

2009-01-13T12:18:07-08:00

8385

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:11-07:00

4634

271483

jedi-riccan, please explain to us how the "FairTax" would do any of those things? I think the "FairTax" will do exactly the opposite. Sales taxes are never a good solution to any problem. If your state has a sales tax, have you been hearing calls for the federal government to provide "sales tax holidays" a few times a year, in order to take the burden off poor people and working people and middle class people? And likely your state taxes fewer good and far fewer services than the "FairTax" would be on. Please study taxation more before you get excited about the FairTax. It is a gift to the top 1%, funded by the bottom 95% of us. (I understand that 19% of us perceive ourselves to be top 1%-ers, so you may feel that this really will benefit you. But it won't benefit the vast majority of us, particularly those who work for a living and have incomes that are low enough that we spend nearly all of it on necessities.

jedi-riccan, please explain to us how the “FairTax” would do any of those things? I think the “FairTax” will do exactly the opposite. Sales taxes are never a good solution to any problem. If your state has a sales tax, have you been hearing calls for the federal government to provide “sales tax holidays” a few times a year, in order to take the burden off poor people and working people and middle class people? And likely your state taxes fewer good and far fewer services than the “FairTax” would be on. Please study taxation more before you get excited about the FairTax. It is a gift to the top 1%, funded by the bottom 95% of us. (I understand that 19% of us perceive ourselves to be top 1%-ers, so you may feel that this really will benefit you. But it won’t benefit the vast majority of us, particularly those who work for a living and have incomes that are low enough that we spend nearly all of it on necessities.

2009-01-13T13:40:37-08:00

8408

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:12-07:00

6601

271483

jedi-riccan: Just ignore lvtfan. If you've read through any of his posts it's plain to see that he's simply trying to damage the image of the FairTax by using disinformation and confusion. Anything response you give will be taken out of context anyway. He's just a forum troll trying to get a rise out of people. If everyone just let's it go he'll eventually move on.

jedi-riccan: Just ignore lvtfan. If you’ve read through any of his posts it’s plain to see that he’s simply trying to damage the image of the FairTax by using disinformation and confusion. Anything response you give will be taken out of context anyway. He’s just a forum troll trying to get a rise out of people. If everyone just let’s it go he’ll eventually move on.

2009-01-13T14:09:32-08:00

8411

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:12-07:00

4092

271483

James, Sir, I am a reformer just as you are. But I see things a bit differently than you do, and I think I'm looking through stronger and clearer lenses than you are. I've spent a lot of time thinking about these issues over a lot more years than the "FairTax" has been on the scene. I'm glad you want to end the income tax. So do I. But I don't want to see things made worse, and I firmly believe the "FairTax" would be a serious step in that direction. Ad hominems are unworthy of you.

James, Sir, I am a reformer just as you are. But I see things a bit differently than you do, and I think I’m looking through stronger and clearer lenses than you are. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about these issues over a lot more years than the “FairTax” has been on the scene. I’m glad you want to end the income tax. So do I. But I don’t want to see things made worse, and I firmly believe the “FairTax” would be a serious step in that direction. Ad hominems are unworthy of you.

2009-01-13T14:31:00-08:00

8415

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:12-07:00

6601

271483

lvtfan.....I don't want to be sued for posting paragraph after paragraph from the FairTax book.....so please PLEASE read it. Its all laid out so even the most idiotic of us can understand it. The rich have the vast majority of the tax burden while the poorest are not taxed and even given tax money they have not paid in. The issue is that the top earners are taxed enough and you cannot untax the poor anymore without putting them on welfare (enter Obama's tax plan). The system we have is dead......government is beating a dead horse. Its time to give money back to the rich to resolve the economy (because government in their infinite wisdom will just throw money at it) while still giving the poor a free ride/no extra tax burden. Anyone in the US can live tax free at the poverty level (no winners and no losers). Regardless of how much people make....every taxpayer is better off. Its not perfect by any means....but man is it a better system than we have. 'Desiberable effects on the economy' More people will have more of their money to invest, spend and expand 'Life easier on the poor' They keep more of their pay check and still get a check from the government each month. 'depriving anyone of something they created themselves' Money isn't taken from the hard workers to pay for the lazy workers 'Cities better places to live' More investment in local economies by local businesses 'Shorten commutes' It will be a perfect world and people will have a spring in their step 'Make housing affordable' Interest rates will be lower and people will have more money to afford houses. Take that apart if you will........you're in the minority.

lvtfan…..I don’t want to be sued for posting paragraph after paragraph from the FairTax book…..so please PLEASE read it. Its all laid out so even the most idiotic of us can understand it. The rich have the vast majority of the tax burden while the poorest are not taxed and even given tax money they have not paid in. The issue is that the top earners are taxed enough and you cannot untax the poor anymore without putting them on welfare (enter Obama’s tax plan). The system we have is dead……government is beating a dead horse. Its time to give money back to the rich to resolve the economy (because government in their infinite wisdom will just throw money at it) while still giving the poor a free ride/no extra tax burden. Anyone in the US can live tax free at the poverty level (no winners and no losers). Regardless of how much people make….every taxpayer is better off. Its not perfect by any means….but man is it a better system than we have. ‘Desiberable effects on the economy’ More people will have more of their money to invest, spend and expand ‘Life easier on the poor’ They keep more of their pay check and still get a check from the government each month. ‘depriving anyone of something they created themselves’ Money isn’t taken from the hard workers to pay for the lazy workers ‘Cities better places to live’ More investment in local economies by local businesses ‘Shorten commutes’ It will be a perfect world and people will have a spring in their step ‘Make housing affordable’ Interest rates will be lower and people will have more money to afford houses. Take that apart if you will……..you’re in the minority.

2009-01-13T14:34:48-08:00

8416

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:12-07:00

4634

271483

jedi_riccan, I doubt they would sue you for quoting from the sacred text! I've not read the book, but I have read in detail the "in plain English" version - about 37 pages -- which I assume pretty well covers it. As I have repeatedly said, I too want to get rid of the income tax, roughly as badly as supporters of the "FairTax" do. But I don't want to replace it with something which will destroy the economy, which is already teetering (in part, I believe, because our wealth is so concentrated in relatively few of us ... and when they catch cold, the economy catches pneumonia: 1% of us hold 33.38% of the net worth (2003 data; 2006 is due out soon, I think), up from 30.08% in 1989; 10% of us hold 69.50% of the net worth, and the other 90% of us have 30.50%, down from 32.79% in 1989. [Source: Survey of Consumer Finances, at http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/wealth/90-9-1_Tables.html , table 2, line 01.] Similarly, the top 1% of income recipients, in 2006, received 22.90% of the income; the top 10% of us received 49.69% of the income, and the remaining 90% of us made do with the remaining 50.31%. [Source: Piketty & Saez spreadsheet, 2006, reported at http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/income/income_distribution.html ] Most of us (~75-8% of us!!) pay more in Social Insurance taxes than we do in Federal Income Taxes. [Source: CBO data, reported in Summary Table 1 at http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/income/income_distribution.html, columns 5 and 6.] Yes, the top 1% of income recipients, who gross 18.1% of the income, pay 27.6% of the Federal Taxes. After paying those taxes, they still NET 15.6% of the income!! The top 10% of income recipients, who gross 40.9% of the income, pay 54.7% of the federal taxes. After paying those taxes, those 10% of us still NET 37.4% of the income. The second 10% of us gross 14.2% of the income, and pay 14.0% of the taxes, and NET 14.2% of us. The bottom 80% of us gross 44.9% of the income, pay 31.3% of the federal taxes, and NET 48.4% of the after-tax income. (They pay 56.4% of the Social Insurance taxes, by the way.) [Source: Congressional Budget Office data, reported at http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/income/income_distribution.html, Table 2] I don't think we ought to be taxing either labor or sales, or individual or corporate productivity of any kind. Rather, I think we ought to be taxing land value. I may be in a minority, but I can see through your statements. It appears that you believe that "trickle down economics" have been a success so far, and that we ought to build on that success. I see "trickle down economics" as a dismal failure, something that needs to be corrected. (Witness the wealth concentration and income data I cited above. Does that look like an economy where all of us are being rewarded justly for our labor and effort and skills? It doesn't to me. But perhaps your opinion of your fellow man differs from mine. ) I may be putting words in your mouth, but I'm guessing from what you've written that you might assert that a "rising economic tide lifts all boats." I take the data I cited -- Federal Reserve Board and Congressional Budget Office data -- as evidence that it has not. Further, the reform you propose will lighten the share of the tax load on those who are far more able to pay than the average person or family ... and shift that load onto the low and middle and even upper middle income people. You assert that this is good and just. Taxing wages is unjust -- we agree on that. But I assert that taxing sales is unjust and, to put it gently, unwise. And further, I assert that there is a far better, more just and more logical alternative: tax land value; tax non-renewable natural resources, tax scarce finite things like electromagnetic spectrum, like water rights, like oil revenue, like natural gas revenue, like congestion, like airport landing rights at busy, space-constrained airports, etc. (It might help make clearer what I'm proposing to say that I would not advocate taxing solar power, or wind power, or tidal power -- those are renewable, non-exclusive resources -- he who creates from any of them is not drawing down on any finite or scarce piece of the commons, and therefore does not owe the rest of us for that resource.) 1. The people who will have more money to invest are the wealthy. Look how well things have gone for us with 33% of our wealth sitting in 1% of pockets. Think what it will be when we reduce their taxes! Will that create more jobs? I doubt it. 2. Life easier for the poor -- fewer jobs, because demand for goods will be reduced? "FairTax" will not raise wages. And the monthly check will not go far where most Americans live. 3. I seek to end the income tax ... and by taxing land value, we will not take from anyone value they created. This is not true of a sales tax; it reduces demand for your goods and my services, and therefore impoverishes us. I don't think there are lazy workers -- that may be a difference between us. I think there are people who reap what they do not sow. And guess what? That means that large numbers of people who reap do not get to sow. Land value taxation will correct a large share of that. (The explanation is too long to go here, but you might read Archimedes, by Mark Twain, at http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Twain_archimedes.html Even if you don't agree with it, you might find it funny. The fourth paragraph (of 11) in particular! 4. Yes! You and I agree on something! But I think that LVT will do it far more effectively that burdening everyone's purchases. 5. Shorten commutes ... I read into what you wrote that you don't think anything can make a difference in this one? Perhaps I misread you. 6. Bringing down interest rates will simply drive up the price of housing! Buyers will be able to borrow more on the same amount of mortgage payment. Who will benefit? He who has land to sell, or a house to sell, or a condo. Without lifting a finger. See your #3 -- something about hard workers and lazy workers. Young people will pay older people for value that they didn't lift a finger to create! And over the years, a larger and larger share of their income will go to paying the mortgage and their taxes. The reform I propose will reduce the amount they pay for housing, have people paying once instead of twice, and free up more of their income for buying other goods or services that other people produce, thereby creating jobs for .... hard workers!! Seems like a win-win-win solution to me. I may be in the minority, but I think the solution I propose is one which will make America more rewarding for those who want to work; an easier society in which to earn a living; and more consistent with our ideals.

jedi_riccan, I doubt they would sue you for quoting from the sacred text! I’ve not read the book, but I have read in detail the “in plain English” version – about 37 pages — which I assume pretty well covers it. As I have repeatedly said, I too want to get rid of the income tax, roughly as badly as supporters of the “FairTax” do. But I don’t want to replace it with something which will destroy the economy, which is already teetering (in part, I believe, because our wealth is so concentrated in relatively few of us … and when they catch cold, the economy catches pneumonia: 1% of us hold 33.38% of the net worth (2003 data; 2006 is due out soon, I think), up from 30.08% in 1989; 10% of us hold 69.50% of the net worth, and the other 90% of us have 30.50%, down from 32.79% in 1989. [Source: Survey of Consumer Finances, at <a href="http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/wealth/90-9-1_Tables.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/wealth/90-9-1_Tables.html</a> , table 2, line 01.] Similarly, the top 1% of income recipients, in 2006, received 22.90% of the income; the top 10% of us received 49.69% of the income, and the remaining 90% of us made do with the remaining 50.31%. [Source: Piketty & Saez spreadsheet, 2006, reported at <a href="http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/income/income_distribution.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/income/income_distribution.html</a> ] Most of us (~75-8% of us!!) pay more in Social Insurance taxes than we do in Federal Income Taxes. [Source: CBO data, reported in Summary Table 1 at <a href="http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/income/income_distribution.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/income/income_distribution.html</a>, columns 5 and 6.] Yes, the top 1% of income recipients, who gross 18.1% of the income, pay 27.6% of the Federal Taxes. After paying those taxes, they still NET 15.6% of the income!! The top 10% of income recipients, who gross 40.9% of the income, pay 54.7% of the federal taxes. After paying those taxes, those 10% of us still NET 37.4% of the income. The second 10% of us gross 14.2% of the income, and pay 14.0% of the taxes, and NET 14.2% of us. The bottom 80% of us gross 44.9% of the income, pay 31.3% of the federal taxes, and NET 48.4% of the after-tax income. (They pay 56.4% of the Social Insurance taxes, by the way.) [Source: Congressional Budget Office data, reported at <a href="http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/income/income_distribution.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/income/income_distribution.html</a>, Table 2] I don’t think we ought to be taxing either labor or sales, or individual or corporate productivity of any kind. Rather, I think we ought to be taxing land value. I may be in a minority, but I can see through your statements. It appears that you believe that “trickle down economics” have been a success so far, and that we ought to build on that success. I see “trickle down economics” as a dismal failure, something that needs to be corrected. (Witness the wealth concentration and income data I cited above. Does that look like an economy where all of us are being rewarded justly for our labor and effort and skills? It doesn’t to me. But perhaps your opinion of your fellow man differs from mine. ) I may be putting words in your mouth, but I’m guessing from what you’ve written that you might assert that a “rising economic tide lifts all boats.” I take the data I cited — Federal Reserve Board and Congressional Budget Office data — as evidence that it has not. Further, the reform you propose will lighten the share of the tax load on those who are far more able to pay than the average person or family … and shift that load onto the low and middle and even upper middle income people. You assert that this is good and just. Taxing wages is unjust — we agree on that. But I assert that taxing sales is unjust and, to put it gently, unwise. And further, I assert that there is a far better, more just and more logical alternative: tax land value; tax non-renewable natural resources, tax scarce finite things like electromagnetic spectrum, like water rights, like oil revenue, like natural gas revenue, like congestion, like airport landing rights at busy, space-constrained airports, etc. (It might help make clearer what I’m proposing to say that I would not advocate taxing solar power, or wind power, or tidal power — those are renewable, non-exclusive resources — he who creates from any of them is not drawing down on any finite or scarce piece of the commons, and therefore does not owe the rest of us for that resource.) 1. The people who will have more money to invest are the wealthy. Look how well things have gone for us with 33% of our wealth sitting in 1% of pockets. Think what it will be when we reduce their taxes! Will that create more jobs? I doubt it. 2. Life easier for the poor — fewer jobs, because demand for goods will be reduced? “FairTax” will not raise wages. And the monthly check will not go far where most Americans live. 3. I seek to end the income tax … and by taxing land value, we will not take from anyone value they created. This is not true of a sales tax; it reduces demand for your goods and my services, and therefore impoverishes us. I don’t think there are lazy workers — that may be a difference between us. I think there are people who reap what they do not sow. And guess what? That means that large numbers of people who reap do not get to sow. Land value taxation will correct a large share of that. (The explanation is too long to go here, but you might read Archimedes, by Mark Twain, at <a href="http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Twain_archimedes.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Twain_archimedes.html</a> Even if you don’t agree with it, you might find it funny. The fourth paragraph (of 11) in particular! 4. Yes! You and I agree on something! But I think that LVT will do it far more effectively that burdening everyone’s purchases. 5. Shorten commutes … I read into what you wrote that you don’t think anything can make a difference in this one? Perhaps I misread you. 6. Bringing down interest rates will simply drive up the price of housing! Buyers will be able to borrow more on the same amount of mortgage payment. Who will benefit? He who has land to sell, or a house to sell, or a condo. Without lifting a finger. See your #3 — something about hard workers and lazy workers. Young people will pay older people for value that they didn’t lift a finger to create! And over the years, a larger and larger share of their income will go to paying the mortgage and their taxes. The reform I propose will reduce the amount they pay for housing, have people paying once instead of twice, and free up more of their income for buying other goods or services that other people produce, thereby creating jobs for …. hard workers!! Seems like a win-win-win solution to me. I may be in the minority, but I think the solution I propose is one which will make America more rewarding for those who want to work; an easier society in which to earn a living; and more consistent with our ideals.

2009-01-13T16:23:25-08:00

8423

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:12-07:00

6601

271483

Making land the prime tax method is a bit strange. I might buy that, but only if the right to vote is then also the exclusive right of land owners only. Otherwise those that do not own land will simply gouge the land owner for tax dollars. The current property tax system in Kansas (where I own a home and land) is already out of control. I paid for my property years ago (through hard work) and have no mortgage or liens. But each month I have to shell out property tax money. Eventually the amount of the tax will exceed my retirement income. We need either the FairTax or some kind of flat tax. The two books written on the FairTax issue (best sellers) were very convincing and articulate. Take the issue of the rich. They made a case about Bill Gates. He gets around 350 million a year in dividends from his Microsoft stock. That gain is currently taxed at 15%. The rest of us pay much more â€“ 30% plus. Bill does not pay Medicare or Social Security (those are payroll deductions). Under the fair tax, when Bill spends his money he gets taxed at 21% and his spending contributes to Medicare and Social Security. As far as a flat tax system, I would advocate a Citizens Tax. A real simple idea â€“ everyone pays 10 cents on every dollar earned to the federal government. No exemptions no anything. A simple three line tax form â€“ how much did you earn? Multiply by 10%. Pay resulting amount to Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam then funds everything Social Security, Medicare, any planned national health care from that amount. This citizens tax would be fair â€“ equal taxation for rich and poor. It also takes everyone off the dole â€“ no free ride, not earned income credits, no wealth redistribution. Everyone can hold their head high as they will be true citizens paying and participating in their government.

Making land the prime tax method is a bit strange. I might buy that, but only if the right to vote is then also the exclusive right of land owners only. Otherwise those that do not own land will simply gouge the land owner for tax dollars. The current property tax system in Kansas (where I own a home and land) is already out of control. I paid for my property years ago (through hard work) and have no mortgage or liens. But each month I have to shell out property tax money. Eventually the amount of the tax will exceed my retirement income. We need either the FairTax or some kind of flat tax. The two books written on the FairTax issue (best sellers) were very convincing and articulate. Take the issue of the rich. They made a case about Bill Gates. He gets around 350 million a year in dividends from his Microsoft stock. That gain is currently taxed at 15%. The rest of us pay much more â€“ 30% plus. Bill does not pay Medicare or Social Security (those are payroll deductions). Under the fair tax, when Bill spends his money he gets taxed at 21% and his spending contributes to Medicare and Social Security. As far as a flat tax system, I would advocate a Citizens Tax. A real simple idea â€“ everyone pays 10 cents on every dollar earned to the federal government. No exemptions no anything. A simple three line tax form â€“ how much did you earn? Multiply by 10%. Pay resulting amount to Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam then funds everything Social Security, Medicare, any planned national health care from that amount. This citizens tax would be fair â€“ equal taxation for rich and poor. It also takes everyone off the dole â€“ no free ride, not earned income credits, no wealth redistribution. Everyone can hold their head high as they will be true citizens paying and participating in their government.

2009-01-24T14:25:32-08:00

9283

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:43-07:00

6529

2009-01-07T12:25:43-08:00

2009-01-06T13:52:47-08:00

270631

false

763

active

4634

270631

Where do you get these figures?

Where do you get these figures?

2009-01-07T12:25:43-08:00

8010

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:52-07:00

6533

270631

These figures are BS, hence my marking it 'unhelpful'. The 23% inclusive tax rate will fund the government at its current rate. I have no idea where these ridiculous figures have come from.

These figures are BS, hence my marking it ‘unhelpful’. The 23% inclusive tax rate will fund the government at its current rate. I have no idea where these ridiculous figures have come from.

2009-01-07T12:52:37-08:00

8020

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:52-07:00

4634

270631

DougW, the original talking point was made more then a month ago. Jedi_riccan marked those figures as unhelpful because that are BS.

DougW, the original talking point was made more then a month ago. Jedi_riccan marked those figures as unhelpful because that are BS.

2009-01-07T20:21:04-08:00

8123

true

false

deleted

2009-05-18T14:15:56-07:00

1378

270631

DougW, the original talking point was made more then a month ago. Jedi_riccan marked those figures as unhelpful because thay are BS.

DougW, the original talking point was made more then a month ago. Jedi_riccan marked those figures as unhelpful because thay are BS.

2009-01-08T23:20:51-08:00

8173

true

false

deleted

2009-05-18T14:16:00-07:00

1378

270631

DougW, the original talking point was made more then a month ago. Jedi_riccan marked those figures as unhelpful because they are BS.

DougW, the original talking point was made more then a month ago. Jedi_riccan marked those figures as unhelpful because they are BS.

2009-01-09T00:44:40-08:00

8188

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:01-07:00

1378

2009-01-05T03:41:18-08:00

2009-01-05T03:38:51-08:00

267890

false

763

active

1378

267890

The arguments made by the brookings ( mental? ) institution are the most ridicules

The arguments made by the brookings ( mental? ) institution are the most ridicules

2009-01-05T03:41:18-08:00

7816

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:45-07:00

1378

2009-01-03T20:06:27-08:00

265708

false

763

747

active

6610

265708

formatting change

formatting change

2009-01-03T20:06:27-08:00

7709

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:41-07:00

6610

2009-01-03T20:01:29-08:00

2009-01-03T20:01:28-08:00

265705

false

763

746

active

6610

265705

the source link clarifies the comments, the other statements need citations.

the source link clarifies the comments, the other statements need citations.

2009-01-03T20:01:29-08:00

7707

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:41-07:00

6610

2009-01-02T19:33:17-08:00

2009-01-02T19:23:16-08:00

265333

false

763

active

6601

265333

Sales taxes are NEVER a good thing, except, perhaps, on "goods" which have negative externalities (tobacco comes to mind). T hey reduce the demand for a product. If it is someone else's product, maybe that's okay with you ... but ultimately, it reduces the vibrancy of the marketplace -- and it will the the job of someone you care about that disappears ,,, which diminishes ALL of us. Tax bads, not goods.

Sales taxes are NEVER a good thing, except, perhaps, on “goods” which have negative externalities (tobacco comes to mind). T hey reduce the demand for a product. If it is someone else’s product, maybe that’s okay with you … but ultimately, it reduces the vibrancy of the marketplace — and it will the the job of someone you care about that disappears ,,, which diminishes ALL of us. Tax bads, not goods.

2009-01-02T19:33:17-08:00

7677

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:40-07:00

6601

265333

its a funny thing that all taxes are payed though the purchase of a product. so why continue the charade and simplify the tax code

its a funny thing that all taxes are payed though the purchase of a product. so why continue the charade and simplify the tax code

2009-01-02T21:20:02-08:00

7678

true

false

deleted

2009-05-18T14:15:40-07:00

1378

265333

It is a funny thing that all taxes including income taxes are payed though the purchase of a product. so why continue the charade.

It is a funny thing that all taxes including income taxes are payed though the purchase of a product. so why continue the charade.

2009-01-02T21:21:59-08:00

7679

true

false

deleted

2009-05-18T14:15:40-07:00

1378

265333

It is a funny thing that all taxes including income taxes are payed though the purchase of a product. so why continue the charade. The existing tax code exports American job by making American companies less competitive domestically and abroad. the fairtax fixes all that.

It is a funny thing that all taxes including income taxes are payed though the purchase of a product. so why continue the charade. The existing tax code exports American job by making American companies less competitive domestically and abroad. the fairtax fixes all that.

2009-01-02T21:24:13-08:00

7680

true

false

deleted

2009-05-18T14:15:40-07:00

1378

265333

2009-01-02T21:25:48-08:00

7681

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:40-07:00

1378

265333

I don't agree with Ivtfan. Nobody likes paying any tax wether it be income , social security, medicare or the hidden embedded tax. The unique part about the FairTax is at least you have a tangible reference of your tax contribution. I know this is still a big bite to swollow, but it is better than having it taken from your paycheck before you see it.

I don’t agree with Ivtfan. Nobody likes paying any tax wether it be income , social security, medicare or the hidden embedded tax. The unique part about the FairTax is at least you have a tangible reference of your tax contribution. I know this is still a big bite to swollow, but it is better than having it taken from your paycheck before you see it.

2009-01-03T13:31:14-08:00

7703

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:41-07:00

6592

265333

If a sales tax disincentivises spending, I'm okay with that, given we have a negative savings rate. Plus a universal sales tax doesn't discriminate between goods the way our current structure does,

If a sales tax disincentivises spending, I’m okay with that, given we have a negative savings rate. Plus a universal sales tax doesn’t discriminate between goods the way our current structure does,

2009-01-03T20:04:10-08:00

7708

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:41-07:00

6610

265333

"If a sales tax disincentivises spending" won't the rate have to go up to generate sufficient revenues? The Feds play with tax brackets all the time, whats to say they wouldn't (or wouldn't have to) play with the sales tax rate to get the income they need to operate? It could even be used as a political tool. For example, leak a rumor that the tax rate will be increased next month and everyone will rush out and make purchases they had been putting off. Then they put the purchase on their credit card and end up paying interest on the tax.

“If a sales tax disincentivises spending” won’t the rate have to go up to generate sufficient revenues? The Feds play with tax brackets all the time, whats to say they wouldn’t (or wouldn’t have to) play with the sales tax rate to get the income they need to operate? It could even be used as a political tool. For example, leak a rumor that the tax rate will be increased next month and everyone will rush out and make purchases they had been putting off. Then they put the purchase on their credit card and end up paying interest on the tax.

2009-01-04T05:42:43-08:00

7713

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:41-07:00

1372

265333

Recluse, where have you been. The government has a history of raising our taxes when they think they need more monies to meet the expenditures. Go back in history and check inome tax, social security and medicare taxes and you'll understand why a FairTax is an issue being talked about today. Using the Fairtax as a political tool is much more difficult then the current system tax first and answer questions later. I think you need to study this FairTax proposal a little more. Granted, it is not a perfect sysem but it is much better then what is currently in place.

Recluse, where have you been. The government has a history of raising our taxes when they think they need more monies to meet the expenditures. Go back in history and check inome tax, social security and medicare taxes and you’ll understand why a FairTax is an issue being talked about today. Using the Fairtax as a political tool is much more difficult then the current system tax first and answer questions later. I think you need to study this FairTax proposal a little more. Granted, it is not a perfect sysem but it is much better then what is currently in place.

2009-01-04T09:56:47-08:00

7720

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:41-07:00

6592

265333

I don't agree with shomas regarding sales taxes. And I can't figure out how the FairTax is going to create more jobs anywhere -- here or abroad! It seems to me that it depresses the economy, and ultimately makes it harder for those of us who have nothing but our labor to sell. If your labor is worth $100, but your customer has to pay $155 for it, you're not going to get much business. Sales taxes are like tariffs. No good for anyone. Irrational! Why would a smart society do this to itself? I am more opposed to the income tax than most people, but I don't see the FairTax as a solution; it is no better than the income tax, except that the pain isn't limited to the weeks before 4/15. If every effort to produce something for the marketplace is subject to either a 50+% sales tax or the requirement of going to the underground economy, we create an awesomely corrupt economy or depression. I don't like either option. The better way? Tax land value. None of us individually can claim any credit for the value of land ... and none of us ought to be able to privatize something that all of us together have created. THAT is the rightful tax base. Urban land values are awesomely high, and going into private pockets. Remember Leona Helmsley's comment about people like her not paying taxes; that the little people pay taxes. She wasn't talking about tax evasion; she was talking about playing by the rules -- rules that work just fine for people like her, owners of our incredibly choice land. An acre of good ag land might be worth as much as $10,000; an acre of urban land, close to Grand Central Terminal, can be worth $250,000,000 or more ... even as much as $1 billion. Tax that land value at, say, 5% per year -- what they call the "economic rent" and we will be able to reduce or eliminate a lot of wage taxes and sales taxes. The owners of that land will put it to its highest and best use, creating housing or commercial opportunities. They won't be speculating, or waiting for the highest bidder. And in addition to urban land, there are other similar assets: the airwaves; congestion in a few cities; landing rights at LaGuardia at 8am and 5pm; water rights; rights to pollute the air and water we all depend on; natural resources. Tax any or all of these things: you won't reduce the supply at all! The economy will take off; wealth concentration will go down (do you approve of an economic structure which has produced the situation where 1% of us own over 1/3 of the wealth, and 10% of us own 59% of the wealth, leaving 41% for the other 90%? Yes? Go for the FairTax, and watch it rise. You're lowering the taxes on the top 1% crowd, and they will be *very* grateful to you for your generosity with your contributions to their welfare.) And opportunities for your children and mine will rise. The private sector will be incentivised to produce the housing we want, not just the high end stuff. Potential entrepreneurs will have the venues they need to make their business plans plausible, creating jobs and creating competition for your patronage and mind, and thereby lowering prices. Who loses? Land speculators. The owners of vacant or underused land. (My city of 120,000 people has had a 4.3 acre "hole in the ground" in the middle of its central business district for the 34 years I've lived here.) I won't be sorry; that land could have been providing jobs, housing, shopping .... anything .... but it has only a huge hole, junk trees, chain link fence and queen anne's lace. And we've been paying for police, sewer, water, paving, sidewalk, etc., while the landlord sits and waits. Multiply this by the hundreds of thousands of other land-rich folks who sit and wait, and we get a deadened economy. Henry George's ideas provide a clear, viable, just, wise, sane, logical, efficient, administrable alternative. WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR? Recycle the income locally; don't assume that trickle-down works, or will start working if we wish hard enough. Be logical. Search on "Henry George," wealthandwant, lvtfan, "land value taxation" and help move us toward sanity. The FairTax is not the answer.

I don’t agree with shomas regarding sales taxes. And I can’t figure out how the FairTax is going to create more jobs anywhere — here or abroad! It seems to me that it depresses the economy, and ultimately makes it harder for those of us who have nothing but our labor to sell. If your labor is worth $100, but your customer has to pay $155 for it, you’re not going to get much business. Sales taxes are like tariffs. No good for anyone. Irrational! Why would a smart society do this to itself? I am more opposed to the income tax than most people, but I don’t see the FairTax as a solution; it is no better than the income tax, except that the pain isn’t limited to the weeks before 4/15. If every effort to produce something for the marketplace is subject to either a 50+% sales tax or the requirement of going to the underground economy, we create an awesomely corrupt economy or depression. I don’t like either option. The better way? Tax land value. None of us individually can claim any credit for the value of land … and none of us ought to be able to privatize something that all of us together have created. THAT is the rightful tax base. Urban land values are awesomely high, and going into private pockets. Remember Leona Helmsley’s comment about people like her not paying taxes; that the little people pay taxes. She wasn’t talking about tax evasion; she was talking about playing by the rules — rules that work just fine for people like her, owners of our incredibly choice land. An acre of good ag land might be worth as much as $10,000; an acre of urban land, close to Grand Central Terminal, can be worth $250,000,000 or more … even as much as $1 billion. Tax that land value at, say, 5% per year — what they call the “economic rent” and we will be able to reduce or eliminate a lot of wage taxes and sales taxes. The owners of that land will put it to its highest and best use, creating housing or commercial opportunities. They won’t be speculating, or waiting for the highest bidder. And in addition to urban land, there are other similar assets: the airwaves; congestion in a few cities; landing rights at LaGuardia at 8am and 5pm; water rights; rights to pollute the air and water we all depend on; natural resources. Tax any or all of these things: you won’t reduce the supply at all! The economy will take off; wealth concentration will go down (do you approve of an economic structure which has produced the situation where 1% of us own over 1/3 of the wealth, and 10% of us own 59% of the wealth, leaving 41% for the other 90%? Yes? Go for the FairTax, and watch it rise. You’re lowering the taxes on the top 1% crowd, and they will be very grateful to you for your generosity with your contributions to their welfare.) And opportunities for your children and mine will rise. The private sector will be incentivised to produce the housing we want, not just the high end stuff. Potential entrepreneurs will have the venues they need to make their business plans plausible, creating jobs and creating competition for your patronage and mind, and thereby lowering prices. Who loses? Land speculators. The owners of vacant or underused land. (My city of 120,000 people has had a 4.3 acre “hole in the ground” in the middle of its central business district for the 34 years I’ve lived here.) I won’t be sorry; that land could have been providing jobs, housing, shopping …. anything …. but it has only a huge hole, junk trees, chain link fence and queen anne’s lace. And we’ve been paying for police, sewer, water, paving, sidewalk, etc., while the landlord sits and waits. Multiply this by the hundreds of thousands of other land-rich folks who sit and wait, and we get a deadened economy. Henry George’s ideas provide a clear, viable, just, wise, sane, logical, efficient, administrable alternative. WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR? Recycle the income locally; don’t assume that trickle-down works, or will start working if we wish hard enough. Be logical. Search on “Henry George,” wealthandwant, lvtfan, “land value taxation” and help move us toward sanity. The FairTax is not the answer.

2009-01-04T18:12:10-08:00

7752

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:42-07:00

6601

265333

lvtfan.... Do you even own any land?

lvtfan…. Do you even own any land?

2009-01-04T19:38:02-08:00

7768

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:43-07:00

3064

265333

chuck4hr25: stop with the fairtax cult drivel. If you want to discuss the issues, do it without the trash talk. I said "The Feds play with tax brackets [note: tax brackets refer to income tax] all the time, whats to say they wouldn't (or wouldn't have to) play with the sales tax rate to get the income they need to operate?" You answered "Using the Fairtax as a political tool is much more difficult ... ." That's not very convincing. Why would it be difficult? As we both said, the government plays with taxes all the time. Why wouldn't they play with sales tax rates.

chuck4hr25: stop with the fairtax cult drivel. If you want to discuss the issues, do it without the trash talk. I said “The Feds play with tax brackets [note: tax brackets refer to income tax] all the time, whats to say they wouldn’t (or wouldn’t have to) play with the sales tax rate to get the income they need to operate?” You answered “Using the Fairtax as a political tool is much more difficult … .” That’s not very convincing. Why would it be difficult? As we both said, the government plays with taxes all the time. Why wouldn’t they play with sales tax rates.

2009-01-04T20:22:04-08:00

7774

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:43-07:00

1372

265333

mhalavo, I do own land. And the assessor here says it is currently worth about $500,000 per acre. That's a lot more than good agricultural land, which might be worth $10,000 per acre, where conditions are good (a factor of 50:1). But it is a lot less than an acre of prime Manhattan land, which can be worth $500 million or more -- 1000 times what mine is worth. Should we permit the corporate, foreign, REIT or other owners of land which you and I make valuable through pork and other spending to privatize that value, as if it was somehow the result of THEIR effort? Very generous of you. I'm not that generous; I'd like to see that value recycled. Don't tax my purchases of essentials to finance the services which make their land so choice.

mhalavo, I do own land. And the assessor here says it is currently worth about $500,000 per acre. That’s a lot more than good agricultural land, which might be worth $10,000 per acre, where conditions are good (a factor of 50:1). But it is a lot less than an acre of prime Manhattan land, which can be worth $500 million or more — 1000 times what mine is worth. Should we permit the corporate, foreign, REIT or other owners of land which you and I make valuable through pork and other spending to privatize that value, as if it was somehow the result of THEIR effort? Very generous of you. I’m not that generous; I’d like to see that value recycled. Don’t tax my purchases of essentials to finance the services which make their land so choice.

2009-01-04T20:40:22-08:00

7780

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:43-07:00

6601

265333

Remember Leona Helmsley's comment -- "We don't pay taxes, only the little people pay taxes"? She wasn't talking about tax evasion; she was describing accurately our Those who back the FairTax are working hard to make that even truer.

Remember Leona Helmsley’s comment — “We don’t pay taxes, only the little people pay taxes”? She wasn’t talking about tax evasion; she was describing accurately our Those who back the FairTax are working hard to make that even truer.

2009-01-04T20:43:00-08:00

7781

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:43-07:00

6601

265333

lvtfan.... What you say makes no sense to me. If I inherit 200ac of family farm land that has been in the family for several generations, which I use for recreation, and a prince from Dubai buys an island near my property... he then makes a couple of golf courses and a gated luxury resort which elevates my taxes... I should either make my property as "valuable" as his or someone "better" should own my property? ...and that's how you want things to work? Good luck selling that idea.

lvtfan…. What you say makes no sense to me. If I inherit 200ac of family farm land that has been in the family for several generations, which I use for recreation, and a prince from Dubai buys an island near my property… he then makes a couple of golf courses and a gated luxury resort which elevates my taxes… I should either make my property as “valuable” as his or someone “better” should own my property? …and that’s how you want things to work? Good luck selling that idea.

2009-01-04T20:58:26-08:00

7785

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

3064

265333

That family farm land has a value as agricultural land, and your taxes would be based on its highest and best use. If you choose to keep it as recreational land, you'll need to have some source of income to pay the land value taxes based on its value as ag land. If the prince brings lots of employees whose children need to be educated, the community will need to work out how to finance that. It seems to me that the unimproved value of the land is the fairest way. The highest and best use of your land will change as a result of the activity your neighbor generates, and it may no longer be as farmland. You can keep it for recreation if you can pay your share of the costs of local government. But just because you were in the lucky gene club, you shouldn't be able to sit and do nothing. That is what the landed gentry of other countries have gotten away with, and a key reason why so many of our ancestors left their homelands and came here -- in search of a place where they could afford a bit of land. When a few people own all the land, the result is a form of slavery for everyone else. Is that consistent with our ideals? It doesn't feel right or just to me. The next child born is just as entitled as your child or my child to have a place to live and to work.

That family farm land has a value as agricultural land, and your taxes would be based on its highest and best use. If you choose to keep it as recreational land, you’ll need to have some source of income to pay the land value taxes based on its value as ag land. If the prince brings lots of employees whose children need to be educated, the community will need to work out how to finance that. It seems to me that the unimproved value of the land is the fairest way. The highest and best use of your land will change as a result of the activity your neighbor generates, and it may no longer be as farmland. You can keep it for recreation if you can pay your share of the costs of local government. But just because you were in the lucky gene club, you shouldn’t be able to sit and do nothing. That is what the landed gentry of other countries have gotten away with, and a key reason why so many of our ancestors left their homelands and came here — in search of a place where they could afford a bit of land. When a few people own all the land, the result is a form of slavery for everyone else. Is that consistent with our ideals? It doesn’t feel right or just to me. The next child born is just as entitled as your child or my child to have a place to live and to work.

2009-01-04T21:10:31-08:00

7790

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

6601

265333

Your argument is totally anti-american... don't even try to say my thoughts are against what this country is founded on.

Your argument is totally anti-american… don’t even try to say my thoughts are against what this country is founded on.

2009-01-04T21:29:47-08:00

7798

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

3064

265333

If you think you are entitled to reap what others sow, by all means try to convince the sowers that it is in their best interests. You won't be the first to succeed at it. I hope you have enough to provide for the needs of all your offspring and their offspring. I seek to create a society in which all can succeed; it appears to me that you're trying to produce privilege for some at the expense of others. But perhaps I misunderstand your motives.

If you think you are entitled to reap what others sow, by all means try to convince the sowers that it is in their best interests. You won’t be the first to succeed at it. I hope you have enough to provide for the needs of all your offspring and their offspring. I seek to create a society in which all can succeed; it appears to me that you’re trying to produce privilege for some at the expense of others. But perhaps I misunderstand your motives.

2009-01-04T21:38:27-08:00

7805

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

6601

265333

What???

What???

2009-01-04T21:39:41-08:00

7806

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

3064

265333

Recluse: Sorry if I offended you. That was not my intention. I only wanted to point out that the FairTax proposal is designed to elininate the federal income tax along with the social security and medicare taxes, I don't think you can address only the federal income tax in this dicussion. All of these taxes have shown considerable percentage increases over the years. Some people in the high and low income bracets don't even pay income tax. Who pays what , how, when depends on many circumstanes. It is so complicated no one has time to look at the big picture. They are only concerned with what impacts them. This is the confusing part about our current tax system. I don't even think the IRS knows how to interperet or administer all the complicated rules and regulations. I am not part of a cult. I am an American citizen who doesn't like the current tax system. I happen to think the FairTax proposal is a reasonble( not perfect) approach to an out of control tax system.The answer to the question of why I think raising the tax braket on the FairTax would be more difficult is simple. For one thing it is more visible to the public. For another it includes all the population (rich, poor, and middle class) so the politicians can not target special interests. If you consider this drivel, so be it.

Recluse: Sorry if I offended you. That was not my intention. I only wanted to point out that the FairTax proposal is designed to elininate the federal income tax along with the social security and medicare taxes, I don’t think you can address only the federal income tax in this dicussion. All of these taxes have shown considerable percentage increases over the years. Some people in the high and low income bracets don’t even pay income tax. Who pays what , how, when depends on many circumstanes. It is so complicated no one has time to look at the big picture. They are only concerned with what impacts them. This is the confusing part about our current tax system. I don’t even think the IRS knows how to interperet or administer all the complicated rules and regulations. I am not part of a cult. I am an American citizen who doesn’t like the current tax system. I happen to think the FairTax proposal is a reasonble( not perfect) approach to an out of control tax system.The answer to the question of why I think raising the tax braket on the FairTax would be more difficult is simple. For one thing it is more visible to the public. For another it includes all the population (rich, poor, and middle class) so the politicians can not target special interests. If you consider this drivel, so be it.

2009-01-05T09:36:06-08:00

7830

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:45-07:00

6592

265333

"... so the politicians can not target special interests." OK, say I'm a Senator and the Fair Tax has just been enacted. Lobbyists from the AARP come to my office and convince me that seniors should be exempt. Every Senator has seniors in their states so the change is approved. Lobbyists for the Meat Council come and tell me that meat is good and dogs like bacon. Every Senator has carnivores in their district, so we exempt food purchases. Ambassadors for all the embassies complain to the President about paying the tax, so he exempts all employees of foreign embassies, the UN, and taxicab companies. Lobbyists for big Pharma and thee health care industry, the Oil companies, Churches, Colleges and other non-profits, Native American Nations, the Telcoms, and a dozen other industries and special interest groups are waiting in the hallway. Do you really trust politicians to never monkey with the tax once it's enacted because it's more "visible" to the public?

“… so the politicians can not target special interests.” OK, say I’m a Senator and the Fair Tax has just been enacted. Lobbyists from the AARP come to my office and convince me that seniors should be exempt. Every Senator has seniors in their states so the change is approved. Lobbyists for the Meat Council come and tell me that meat is good and dogs like bacon. Every Senator has carnivores in their district, so we exempt food purchases. Ambassadors for all the embassies complain to the President about paying the tax, so he exempts all employees of foreign embassies, the UN, and taxicab companies. Lobbyists for big Pharma and thee health care industry, the Oil companies, Churches, Colleges and other non-profits, Native American Nations, the Telcoms, and a dozen other industries and special interest groups are waiting in the hallway. Do you really trust politicians to never monkey with the tax once it’s enacted because it’s more “visible” to the public?

2009-01-06T21:25:50-08:00

7976

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:50-07:00

1372

265333

Recluse: I didn't say raising the consumption tax percent could not be done, I indicated it would be more difficult because it involves the total population which becomes a political death sentence for the sponser of that proposal. I know you are a critic of the FairTax idea, but I don't know what tax system you support. I don't trust politicians with my money anymore then you do. The reality is the current tax system is too complicated for the average person to fully comprehend. We only comply with what impacts us individually. We have no idea how many loopholes exist in the current tax laws that impact us in a negative way. WHAT IS THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER PAYING FOR? WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR MY TAX DOLLARS? I know the FairTax proposal doens't answer these questions but I would feel a lot better knowing that I am not being taxed for getting up and going to work in the morning.Yes,you are right, there will be people and organizations that try to beat the FairTax. This is not new. When George Washington imposed a tax on spiruts to finance the Revolutionary War some people went to the woods and produced thier own goods for consumption and sale. There is no perfect Tax mouse trap. But if you look at the big picture, the FairTax will work better than our current system.

Recluse: I didn’t say raising the consumption tax percent could not be done, I indicated it would be more difficult because it involves the total population which becomes a political death sentence for the sponser of that proposal. I know you are a critic of the FairTax idea, but I don’t know what tax system you support. I don’t trust politicians with my money anymore then you do. The reality is the current tax system is too complicated for the average person to fully comprehend. We only comply with what impacts us individually. We have no idea how many loopholes exist in the current tax laws that impact us in a negative way. WHAT IS THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER PAYING FOR? WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR MY TAX DOLLARS? I know the FairTax proposal doens’t answer these questions but I would feel a lot better knowing that I am not being taxed for getting up and going to work in the morning.Yes,you are right, there will be people and organizations that try to beat the FairTax. This is not new. When George Washington imposed a tax on spiruts to finance the Revolutionary War some people went to the woods and produced thier own goods for consumption and sale. There is no perfect Tax mouse trap. But if you look at the big picture, the FairTax will work better than our current system.

2009-01-07T08:47:05-08:00

7996

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:51-07:00

6592

2008-12-23T02:57:44-08:00

2008-12-22T21:47:44-08:00

250215

false

763

active

6321

250215

Such a wide spread of of the per centage (30% to 89%) can only be a scare tactic by those who make a living on the current income tax mess.

Such a wide spread of of the per centage (30% to 89%) can only be a scare tactic by those who make a living on the current income tax mess.

2008-12-23T02:57:44-08:00

7094

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:14-07:00

3435

250215

I think there are other rational explanations. Read more!.

I think there are other rational explanations. Read more!.

2009-01-04T18:15:34-08:00

7753

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:42-07:00

6601

2008-12-19T05:52:49-08:00

2008-12-19T05:49:27-08:00

211415

false

763

active

5672

211415

Suppose this were correct. What would it mean if the fair tax actually needed to be that high? Keep in mind of the current taxes covered by the fair tax proposal.

Suppose this were correct. What would it mean if the fair tax actually needed to be that high? Keep in mind of the current taxes covered by the fair tax proposal.

2008-12-19T05:52:49-08:00

6763

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:01-07:00

5672

2008-12-19T05:21:11-08:00

2008-12-19T05:14:42-08:00

210601

false

763

active

5645

210601

The entire comment is factually inaccurate to begin with. First of all the Fairtax is NOT applied to "all purchases", only on NEW goods and services. Second, the inclusive rate is 23%. Third, higher rates such as the absurd 89% rate used above are not based on the Fairtax as the bill is currently written, but quoted on guesstimates of a hypotheticsl general national sales tax that is filled with exemptions and inclusions. Fourth, it will will be far more difficult to evade taxes under the Fairtax than it is currently.

The entire comment is factually inaccurate to begin with. First of all the Fairtax is NOT applied to “all purchases”, only on NEW goods and services. Second, the inclusive rate is 23%. Third, higher rates such as the absurd 89% rate used above are not based on the Fairtax as the bill is currently written, but quoted on guesstimates of a hypotheticsl general national sales tax that is filled with exemptions and inclusions. Fourth, it will will be far more difficult to evade taxes under the Fairtax than it is currently.

2008-12-19T05:21:11-08:00

6755

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:01-07:00

5645

210601

Do you think the Federal Government should be exempted from paying taxes on its purchases? No? Raise the rate from the 23% to account for that. Do you think the 50 states should be exempted from paying taxes on their purchases? ditto. Do you think counties, municalities and school districts should be exempted from paying taxes on their purchases? Fine -- but the rate will have to be higher to do that. Do you think, say, medical care should be tax free? Or groceries, or some groceries? Or clothing basics? How about rent? Childcare? Auto insurance? Homeowner's insurance? Do you think that the federal poverty level really reflects the barebones cost of living somewhere in America? That's $21,000 per year for a family of 4. Maybe in a few rural counties in a few of our poorest states, it might, sort of. But more of us live in places where the barebones cost of living is 200% and 300% of that. But your proposal doesn't make any account of that. Are you really sure you understand what you're proposing? I share your distaste for the income tax. More than you know! But I think there is a better alternative to the income tax: land value taxation. Tax natural resources. Tax electromagnetic spectrum. Tax congestion. Tax urban land values. Tax water rights. Tax the right to pollute. Collect the full value of parking privileges in congested places. Collect user fees from trucks and cars on major highways, in proportion to the damage they do to those highways. There is an awesome range of valid, just, logical, fair, efficient revenue sources, each of them far superior on all counts to the so-called "FairTax". Educate yourself. I think you'll like what you learn.

Do you think the Federal Government should be exempted from paying taxes on its purchases? No? Raise the rate from the 23% to account for that. Do you think the 50 states should be exempted from paying taxes on their purchases? ditto. Do you think counties, municalities and school districts should be exempted from paying taxes on their purchases? Fine — but the rate will have to be higher to do that. Do you think, say, medical care should be tax free? Or groceries, or some groceries? Or clothing basics? How about rent? Childcare? Auto insurance? Homeowner’s insurance? Do you think that the federal poverty level really reflects the barebones cost of living somewhere in America? That’s $21,000 per year for a family of 4. Maybe in a few rural counties in a few of our poorest states, it might, sort of. But more of us live in places where the barebones cost of living is 200% and 300% of that. But your proposal doesn’t make any account of that. Are you really sure you understand what you’re proposing? I share your distaste for the income tax. More than you know! But I think there is a better alternative to the income tax: land value taxation. Tax natural resources. Tax electromagnetic spectrum. Tax congestion. Tax urban land values. Tax water rights. Tax the right to pollute. Collect the full value of parking privileges in congested places. Collect user fees from trucks and cars on major highways, in proportion to the damage they do to those highways. There is an awesome range of valid, just, logical, fair, efficient revenue sources, each of them far superior on all counts to the so-called “FairTax”. Educate yourself. I think you’ll like what you learn.

2009-01-04T18:56:00-08:00

7757

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:43-07:00

6601

210601

And do you want every grocery store, electronics store, Amazon, Bean, Bauer, LandsEnd, corner store, outlet store, convenience store, doctor's office, barber, bar, theater, babysitter, childcare provider, fast food joint, hot dog vendor, etc., to be a federal tax collector? Think of the opportunities for corruption and diversion. Think of the enforcement and red tape involved. Think of the underground economy. Think of the evasion. Think of the diversion opportunities. Is this what you think of as a step forward?

And do you want every grocery store, electronics store, Amazon, Bean, Bauer, LandsEnd, corner store, outlet store, convenience store, doctor’s office, barber, bar, theater, babysitter, childcare provider, fast food joint, hot dog vendor, etc., to be a federal tax collector? Think of the opportunities for corruption and diversion. Think of the enforcement and red tape involved. Think of the underground economy. Think of the evasion. Think of the diversion opportunities. Is this what you think of as a step forward?

2009-01-04T18:59:39-08:00

7758

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:43-07:00

6601

210601

lvtfan... Do you have anything to back up your idea of taxing everything under the sun??? How could what you propose possibly be simpler and more Fair than the FairTax?

lvtfan… Do you have anything to back up your idea of taxing everything under the sun??? How could what you propose possibly be simpler and more Fair than the FairTax?

2009-01-04T19:32:49-08:00

7767

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:43-07:00

3064

210601

lvtfan...speaking of educating oneself...you should practice what you preach. As for Govts at all levels paying the 23% tax, they already do!! They pay it in the imbedded taxes. And yes I want all those venues you mentioned to be tax collectors. That would mean a reduction of 60-75% in the amount of auditable entities as compared to the income tax. And the opportunities for evasion and corruption are VASTLY reduced. The only one who needs to educate themselves is you. The Fairtax is VASTLY superior to the current system. If you really knew anyting about it, yo would know that to be the case.

lvtfan…speaking of educating oneself…you should practice what you preach. As for Govts at all levels paying the 23% tax, they already do!! They pay it in the imbedded taxes. And yes I want all those venues you mentioned to be tax collectors. That would mean a reduction of 60-75% in the amount of auditable entities as compared to the income tax. And the opportunities for evasion and corruption are VASTLY reduced. The only one who needs to educate themselves is you. The Fairtax is VASTLY superior to the current system. If you really knew anyting about it, yo would know that to be the case.

2009-01-04T20:09:41-08:00

7772

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:43-07:00

5645

210601

mhalavo and Tom R, I wish I shared your faith in the FairTax. I think it would have a hugely depressing effect on the economy, would provide a huge tax break to our top 1% or 2%, and a huge tax increase on the remainder of us, which can't be a good thing, given our hugely skewed distribution of income and of wealth. (Do you realize that 1% of us have over 33% of the net worth, and 10% of us have about 59% of the net worth?? (See http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/wealth/50-40-5-4-1.htm for details.) Do you think that we should rejigger things so that they can have MORE next year? mhalavo, I only seek to tax that which man doesn't create. You seem to want to tax things without regard to whether you are taxing individual effort, corporate effort, or the gifts of nature. I don't want to tax your work, or anyone else's; I want to tax monopoly and the profits people reap without sowing. I think the latter is a very legitimate tax base, and that it is very unfair, unjust, and unwise to tax anyone's production.

mhalavo and Tom R, I wish I shared your faith in the FairTax. I think it would have a hugely depressing effect on the economy, would provide a huge tax break to our top 1% or 2%, and a huge tax increase on the remainder of us, which can’t be a good thing, given our hugely skewed distribution of income and of wealth. (Do you realize that 1% of us have over 33% of the net worth, and 10% of us have about 59% of the net worth?? (See <a href="http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/wealth/50-40-5-4-1.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/wealth/50-40-5-4-1.htm</a> for details.) Do you think that we should rejigger things so that they can have MORE next year? mhalavo, I only seek to tax that which man doesn’t create. You seem to want to tax things without regard to whether you are taxing individual effort, corporate effort, or the gifts of nature. I don’t want to tax your work, or anyone else’s; I want to tax monopoly and the profits people reap without sowing. I think the latter is a very legitimate tax base, and that it is very unfair, unjust, and unwise to tax anyone’s production.

2009-01-04T20:34:54-08:00

7777

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:43-07:00

6601

210601

It sounds like you only want the rich to be able to own land....

It sounds like you only want the rich to be able to own land….

2009-01-04T20:39:09-08:00

7779

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:43-07:00

3064

210601

mhalavo, quite the contrary! I want us all to be able to afford to USE land. I want every fellow with a business plan in his mind and heart to have an opportunity to see if it works. Most business plans depend on access to choice locations, and currently that seems to involve either paying HUGE rents to a landlord for a building which is really quite modest -- most of the payment is for the location -- or a huge purchase price to a seller who didn't create most of the value. And on top of that heavy taxes on the land and building. I'd rather have us paying once ... a heavy tax on the land value, proportionate to the advantage the choice location gives us (just as we pay now, except that currently we pay it to someone who didn't create it). I don't think landlords, per se, contribute much. And particularly so when there are "triple net" leases, which mean that the monthly rent is pretty much free and clear to the landlord. A fine retirement for him, and a heavy burden for the tenant. I think my system (and it isn't mine -- it is an old and fine idea -- endorsed by Winston Churchill, among others! -- search on "quotable notables" for some of them) is more just, and more efficient, and better for the ordinary person. What do you think?

mhalavo, quite the contrary! I want us all to be able to afford to USE land. I want every fellow with a business plan in his mind and heart to have an opportunity to see if it works. Most business plans depend on access to choice locations, and currently that seems to involve either paying HUGE rents to a landlord for a building which is really quite modest — most of the payment is for the location — or a huge purchase price to a seller who didn’t create most of the value. And on top of that heavy taxes on the land and building. I’d rather have us paying once … a heavy tax on the land value, proportionate to the advantage the choice location gives us (just as we pay now, except that currently we pay it to someone who didn’t create it). I don’t think landlords, per se, contribute much. And particularly so when there are “triple net” leases, which mean that the monthly rent is pretty much free and clear to the landlord. A fine retirement for him, and a heavy burden for the tenant. I think my system (and it isn’t mine — it is an old and fine idea — endorsed by Winston Churchill, among others! — search on “quotable notables” for some of them) is more just, and more efficient, and better for the ordinary person. What do you think?

2009-01-04T21:02:15-08:00

7786

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

6601

210601

I think if someone owns property it should be theirs. If the value of that property goes up due to nearby use changes then that person should be able to sell the land for what the current market demands. Land should be an investment as it always has been. Is someone going to step in and give me a refund on land that depreciates while I own it???

I think if someone owns property it should be theirs. If the value of that property goes up due to nearby use changes then that person should be able to sell the land for what the current market demands. Land should be an investment as it always has been. Is someone going to step in and give me a refund on land that depreciates while I own it???

2009-01-04T21:19:30-08:00

7794

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

3064

210601

There is property, and there is property. I think that what I create, I should own outright. But neither you nor I can create a single square foot of land, and every human being is dependent on land. We should all share in its rises and falls in value. And, by the way, collecting the economic rent, as I propose, will largely smooth out the awful 18-year boom-bust cycles we experience, which cause so much anguish and pain on the way down. "Investments" in land are totally inert and pointless. Mark Twain pointed out that they are analogous to investments in slaves. See http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/ajo_slavery.html and also his essay entitled "Archimedes." Private property in manmade things is very different from private property in land. Check out the word "usufruct" at wealthandwant. It was a favorite of Thomas Jefferson and Bill Buckley. Land and capital are two very different things, and when we conflate them, we create messes and injustices.

There is property, and there is property. I think that what I create, I should own outright. But neither you nor I can create a single square foot of land, and every human being is dependent on land. We should all share in its rises and falls in value. And, by the way, collecting the economic rent, as I propose, will largely smooth out the awful 18-year boom-bust cycles we experience, which cause so much anguish and pain on the way down. “Investments” in land are totally inert and pointless. Mark Twain pointed out that they are analogous to investments in slaves. See <a href="http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/ajo_slavery.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/ajo_slavery.html</a> and also his essay entitled “Archimedes.” Private property in manmade things is very different from private property in land. Check out the word “usufruct” at wealthandwant. It was a favorite of Thomas Jefferson and Bill Buckley. Land and capital are two very different things, and when we conflate them, we create messes and injustices.

2009-01-04T21:27:36-08:00

7797

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

6601

210601

Supply and demand.... read about it....

Supply and demand…. read about it….

2009-01-04T21:35:21-08:00

7802

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

3064

210601

Land is fixed in supply. Choice land, well served by existing infrastructure ... water, sewer, subway, trains, emergency services, paving, plowing, shoveling, patching, libraries, schools ... can't be replicated on the fringe. That's why centrally located land can be worth thousands of times what land on the fringe is worth. None of us "supply" land, but we do supply labor, and, if we can save, we can supply capital. And labor and capital ought to earn their just reward. What land earns should be shared by all of us, as our common treasure. Do you know the poem about stealing the common from the goose?

Land is fixed in supply. Choice land, well served by existing infrastructure … water, sewer, subway, trains, emergency services, paving, plowing, shoveling, patching, libraries, schools … can’t be replicated on the fringe. That’s why centrally located land can be worth thousands of times what land on the fringe is worth. None of us “supply” land, but we do supply labor, and, if we can save, we can supply capital. And labor and capital ought to earn their just reward. What land earns should be shared by all of us, as our common treasure. Do you know the poem about stealing the common from the goose?

2009-01-04T21:44:50-08:00

7809

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

6601

210601

When land loses should we share that as well?

When land loses should we share that as well?

2009-01-04T21:47:21-08:00

7810

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

3064

210601

Yes, and, if we are collecting the economic rent, we are very unlikely to experience the boom-bust cycles, so the losses, if any, will be fairly minor. A much smoother course.

Yes, and, if we are collecting the economic rent, we are very unlikely to experience the boom-bust cycles, so the losses, if any, will be fairly minor. A much smoother course.

2009-01-05T20:23:26-08:00

7861

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:46-07:00

6601

210601

Where's a study to prove your statement? Also, where's a study to see the effects of your communist land tax on lobbying?

Where’s a study to prove your statement? Also, where’s a study to see the effects of your communist land tax on lobbying?

2009-01-06T04:59:55-08:00

7876

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:47-07:00

3064

2008-12-18T16:07:55-08:00

2008-12-18T16:01:58-08:00

188484

false

763

active

5131

188484

The IRS estimates that income taxes are 40% under-reported. How can things get any worse?

The IRS estimates that income taxes are 40% under-reported. How can things get any worse?

2008-12-18T16:07:55-08:00

6655

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:14:57-07:00

5131

188484

By taxing sales transactions! Do you want every grocery store, electronics store, Amazon, Bean, Bauer, LandsEnd, corner store, outlet store, convenience store, doctor's office, barber, bar, theater, babysitter, childcare provider, fast food joint, hot dog vendor, etc., to be a federal tax collector? Think of the opportunities for corruption and diversion. Think of the enforcement and red tape involved. Think of the underground economy. Think of the evasion. Think of the diversion opportunities. Is this what you think of as a step forward?

By taxing sales transactions! Do you want every grocery store, electronics store, Amazon, Bean, Bauer, LandsEnd, corner store, outlet store, convenience store, doctor’s office, barber, bar, theater, babysitter, childcare provider, fast food joint, hot dog vendor, etc., to be a federal tax collector? Think of the opportunities for corruption and diversion. Think of the enforcement and red tape involved. Think of the underground economy. Think of the evasion. Think of the diversion opportunities. Is this what you think of as a step forward?

2009-01-04T19:04:49-08:00

7759

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:43-07:00

6601

188484

They already are federal tax collectors, 16% to 30% of the price of everything we buy contains the cost of the current federal income taxes. Besides, the Fair Tax Act provides the merchant with .25% to cover the cost of compliance and the State Sales Tax authority gets another .25% to cover the cost of administration. Anyone that owes less than $200/mo is exempt from reporting. Since 70% of all retail sales are done at large retail outlets, reporting is simplified, and compliance is compisated, your fears of non-comliance are greatly exagerated.

They already are federal tax collectors, 16% to 30% of the price of everything we buy contains the cost of the current federal income taxes. Besides, the Fair Tax Act provides the merchant with .25% to cover the cost of compliance and the State Sales Tax authority gets another .25% to cover the cost of administration. Anyone that owes less than $200/mo is exempt from reporting. Since 70% of all retail sales are done at large retail outlets, reporting is simplified, and compliance is compisated, your fears of non-comliance are greatly exagerated.

2009-01-05T08:51:34-08:00

7827

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:45-07:00

5131

2008-12-18T13:29:49-08:00

2008-12-18T13:21:51-08:00

176456

false

763

active

4830

176456

Once you get educated on this, and find out the real facts, you will change your mind.

Once you get educated on this, and find out the real facts, you will change your mind.

2008-12-18T13:29:49-08:00

6615

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:14:55-07:00

4844

2008-12-18T12:15:10-08:00

2008-12-17T15:29:11-08:00

166970

false

763

active

4595

166970

Will everyone at least read the fairtax bill before making comments that get interpreted as fact. Please!!!!!!

Will everyone at least read the fairtax bill before making comments that get interpreted as fact. Please!!!!!!

2008-12-18T12:15:10-08:00

6609

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:14:55-07:00

4781

2008-12-17T13:55:26-08:00

2008-12-17T13:45:31-08:00

166455

false

763

active

4630

166455

If you follow the link to the source (which happens to be FairTax.org) you will find the logical rebuttal to the Brookings Inst. report. How could enforcement of such a simple tax system be more expensive than the whole IRS?

If you follow the link to the source (which happens to be FairTax.org) you will find the logical rebuttal to the Brookings Inst. report. How could enforcement of such a simple tax system be more expensive than the whole IRS?

2008-12-17T13:55:26-08:00

6527

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:14:52-07:00

4630

166455

Do you want every grocery store, electronics store, Amazon, Bean, Bauer, LandsEnd, corner store, outlet store, convenience store, doctor's office, barber, bar, theater, babysitter, childcare provider, fast food joint, hot dog vendor, etc., to be a federal tax collector? Think of the opportunities for corruption and diversion. Think of the enforcement and red tape involved. Think of the underground economy. Think of the evasion. Think of the diversion opportunities. Is this what you think of as a step forward?

Do you want every grocery store, electronics store, Amazon, Bean, Bauer, LandsEnd, corner store, outlet store, convenience store, doctor’s office, barber, bar, theater, babysitter, childcare provider, fast food joint, hot dog vendor, etc., to be a federal tax collector? Think of the opportunities for corruption and diversion. Think of the enforcement and red tape involved. Think of the underground economy. Think of the evasion. Think of the diversion opportunities. Is this what you think of as a step forward?

2009-01-04T19:05:25-08:00

7760

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:43-07:00

6601

166455

lvtfan... you really need to read the research behind the FairTax... The number of entities paying taxes under the FairTax will go way down so it would be much easier to police. Also, all of the people you mention currently deal with far more difficult tax calculations with the current tax code. As a small business owner, I would love to have the FairTax.

lvtfan… you really need to read the research behind the FairTax… The number of entities paying taxes under the FairTax will go way down so it would be much easier to police. Also, all of the people you mention currently deal with far more difficult tax calculations with the current tax code. As a small business owner, I would love to have the FairTax.

2009-01-04T19:28:27-08:00

7765

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:43-07:00

3064

166455

Really? Do you want your customers to have to decide whether to pay you $1.56 (assuming a 6% local/state sales tax) or more for a product for which you receive $1.00 and for which you paid your supplier $0.50? Do you think your customers would buy as much as they do now? Are you hearing calls for more frequent "sales tax holidays" in your state? Or are people happy to pay sales tax on their purchases? Do you want to pay $1.56 for $1 worth of milk? What sort of enforcement do you think there will be for collecting the FairTax from every retailer and service person and professional? I hate the income tax -- individual and corporate. And I realize there is an awful lot of paperwork today, which makes doing business difficult, but I don't think the FairTax is a step forward. I think land value taxation would be far more just, and would stimulate the economy rather than depress it. Check out "Henry George", wealthandwant and lvtfan.

Really? Do you want your customers to have to decide whether to pay you $1.56 (assuming a 6% local/state sales tax) or more for a product for which you receive $1.00 and for which you paid your supplier $0.50? Do you think your customers would buy as much as they do now? Are you hearing calls for more frequent “sales tax holidays” in your state? Or are people happy to pay sales tax on their purchases? Do you want to pay $1.56 for $1 worth of milk? What sort of enforcement do you think there will be for collecting the FairTax from every retailer and service person and professional? I hate the income tax — individual and corporate. And I realize there is an awful lot of paperwork today, which makes doing business difficult, but I don’t think the FairTax is a step forward. I think land value taxation would be far more just, and would stimulate the economy rather than depress it. Check out “Henry George”, wealthandwant and lvtfan.

2009-01-04T20:28:13-08:00

7776

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:43-07:00

6601

166455

If I do $150 worth of work and I keep $150 dollars instead of $100 then I think I'll be pretty happy. Especially since the $1.00 milk will still be $1.00.

If I do $150 worth of work and I keep $150 dollars instead of $100 then I think I’ll be pretty happy. Especially since the $1.00 milk will still be $1.00.

2009-01-04T20:44:45-08:00

7782

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

3064

166455

mhalavo, but your customer will have had to pay $150, of which you'll only get $100 -- and a large share of that will go to paying the "FairTax" on your purchases. Plant that victory garden, and get out your spinning wheel and loom, and fence in your yard for the sheep. So much for the efficiencies of the division of labor and modern technology: you're asking to be taxed on every transaction you make!

mhalavo, but your customer will have had to pay $150, of which you’ll only get $100 — and a large share of that will go to paying the “FairTax” on your purchases. Plant that victory garden, and get out your spinning wheel and loom, and fence in your yard for the sheep. So much for the efficiencies of the division of labor and modern technology: you’re asking to be taxed on every transaction you make!

2009-01-04T21:04:32-08:00

7787

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

6601

166455

You really need to research the FairTax plan before you talk about it.... That customer will have $150 for $150 worth of work... My product will be cheaper because I don't pay taxes to bring it to market...

You really need to research the FairTax plan before you talk about it…. That customer will have $150 for $150 worth of work… My product will be cheaper because I don’t pay taxes to bring it to market…

2009-01-04T21:12:54-08:00

7791

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

3064

166455

mhalavo, why do you think that your customer would not be paying the FairTax on the services you render to them? Why would your sale be exempt, but my purchases be taxed? As I understand it, all new goods and all services would be subject to the "FairTax." And when we start exempting some of them, the tax rate must rise.

mhalavo, why do you think that your customer would not be paying the FairTax on the services you render to them? Why would your sale be exempt, but my purchases be taxed? As I understand it, all new goods and all services would be subject to the “FairTax.” And when we start exempting some of them, the tax rate must rise.

2009-01-04T21:18:21-08:00

7793

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

6601

166455

I didn't say my sales would be exempt....You need to understand the FairTax before you talk about it...

I didn’t say my sales would be exempt….You need to understand the FairTax before you talk about it…

2009-01-04T21:22:56-08:00

7795

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

3064

166455

So your customer would pay you $150, and you'd get to keep the whole $150, or you'd have to pass along the $50 as the FairTax? Seems to me that this would significantly reduce the demand for your services, and make your customer much more interested in your competitor who would work for $90, and only cost him $135.

So your customer would pay you $150, and you’d get to keep the whole $150, or you’d have to pass along the $50 as the FairTax? Seems to me that this would significantly reduce the demand for your services, and make your customer much more interested in your competitor who would work for $90, and only cost him $135.

2009-01-04T21:30:31-08:00

7799

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

6601

166455

No, I currently pay far more than what the FairTax adds to my cost in income taxes.... Under the Fairtax the cost of my product PLUS the FairTax is the same as what it is now... and I pay no income taxes... Read about the FarTax... You obviously don't understand it.

No, I currently pay far more than what the FairTax adds to my cost in income taxes…. Under the Fairtax the cost of my product PLUS the FairTax is the same as what it is now… and I pay no income taxes… Read about the FarTax… You obviously don’t understand it.

2009-01-04T21:33:53-08:00

7800

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

3064

166455

Are you assuming that you will only pay 23% in FairTax? Have I got a bridge for you! The real rate is much higher. And the distributional effects, in every state, even with the "prebate" are such that the bottom 90% or 95% of us will pay far more in taxes with the FairTax than we pay now. If you're promoting the interests of the top 1%, or 5% or maybe 10%, say so. I'm looking for a vibrant just economy that works for all. Increasing taxes on people who are already struggling doesn't make sense to me, and that's what I understand the FairTax will do.

Are you assuming that you will only pay 23% in FairTax? Have I got a bridge for you! The real rate is much higher. And the distributional effects, in every state, even with the “prebate” are such that the bottom 90% or 95% of us will pay far more in taxes with the FairTax than we pay now. If you’re promoting the interests of the top 1%, or 5% or maybe 10%, say so. I’m looking for a vibrant just economy that works for all. Increasing taxes on people who are already struggling doesn’t make sense to me, and that’s what I understand the FairTax will do.

2009-01-04T21:41:22-08:00

7807

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

6601

166455

Where is your data for these assumptions??

Where is your data for these assumptions??

2009-01-04T21:42:40-08:00

7808

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

3064

166455

Okay, lvtfan, let me address your first comment: Would I want every [vendor or service provider] to collect sales taxes. Well, I don't know what state you live in, but here in Texas as well as many other states, they already do, and it works quite well. Texas has no state income tax. Our state is funded by sales tax, and I don't think it's a co-incidence that we are one of the states who are weathering the current economic recession the best. If you look at states with state income tax (NY, FL, CA, etc.) vs sales tax (TX, I think GA, etc.) you'll see a pattern. But I digress. If you read up on the FairTax, you'll find that your concerns are addressed in a very real and intelligent way. In our current system, all of the businesses (or in actuality the people who own the businesses) you mentioned do currently pay taxes, right? Well, each and every product they sell or service they provide currently reflects the price of the income taxes they pay in addition to the wholesale cost of said products and services. PLUS the prices of all those products and services also reflect the cost to that business of all the bookkeeping, red tape and accounting fees inherent in this ridiculous tax code we are under. Some of the best economists of our time have gone through and determined how much the REAL cost of our current tax plan is when you take all of that into account, and it's around 23%. So when you go out and buy that gallon of milk, you are paying not only for the milk, but also for the taxes on the milk and the cost of tracking taxes for that milk not only for the grocer, but also for the trucker who brought it, the farmer with the cow, etc. That's the key! You are already paying the "EMBEDDED TAXES" every time you buy something. So if you eliminate the embedded taxes by eliminating the complicated income tax, the cost of that gallon of milk will go down. Now all you have to do is pay the sales tax on your milk. You don't have to hire an accountant to figure out how much sales tax to pay. It's the same for everyone. There is no graduated scale where some pay more than others. There are no deductions. Every single person or family is given a "pre-bate" equal to the amount of taxes they would pay on just the necessesities of life. So people living in true poverty where they can't afford anything but the basics don't pay any taxes. Yes, they pay it at the store, but they get it back in the form of the pre-bate. Please, lvtfan, as mhalavo is saying, get the book. Read it. The best book I've come across explaining it is of course The FairTax by Boortz and Congressman Linder. After you read that, read second one which addresses all the questions asked by people like yourself who doubt the idea. They're both a good read, and if you're still against it afterward, you at least won't sound like you haven't checked the facts.

Okay, lvtfan, let me address your first comment: Would I want every [vendor or service provider] to collect sales taxes. Well, I don’t know what state you live in, but here in Texas as well as many other states, they already do, and it works quite well. Texas has no state income tax. Our state is funded by sales tax, and I don’t think it’s a co-incidence that we are one of the states who are weathering the current economic recession the best. If you look at states with state income tax (NY, FL, CA, etc.) vs sales tax (TX, I think GA, etc.) you’ll see a pattern. But I digress. If you read up on the FairTax, you’ll find that your concerns are addressed in a very real and intelligent way. In our current system, all of the businesses (or in actuality the people who own the businesses) you mentioned do currently pay taxes, right? Well, each and every product they sell or service they provide currently reflects the price of the income taxes they pay in addition to the wholesale cost of said products and services. PLUS the prices of all those products and services also reflect the cost to that business of all the bookkeeping, red tape and accounting fees inherent in this ridiculous tax code we are under. Some of the best economists of our time have gone through and determined how much the REAL cost of our current tax plan is when you take all of that into account, and it’s around 23%. So when you go out and buy that gallon of milk, you are paying not only for the milk, but also for the taxes on the milk and the cost of tracking taxes for that milk not only for the grocer, but also for the trucker who brought it, the farmer with the cow, etc. That’s the key! You are already paying the “EMBEDDED TAXES” every time you buy something. So if you eliminate the embedded taxes by eliminating the complicated income tax, the cost of that gallon of milk will go down. Now all you have to do is pay the sales tax on your milk. You don’t have to hire an accountant to figure out how much sales tax to pay. It’s the same for everyone. There is no graduated scale where some pay more than others. There are no deductions. Every single person or family is given a “pre-bate” equal to the amount of taxes they would pay on just the necessesities of life. So people living in true poverty where they can’t afford anything but the basics don’t pay any taxes. Yes, they pay it at the store, but they get it back in the form of the pre-bate. Please, lvtfan, as mhalavo is saying, get the book. Read it. The best book I’ve come across explaining it is of course The FairTax by Boortz and Congressman Linder. After you read that, read second one which addresses all the questions asked by people like yourself who doubt the idea. They’re both a good read, and if you’re still against it afterward, you at least won’t sound like you haven’t checked the facts.

2009-01-05T11:34:13-08:00

7837

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:45-07:00

4630

166455

I've spent a few hours doing some reading, to make sure that I'd not missed anything; it has been some months since I looked carefully at the FairTax. 23%, or rather 30% as we are used to looking at sales taxes, is not going to be sufficient to cover the revenue needs of current spending, unless we are willing to tax local, county and state governments on their purchases, schools on their purchases, churches and philanthropies and other currently untaxed entities on every dollar they spend, which will increase state and local taxes by a significant percentage. Every textbook, every snowplow, every paving contract, every ambulance or book purchase, every bridge contract, every tank and Humvee and uniform will incur a FairTax, to be paid for via whatever tax that level of government uses to fund its spending. Do we really want to be taxing people's visits to doctors, dentists and hospitals? their stays in nursing homes and assisted living? their purchases of a new home? their monthly rent? groceries? haircuts? purchase or lease of a new car? hotel and car rentals on vacation? ball park tickets, parking and hot dogs? babysitting, childcare, train and bus fare, train station parking ... you get the idea. And your church or synagogue, your homeless shelter, your children's charity, your scout troop, your favorite charity will all be incurring the FairTax, raising their costs and their fundraising needs signficantly. New house construction, except for luxury housing where money is no object, will crawl to a halt. This will raise the price of existing homes for sale, and will raise the price of rentals, which will be subject to the FairTax as well. And do you really want the federal government to have to collect your taxes from your doctor, dentist, hospital, nursing home (including medicaid-funded care), assisted living facility, home care provider, new home builder, landlord, grocer, convenience store, farm stand, barber, car dealership, hotels, car rental companies, baseball team, parking folks, hot dog vendors, outlet stores, babysitters, cable TV, internet access, auto repairs, funerals, auto insurance, homeowners' insurance, medical insurance, lawn mowing, snow plowing, home painting, roofers, electricity, water and sewer service, laundry, appliances, your real estate agent, your fast food joint, the soda machine, the coffee shop, takeout food, the glasses maker, the contact lens company, the company that sells the seeds, fencing, equipment for your vegetable garden, every online vendor of whatever size ... Each of these entities will be paid 1/4% of what they collect and turn in ... but how do we make sure they turn in the other 99.75% of what they are collecting on behalf of the federal government? Every bit of tax evasion will increase the necessary "FairTax" rate on the remaining transactions. The US Treasury Department calculated that if we utilized a national sales tax to replace JUST the federal income tax, and provided a "prebate" on the amount of the tax for spending up to the poverty level here's what would happen to the allocation of the tax burden, by income quintile (20% of households): Share of Taxes, 2006 Share of FairTax, with rebate % chg chg $billions Lowest quintile: -0.5% -0.9% +1.4% +$19.6 billion Second quintile: -0.9% 4.4% +5.3% +$74.1 billion Middle quintile: 3.8% 10.5% +6.7% +$93.7 billion Fourth quintile: 13.4% 19.5% +6.1% +$85.7 billion Highest quintile: 84.2% 65.1% -19.1% -$267.0 billion Total 100.0% 100.0% same total same total This doesn't take into account Social Security, which, for most of us, is more than we pay in federal income taxes. Have there been calls in your own state for sales tax holidays, to provide some fiscal stimulus? That's at 4%, or 6% or, if you live in Chicago, 10.25% sales tax. Think what a 40%, or 50%, or 60% sales tax on all your purchases would do (the rate depends on who and what we choose to exempt) to your economy -- our economy. And then we should talk about the "prebates" -- the monthly check to every household which would "refund" to them an amount equal to the tax on spending at the federal poverty level. For 2008, the FPL for a family of 4 was $21,200 (2009's isn't available yet). Under the FairTax, the first $21,200 of spending would be, effectively, tax free. All well and good. But WHERE IN AMERICA does spending at the FPL even begin to meet a family's most modestly defined needs? And every product you must borrow to purchase ... be it your home, or your car, or a medical procedure ... will be subject to both the FairTax and whatever interest the lenders care to impose, assuming they will finance that additional percentage, even with the security of being able to put a lien against the house or car. And you'll need to purchase insurance for being "upside down" on your car and home loan for much longer, and private mortgage insurance ... with a "FairTax" on each! What a deal! Certain industries will disappear, taking a lot of jobs with them. The ripple effects will be significant. Many charities will simply cease to exist, though the need for their services will, if anything be increased. The ripple effects will be significant. Is this your vision for America? It certainly isn't mine. (If you're curious about mine, search this site on "Henry George.")

I’ve spent a few hours doing some reading, to make sure that I’d not missed anything; it has been some months since I looked carefully at the FairTax. 23%, or rather 30% as we are used to looking at sales taxes, is not going to be sufficient to cover the revenue needs of current spending, unless we are willing to tax local, county and state governments on their purchases, schools on their purchases, churches and philanthropies and other currently untaxed entities on every dollar they spend, which will increase state and local taxes by a significant percentage. Every textbook, every snowplow, every paving contract, every ambulance or book purchase, every bridge contract, every tank and Humvee and uniform will incur a FairTax, to be paid for via whatever tax that level of government uses to fund its spending. Do we really want to be taxing people’s visits to doctors, dentists and hospitals? their stays in nursing homes and assisted living? their purchases of a new home? their monthly rent? groceries? haircuts? purchase or lease of a new car? hotel and car rentals on vacation? ball park tickets, parking and hot dogs? babysitting, childcare, train and bus fare, train station parking … you get the idea. And your church or synagogue, your homeless shelter, your children’s charity, your scout troop, your favorite charity will all be incurring the FairTax, raising their costs and their fundraising needs signficantly. New house construction, except for luxury housing where money is no object, will crawl to a halt. This will raise the price of existing homes for sale, and will raise the price of rentals, which will be subject to the FairTax as well. And do you really want the federal government to have to collect your taxes from your doctor, dentist, hospital, nursing home (including medicaid-funded care), assisted living facility, home care provider, new home builder, landlord, grocer, convenience store, farm stand, barber, car dealership, hotels, car rental companies, baseball team, parking folks, hot dog vendors, outlet stores, babysitters, cable TV, internet access, auto repairs, funerals, auto insurance, homeowners’ insurance, medical insurance, lawn mowing, snow plowing, home painting, roofers, electricity, water and sewer service, laundry, appliances, your real estate agent, your fast food joint, the soda machine, the coffee shop, takeout food, the glasses maker, the contact lens company, the company that sells the seeds, fencing, equipment for your vegetable garden, every online vendor of whatever size … Each of these entities will be paid 1/4% of what they collect and turn in … but how do we make sure they turn in the other 99.75% of what they are collecting on behalf of the federal government? Every bit of tax evasion will increase the necessary “FairTax” rate on the remaining transactions. The US Treasury Department calculated that if we utilized a national sales tax to replace JUST the federal income tax, and provided a “prebate” on the amount of the tax for spending up to the poverty level here’s what would happen to the allocation of the tax burden, by income quintile (20% of households): Share of Taxes, 2006 Share of FairTax, with rebate % chg chg $billions Lowest quintile: -0.5% -0.9% +1.4% +$19.6 billion Second quintile: -0.9% 4.4% +5.3% +$74.1 billion Middle quintile: 3.8% 10.5% +6.7% +$93.7 billion Fourth quintile: 13.4% 19.5% +6.1% +$85.7 billion Highest quintile: 84.2% 65.1% -19.1% -$267.0 billion Total 100.0% 100.0% same total same total This doesn’t take into account Social Security, which, for most of us, is more than we pay in federal income taxes. Have there been calls in your own state for sales tax holidays, to provide some fiscal stimulus? That’s at 4%, or 6% or, if you live in Chicago, 10.25% sales tax. Think what a 40%, or 50%, or 60% sales tax on all your purchases would do (the rate depends on who and what we choose to exempt) to your economy — our economy. And then we should talk about the “prebates” — the monthly check to every household which would “refund” to them an amount equal to the tax on spending at the federal poverty level. For 2008, the FPL for a family of 4 was $21,200 (2009’s isn’t available yet). Under the FairTax, the first $21,200 of spending would be, effectively, tax free. All well and good. But WHERE IN AMERICA does spending at the FPL even begin to meet a family’s most modestly defined needs? And every product you must borrow to purchase … be it your home, or your car, or a medical procedure … will be subject to both the FairTax and whatever interest the lenders care to impose, assuming they will finance that additional percentage, even with the security of being able to put a lien against the house or car. And you’ll need to purchase insurance for being “upside down” on your car and home loan for much longer, and private mortgage insurance … with a “FairTax” on each! What a deal! Certain industries will disappear, taking a lot of jobs with them. The ripple effects will be significant. Many charities will simply cease to exist, though the need for their services will, if anything be increased. The ripple effects will be significant. Is this your vision for America? It certainly isn’t mine. (If you’re curious about mine, search this site on “Henry George.”)

2009-01-05T20:14:38-08:00

7859

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:46-07:00

6601

166455

Where did you "look carefully at the FairTax"? Most of what you said is just plain WRONG... Do us all a favor and read all of the studies that prove all of your assumptions wrong. Then come back here and talk intelligently about the subject.

Where did you “look carefully at the FairTax”? Most of what you said is just plain WRONG… Do us all a favor and read all of the studies that prove all of your assumptions wrong. Then come back here and talk intelligently about the subject.

2009-01-06T05:04:20-08:00

7877

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:47-07:00

3064

166455

lvtfan: What you obviously don't understand is that the current income tax system inflates the cost of all the goods you purchase. When a church buys something, does the vendor still have to pay income taxes on that purchase? Yes. Is the vendor is going to raise the price accordingly. Yes. Basically, churches, along with all the other income tax exempt organizations you mentioned are paying income taxes by proxy. When you go to the doctor, his income taxes are accounted for in the price he charges for his services too. Not to mention the income taxes (and payroll taxes) of his nurse, and receptionist, and the suppliers of his medical supplies, and his landlord, and every other person and business involved with bringing his services to you. On average the prices of the goods and services you purchase would decline about 22% with the implementation of the FairTax negating almost all of the taxes leaving the price of goods and services nearly the same. Keeping 100% of every dollar I earn is my vision for America. Bringing unprecedented growth to the American economy is my vision for America. The FairTax is my vision for America.

lvtfan: What you obviously don’t understand is that the current income tax system inflates the cost of all the goods you purchase. When a church buys something, does the vendor still have to pay income taxes on that purchase? Yes. Is the vendor is going to raise the price accordingly. Yes. Basically, churches, along with all the other income tax exempt organizations you mentioned are paying income taxes by proxy. When you go to the doctor, his income taxes are accounted for in the price he charges for his services too. Not to mention the income taxes (and payroll taxes) of his nurse, and receptionist, and the suppliers of his medical supplies, and his landlord, and every other person and business involved with bringing his services to you. On average the prices of the goods and services you purchase would decline about 22% with the implementation of the FairTax negating almost all of the taxes leaving the price of goods and services nearly the same. Keeping 100% of every dollar I earn is my vision for America. Bringing unprecedented growth to the American economy is my vision for America. The FairTax is my vision for America.

2009-01-11T02:48:10-08:00

8252

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:05-07:00

4092

166455

lvtfan: What you obviously don't understand is that the believers in the Fair Tax don't listed to arguments. They're not interested in data. It's like religion, it's all based on an unquestioning faith in what someone has told them. Both sides have done studies and they disagree. Both sides have academics and other experts, who disagree. You cite data and analyses and they tell you that you don't know what you're talking about and should go to their website or read the book. You can't argue about religion. It's all a matter of belief not logic and rationality. I don't understand why more attention isn't given to Texas, which as I understand it, uses a sales tax for generating all its revenue. Have all the benefits claimed for the fair tax occurred in TX? Let's face it. We don't know if all those assertions about how the fair tax will improve the economy might occur. It all sounds too good to be true. It sounds too much like a scam. If you ever listened to the Amway pitch, you know what I mean. On top of that, we've had over 20 years of the rich getting a pass while the middle class carries bigger and bigger loads. The problem with the fair tax, IMO, is that converting from an income tax to a sales tax would be a huge change, from the Federal government down to the small business (over $200 in tax, I think) businesses. There would be just as difficult to go back.

lvtfan: What you obviously don’t understand is that the believers in the Fair Tax don’t listed to arguments. They’re not interested in data. It’s like religion, it’s all based on an unquestioning faith in what someone has told them. Both sides have done studies and they disagree. Both sides have academics and other experts, who disagree. You cite data and analyses and they tell you that you don’t know what you’re talking about and should go to their website or read the book. You can’t argue about religion. It’s all a matter of belief not logic and rationality. I don’t understand why more attention isn’t given to Texas, which as I understand it, uses a sales tax for generating all its revenue. Have all the benefits claimed for the fair tax occurred in TX? Let’s face it. We don’t know if all those assertions about how the fair tax will improve the economy might occur. It all sounds too good to be true. It sounds too much like a scam. If you ever listened to the Amway pitch, you know what I mean. On top of that, we’ve had over 20 years of the rich getting a pass while the middle class carries bigger and bigger loads. The problem with the fair tax, IMO, is that converting from an income tax to a sales tax would be a huge change, from the Federal government down to the small business (over $200 in tax, I think) businesses. There would be just as difficult to go back.

2009-01-11T19:10:39-08:00

8281

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:07-07:00

1372

166455

Texas has one of the most prosperous economies in the nation. So does Florida. Neither has an income tax. Both have sales taxes. Some of us who support the FairTax do treat it as a radical religion, unfortunately. I am not such a case. I have researched extensively, including contacting Dale Jorgenson, PhD and Laurence Kotlikoff personally via e-mail to ask specific questions. I have come to the conclusion that the FairTax represents a tremendous improvement over any other proposed tax reform proposal. And, like a recent article linked to the FairTax website stated, "We call it the Fair Tax -- not the Perfect Tax" (http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10227&news_iv_ctrl=1501). But it IS far more perfect (AND fair) than the present system, or even a flat income tax system.

Texas has one of the most prosperous economies in the nation. So does Florida. Neither has an income tax. Both have sales taxes. Some of us who support the FairTax do treat it as a radical religion, unfortunately. I am not such a case. I have researched extensively, including contacting Dale Jorgenson, PhD and Laurence Kotlikoff personally via e-mail to ask specific questions. I have come to the conclusion that the FairTax represents a tremendous improvement over any other proposed tax reform proposal. And, like a recent article linked to the FairTax website stated, “We call it the Fair Tax — not the Perfect Tax” (<a href="http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10227&news_iv_ctrl=1501" rel="nofollow">http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10227&news_iv_ctrl=1501</a>). But it IS far more perfect (AND fair) than the present system, or even a flat income tax system.

2009-01-12T01:24:36-08:00

8290

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:07-07:00

6750

166455

Correction: "Texas has one of the most prosperous economies in the nation. So does Florida. Neither has an income tax. Both have sales taxes." Actually, I mistyped. Last I looked, Texas has the 10th most prosperous economy in the WORLD, and I believe Florida ranked around 18th in the WORLD.

Correction: “Texas has one of the most prosperous economies in the nation. So does Florida. Neither has an income tax. Both have sales taxes.” Actually, I mistyped. Last I looked, Texas has the 10th most prosperous economy in the WORLD, and I believe Florida ranked around 18th in the WORLD.

2009-01-12T01:26:12-08:00

8291

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:07-07:00

6750

166455

Lord Kilborn, how are revenues holding up these days? Any recent reports? What are the prospects for the next few months? Might I send those who still think the "FairTax" is a good idea to a paper entitled "The Ultimate Tax Reform" available at http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Foldvary_UTR.htm (with links to related ideas) or in pdf at http://www.foldvary.net/works/policystudy.pdf, with particular attention to Part 4: A Comparative Analysis of Land Value Taxation, which says, among other things: "Reformers who want to impose a national retail sales tax are well aware of the substantial impact taxes have on human behavior. That, indeed, is often why such reforms are proposed: The reformer wishes to discourage borrowing, reduce consumption, or encourage savings, for example. But moving to a national retail sales tax results in little improvement. "Most people use their wage income to pay for goods and services and sales taxes. Switching from an income to a sales tax is like taxing you when you leave a room instead of when you enter the room. "Income taxes punish savings, but sales taxes punish borrowing. If you borrow $10,000 to buy a car and there is a 20 percent sales tax, you need to borrow an extra $2,000 to pay the tax. Some folks might decide to not buy the car, spending the $10,000 on something else, without borrowing $2,000. "There is no good economic reason to tax-punish consumption or borrowing. The purpose of production is consumption! If we punish consumption, we punish production. Consumption is not an evil to be thwarted, but the very benefit we get from the economy. We may as well also tax fun and joy! Those seeking to tax consumption act as though they have a Puritan streak that considers enjoying goods to be evil and working and saving to be good for their own sake. "Tapping rent or land value, by contrast, avoids the manipulation of an individualâ€™s choice to save or borrow, consume or invest. A well-constructed land value levy has no distortive effect at all on human action or decisions, since it taps a pure surplus, what is left over after paying for the economic costs of production. The effect of shifting public revenue from labor and capital to land would be to liberate human action from the disincentives currently imposed by other taxes."

Lord Kilborn, how are revenues holding up these days? Any recent reports? What are the prospects for the next few months? Might I send those who still think the “FairTax” is a good idea to a paper entitled “The Ultimate Tax Reform” available at <a href="http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Foldvary_UTR.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Foldvary_UTR.htm</a> (with links to related ideas) or in pdf at <a href="http://www.foldvary.net/works/policystudy.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.foldvary.net/works/policystudy.pdf</a>, with particular attention to Part 4: A Comparative Analysis of Land Value Taxation, which says, among other things: “Reformers who want to impose a national retail sales tax are well aware of the substantial impact taxes have on human behavior. That, indeed, is often why such reforms are proposed: The reformer wishes to discourage borrowing, reduce consumption, or encourage savings, for example. But moving to a national retail sales tax results in little improvement. “Most people use their wage income to pay for goods and services and sales taxes. Switching from an income to a sales tax is like taxing you when you leave a room instead of when you enter the room. “Income taxes punish savings, but sales taxes punish borrowing. If you borrow $10,000 to buy a car and there is a 20 percent sales tax, you need to borrow an extra $2,000 to pay the tax. Some folks might decide to not buy the car, spending the $10,000 on something else, without borrowing $2,000. “There is no good economic reason to tax-punish consumption or borrowing. The purpose of production is consumption! If we punish consumption, we punish production. Consumption is not an evil to be thwarted, but the very benefit we get from the economy. We may as well also tax fun and joy! Those seeking to tax consumption act as though they have a Puritan streak that considers enjoying goods to be evil and working and saving to be good for their own sake. “Tapping rent or land value, by contrast, avoids the manipulation of an individualâ€™s choice to save or borrow, consume or invest. A well-constructed land value levy has no distortive effect at all on human action or decisions, since it taps a pure surplus, what is left over after paying for the economic costs of production. The effect of shifting public revenue from labor and capital to land would be to liberate human action from the disincentives currently imposed by other taxes.”

2009-01-12T07:03:17-08:00

8294

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:07-07:00

6601

166455

"Income taxes punish savings, but sales taxes punish borrowing. If you borrow $10,000 to buy a car and there is a 20 percent sales tax, you need to borrow an extra $2,000 to pay the tax. Some folks might decide to not buy the car, spending the $10,000 on something else, without borrowing $2,000." Since savings are encouraged under the FairTax less borrowing will be going on and interest rates will be lower. See an example of the difference between the Income tax and the FairTax for buying a new car here: http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/TheFairTaxlowersthecostofUSautomobiles-110206.pdf

“Income taxes punish savings, but sales taxes punish borrowing. If you borrow $10,000 to buy a car and there is a 20 percent sales tax, you need to borrow an extra $2,000 to pay the tax. Some folks might decide to not buy the car, spending the $10,000 on something else, without borrowing $2,000.” Since savings are encouraged under the FairTax less borrowing will be going on and interest rates will be lower. See an example of the difference between the Income tax and the FairTax for buying a new car here: <a href="http://www.fairtax.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.fairtax.org/</a>PDF/TheFairTaxlowersthecostofUSautomobiles-110206.pdf

2009-01-12T07:24:49-08:00

8295

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:07-07:00

3064

166455

And who, other than the top 2% of income recipients -- whose taxes will drop like a rock and whose income exceeds their spending -- will have something to save? The next 3% of us? Maybe. The rest of us, particularly those whose taxes rise? Not so much. And since demand for new cars will drop, so will efficiencies of scale, and so will the ripple effects of all the auto industry folks who must look for new lines of work. Nothing good happens when you impose a sales tax! And a sales tax is not less bad than an income tax, particularly for the people whose tax rate rises! But even if you are in that fortunate group whose own tax rate will drop, you will eventually suffer as your economy suffers -- you are not immune for long.

And who, other than the top 2% of income recipients — whose taxes will drop like a rock and whose income exceeds their spending — will have something to save? The next 3% of us? Maybe. The rest of us, particularly those whose taxes rise? Not so much. And since demand for new cars will drop, so will efficiencies of scale, and so will the ripple effects of all the auto industry folks who must look for new lines of work. Nothing good happens when you impose a sales tax! And a sales tax is not less bad than an income tax, particularly for the people whose tax rate rises! But even if you are in that fortunate group whose own tax rate will drop, you will eventually suffer as your economy suffers — you are not immune for long.

2009-01-12T07:52:19-08:00

8297

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:16:07-07:00

6601

166455

lvtfan.... You claim to have an extensive education yet you don't seem to understand the basics of economics. What part of the FairTax plan makes you believe that no one other than the top 2% of earners will be able to save? What research can you provide to substantiate your claims? No matter how much you THINK you understand the FairTax, it is obvious to anyone who has taken any basic economics classes to see the flaws in your logic.

lvtfan…. You claim to have an extensive education yet you don’t seem to understand the basics of economics. What part of the FairTax plan makes you believe that no one other than the top 2% of earners will be able to save? What research can you provide to substantiate your claims? No matter how much you THINK you understand the FairTax, it is obvious to anyone who has taken any basic economics classes to see the flaws in your logic.

2009-01-12T18:22:54-08:00

8327

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:09-07:00

3064

166455

Wow, lvtfan. I read the article you linked do. Are you really suggesting that shifting the entire tax burden to property taxes would be more fair than the FairTax? The first thing that comes to my mind is the farming family whose farm has been in the family for generations and who is even now looking at losing the family farm because they can't pay current property taxes on it, much less the burden that would be imposed in a system like that. I don't think the FairTax fans here are "religiously" following what we've heard. We've read articles and looked at facts and find it to make sense. I just haven't heard anything from the opponents which convinces me otherwise. Most of the points opponents have seem to be either based on false assumptions, flat out wrong, or balanced out in other areas. I am not saying the FT is perfect, just better than other options I've seen, and certainly better than our current system. Please understand, I am trying to maintain a civil debate here, and I would ask that others either for or against the FT not resort to personal attacks or insults on others' intelligence. To the comment on the FT being like shifting from taxing the entrance of a room vs the exit, it would seem that way on the surface, but if you look closely, you'll see that it's not exactly. In our current system, there are many people who do not pay taxes and should. Take for example the drug trade. Do you think they report their income to the IRS? It is obviously an area where a lot of money changes hands, but they are not taxed on the income. However, those drug dealers certainly do spend the money. They would be brought into the realm of the paying the tax burden under the FairTax because they would be paying their taxes when they bought their cars, boats jewelry, homes, etc. Also look at the illegal aliens. Some of them pay payroll taxes, but many do not, being paid in cash under the table. They still would be paying taxes when they spend money here though. Same goes for tourists visiting from other countries. All of these groups of people currently spending money here would be brought into the tax base. Speaking of people from other countries, currently, many American businesses are outsourcing or moving business operations to other countries due to high taxes here. America would go from being an exporter of jobs (including the beloved auto industry workers) to having every foreign business wanting to move their factories here! They wouldn't have to pay income tax for the money they make here, Americans would fill the jobs in their factories and offices, and America would still collect taxes from the money made by those businesses through their workers (foreign employed American workers, or foreign workers living here) spending money here. In regards to encouraging borrowing vs encouraging saving, I think the latter would result in a more stable economy. It was all the borrowing that got us into this economic mess! Besides, saying that you are discouraging spending with a sales tax is the same as saying you're discouraging receiving income by having an income tax. People will still spend because they still want the stuff! In the immortal words of Bernadette Peters in The Jerk, "I don't mind losing all the money, it's all the stuuuufffff!" When people save, they aren't just putting their money in the mattress anyway. They are investing in the economy. People are saving at the lowest rate ever, which is why our system will be stressed even more when all these non-savers get too old to work and have to be supported by the rest of us. If they had saved/invested all their lives, they would still have enough money to support themselves in retirement and there would be less need for all the government programs!

Wow, lvtfan. I read the article you linked do. Are you really suggesting that shifting the entire tax burden to property taxes would be more fair than the FairTax? The first thing that comes to my mind is the farming family whose farm has been in the family for generations and who is even now looking at losing the family farm because they can’t pay current property taxes on it, much less the burden that would be imposed in a system like that. I don’t think the FairTax fans here are “religiously” following what we’ve heard. We’ve read articles and looked at facts and find it to make sense. I just haven’t heard anything from the opponents which convinces me otherwise. Most of the points opponents have seem to be either based on false assumptions, flat out wrong, or balanced out in other areas. I am not saying the FT is perfect, just better than other options I’ve seen, and certainly better than our current system. Please understand, I am trying to maintain a civil debate here, and I would ask that others either for or against the FT not resort to personal attacks or insults on others’ intelligence. To the comment on the FT being like shifting from taxing the entrance of a room vs the exit, it would seem that way on the surface, but if you look closely, you’ll see that it’s not exactly. In our current system, there are many people who do not pay taxes and should. Take for example the drug trade. Do you think they report their income to the IRS? It is obviously an area where a lot of money changes hands, but they are not taxed on the income. However, those drug dealers certainly do spend the money. They would be brought into the realm of the paying the tax burden under the FairTax because they would be paying their taxes when they bought their cars, boats jewelry, homes, etc. Also look at the illegal aliens. Some of them pay payroll taxes, but many do not, being paid in cash under the table. They still would be paying taxes when they spend money here though. Same goes for tourists visiting from other countries. All of these groups of people currently spending money here would be brought into the tax base. Speaking of people from other countries, currently, many American businesses are outsourcing or moving business operations to other countries due to high taxes here. America would go from being an exporter of jobs (including the beloved auto industry workers) to having every foreign business wanting to move their factories here! They wouldn’t have to pay income tax for the money they make here, Americans would fill the jobs in their factories and offices, and America would still collect taxes from the money made by those businesses through their workers (foreign employed American workers, or foreign workers living here) spending money here. In regards to encouraging borrowing vs encouraging saving, I think the latter would result in a more stable economy. It was all the borrowing that got us into this economic mess! Besides, saying that you are discouraging spending with a sales tax is the same as saying you’re discouraging receiving income by having an income tax. People will still spend because they still want the stuff! In the immortal words of Bernadette Peters in The Jerk, “I don’t mind losing all the money, it’s all the stuuuufffff!” When people save, they aren’t just putting their money in the mattress anyway. They are investing in the economy. People are saving at the lowest rate ever, which is why our system will be stressed even more when all these non-savers get too old to work and have to be supported by the rest of us. If they had saved/invested all their lives, they would still have enough money to support themselves in retirement and there would be less need for all the government programs!

2009-01-13T12:12:08-08:00

8382

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:11-07:00

4630

2008-12-16T21:28:34-08:00

2008-12-16T21:23:50-08:00

155366

false

763

active

4397

155366

Do your research. It would not do that at all. There is a prebate for the basic neccesities of life. Plus, there is roughly an embedded 22% tax in the product itself to comply with the current system before you even see the register. Prices would stay around the same domain they currently hold.

Do your research. It would not do that at all. There is a prebate for the basic neccesities of life. Plus, there is roughly an embedded 22% tax in the product itself to comply with the current system before you even see the register. Prices would stay around the same domain they currently hold.

2008-12-16T21:28:34-08:00

6387

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:14:48-07:00

4396

2008-12-16T16:39:20-08:00

2008-12-16T13:35:05-08:00

140171

false

763

active

4000

140171

NO! You need to read "The Fair Tax Book" and "Fair Tax: Answering the Critics" by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder. If you read these books with an open mind, you will come to find that the cost of all goods will first drop by about 25% inclusively. Now add The Fair Tax in at 23% inclusively and we will still pay about the same for our products. However, we will ALSO be taking home our ENTIRE paycheck with NO TAXES taken out! The Fair Tax is the way to go!

NO! You need to read “The Fair Tax Book” and “Fair Tax: Answering the Critics” by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder. If you read these books with an open mind, you will come to find that the cost of all goods will first drop by about 25% inclusively. Now add The Fair Tax in at 23% inclusively and we will still pay about the same for our products. However, we will ALSO be taking home our ENTIRE paycheck with NO TAXES taken out! The Fair Tax is the way to go!

2008-12-16T16:39:20-08:00

6338

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:14:47-07:00

4065

140171

And you cannot get out of paying the tax. If you buy any product you have paid the tax. Not to mention all of the tourists that come into our country, illegal aliens, and drug dealers will all be funding our government as they go out and buy things and also pay the tax.

And you cannot get out of paying the tax. If you buy any product you have paid the tax. Not to mention all of the tourists that come into our country, illegal aliens, and drug dealers will all be funding our government as they go out and buy things and also pay the tax.

2008-12-16T17:40:45-08:00

6349

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:14:47-07:00

4292

140171

Well put OldSchoolAmerican. Many people do not realize that the manufacturing taxes companies pay end up getting passed on to the consumer in the price of the product. No more manufacturing taxes = lower priced products.

Well put OldSchoolAmerican. Many people do not realize that the manufacturing taxes companies pay end up getting passed on to the consumer in the price of the product. No more manufacturing taxes = lower priced products.

2008-12-19T07:00:03-08:00

6772

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:01-07:00

4907

140171

How do you propose to collect the FairTax from drug dealers? Or would their production and distribution be exempt, while yours and mine would be taxed, unless we were slick enough to figure out how to avoid it? Most of us will cut back our purchases ... just what the economy needs. Just what our employers need. Just what entrepreneurs are hoping for?? I don't think so! I don't disagree that the income tax is a miserable thing. But there is a better alternative than taxing sales. First, tax land value. Not one acre will disappear, slip out of town in the middle of the night, curl up and hide. And when we tax it, its owner will be nudged into putting it to better use. Who benefits? The entire community. Who benefits when the market for goods and services dries up?

How do you propose to collect the FairTax from drug dealers? Or would their production and distribution be exempt, while yours and mine would be taxed, unless we were slick enough to figure out how to avoid it? Most of us will cut back our purchases … just what the economy needs. Just what our employers need. Just what entrepreneurs are hoping for?? I don’t think so! I don’t disagree that the income tax is a miserable thing. But there is a better alternative than taxing sales. First, tax land value. Not one acre will disappear, slip out of town in the middle of the night, curl up and hide. And when we tax it, its owner will be nudged into putting it to better use. Who benefits? The entire community. Who benefits when the market for goods and services dries up?

2009-01-04T19:09:27-08:00

7761

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:43-07:00

6601

140171

So if I let my property get run down and lower it's value I can pay less taxes? Yeah that's way better for society than encouraging savings through the FairTax.

So if I let my property get run down and lower it’s value I can pay less taxes? Yeah that’s way better for society than encouraging savings through the FairTax.

2009-01-04T19:23:12-08:00

7764

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:43-07:00

3064

140171

mhalavo, your land's value is independent of the care you take of it. As things stand now, if you tear down your building, you pay lower taxes; land value taxation would not penalize you annually for having a fine, useful building on your property, or give you an incentive to let your place run down. The incentives would be supporting your good care of your property; the assessor would not be interested in your improvements, only in how well-served your neighborhood is by transportation, good schools, emergency services, proximity to jobs, parks, fine views, etc..

mhalavo, your land’s value is independent of the care you take of it. As things stand now, if you tear down your building, you pay lower taxes; land value taxation would not penalize you annually for having a fine, useful building on your property, or give you an incentive to let your place run down. The incentives would be supporting your good care of your property; the assessor would not be interested in your improvements, only in how well-served your neighborhood is by transportation, good schools, emergency services, proximity to jobs, parks, fine views, etc..

2009-01-04T20:23:13-08:00

7775

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:43-07:00

6601

140171

So, with this system, he poorer someone is the more difficult it is to own land. This sounds similar to the eminent domain laws recently passed that allows local governments to seize and transfer land from the current owners to anyone who can make the local government more tax revenue due to "better land use"... That has yet to take off...

So, with this system, he poorer someone is the more difficult it is to own land. This sounds similar to the eminent domain laws recently passed that allows local governments to seize and transfer land from the current owners to anyone who can make the local government more tax revenue due to “better land use”… That has yet to take off…

2009-01-04T20:35:48-08:00

7778

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:43-07:00

3064

140171

mhalavo, actually, one would be able to afford land more easily. As things stand now, one must pay the previous owner a large amount for value he didn't create, and then pay the mortgage lender for 30 years, with interest (often quite a bit of it), to pay off that debt, AND pay taxes to one's community and state and nation. What I propose (and I didn't come up with the idea; I came around to it slowly and grudgingly!) is that we pay once: in the form of a land value tax, paid annually to our community, a portion of which will get passed to the state and nation (if the the annual value is high enough to cover more than local costs). Being a landholder should not be a profitable business, or an investment. "Investment" in land is inert: it doesn't create anything, except jobs for mortgage lenders. It doesn't create a job for anyone else. And we end up paying twice. Young people can't afford housing, and the incentives are such that we don't produce as much housing as we need. (A recent NYT article said that the basic demographic demand for new homes is 1.7 million units per year. When we produce less than that, the cost will by definition be high, and a larger share of young families' income will go for housing -- be they buyers or renters -- leaving less for the other essentials that they and their children need. Doesn't seem wise to me to promote policies that reduce the supply of housing. You mention eminent domain. This is, in some ways, a much more logical system; when a neighborhood moves to the point where single family homes are no longer appropriate there, and it is time for, say, townhouses or mid-rise condos, rising land taxes provide the signal. It happens gradually, assuming that assessors are permitted to do their job -- assessing property (which, for example, California no longer permits them to do) and providing meaningful assessments on the land and the existing buildings. Obsolete buildings may have little or no value, but the land may have increased to the point where it is 90% of the value of the typical property. Why does land value rise? Good schools, good transportation, good emergency services, culture, restaurants, parks, shoveled sidewalks and streets, whatever it is people want. Sometimes single family homes simply no longer belong in the central business district. Sometimes low-rise buildings are no longer suitable. I'd much prefer that the land value tax, and good assessments, provide that signal, giving property owners time to make appropriate arrangements. Eminent domain shouldn't be necessary, though I suppose sometimes it is. Is the neighborhood in which your parents grew up still the same as they remember it? If not, is that a bad thing? Should we be subsidizing diners in neighborhoods that not have highrises, or should our system of taxation nudge them to become first-floor coffeeshops, with tall buildings that serve 21st century needs and local population? I think it is a fine alternative to sprawl and long commutes.

mhalavo, actually, one would be able to afford land more easily. As things stand now, one must pay the previous owner a large amount for value he didn’t create, and then pay the mortgage lender for 30 years, with interest (often quite a bit of it), to pay off that debt, AND pay taxes to one’s community and state and nation. What I propose (and I didn’t come up with the idea; I came around to it slowly and grudgingly!) is that we pay once: in the form of a land value tax, paid annually to our community, a portion of which will get passed to the state and nation (if the the annual value is high enough to cover more than local costs). Being a landholder should not be a profitable business, or an investment. “Investment” in land is inert: it doesn’t create anything, except jobs for mortgage lenders. It doesn’t create a job for anyone else. And we end up paying twice. Young people can’t afford housing, and the incentives are such that we don’t produce as much housing as we need. (A recent NYT article said that the basic demographic demand for new homes is 1.7 million units per year. When we produce less than that, the cost will by definition be high, and a larger share of young families’ income will go for housing — be they buyers or renters — leaving less for the other essentials that they and their children need. Doesn’t seem wise to me to promote policies that reduce the supply of housing. You mention eminent domain. This is, in some ways, a much more logical system; when a neighborhood moves to the point where single family homes are no longer appropriate there, and it is time for, say, townhouses or mid-rise condos, rising land taxes provide the signal. It happens gradually, assuming that assessors are permitted to do their job — assessing property (which, for example, California no longer permits them to do) and providing meaningful assessments on the land and the existing buildings. Obsolete buildings may have little or no value, but the land may have increased to the point where it is 90% of the value of the typical property. Why does land value rise? Good schools, good transportation, good emergency services, culture, restaurants, parks, shoveled sidewalks and streets, whatever it is people want. Sometimes single family homes simply no longer belong in the central business district. Sometimes low-rise buildings are no longer suitable. I’d much prefer that the land value tax, and good assessments, provide that signal, giving property owners time to make appropriate arrangements. Eminent domain shouldn’t be necessary, though I suppose sometimes it is. Is the neighborhood in which your parents grew up still the same as they remember it? If not, is that a bad thing? Should we be subsidizing diners in neighborhoods that not have highrises, or should our system of taxation nudge them to become first-floor coffeeshops, with tall buildings that serve 21st century needs and local population? I think it is a fine alternative to sprawl and long commutes.

2009-01-04T20:56:53-08:00

7784

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

6601

140171

No one owns land under your plan... they only rent land until someone with more money comes along... that's BS.

No one owns land under your plan… they only rent land until someone with more money comes along… that’s BS.

2009-01-04T21:07:30-08:00

7788

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

3064

140171

And how does this plan compete with the FairTax? What would my tax rate on my property have to be so that all the renters around me wouldn't have to pay income taxes????

And how does this plan compete with the FairTax? What would my tax rate on my property have to be so that all the renters around me wouldn’t have to pay income taxes????

2009-01-04T21:09:20-08:00

7789

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

3064

140171

mhalavo, owners would have secure title, subject to the payment of taxes, just as we do now. The economic rent on land, quick and dirty, is about 5% of the current selling price. (It is a little more complicated than that, because currently there is some tax on it, but Q&D, 5% is a reasonable guestimate.) Land value rises over time, if the economy is healthy, population continues to increase, technology advances, and the community continues to invest in infrastructure and services which people find attractive and which promote commerce. The community would collect from landholder the full land rent, but the landlords would keep the rent on the buildings. Neither landholders nor tenants would pay taxes on their wages or purchases. I think a good case could be made that the cost of government would drop off over time, because we would be far less dependent on strong safety nets than we currently are.

mhalavo, owners would have secure title, subject to the payment of taxes, just as we do now. The economic rent on land, quick and dirty, is about 5% of the current selling price. (It is a little more complicated than that, because currently there is some tax on it, but Q&D, 5% is a reasonable guestimate.) Land value rises over time, if the economy is healthy, population continues to increase, technology advances, and the community continues to invest in infrastructure and services which people find attractive and which promote commerce. The community would collect from landholder the full land rent, but the landlords would keep the rent on the buildings. Neither landholders nor tenants would pay taxes on their wages or purchases. I think a good case could be made that the cost of government would drop off over time, because we would be far less dependent on strong safety nets than we currently are.

2009-01-04T21:15:58-08:00

7792

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

6601

140171

I currently pay 6% in local taxes on my investment property.... How in the hell do you think this "system" could replace the income tax???

I currently pay 6% in local taxes on my investment property…. How in the hell do you think this “system” could replace the income tax???

2009-01-04T21:27:12-08:00

7796

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

3064

140171

You pay 6% of the property's real market value each year? That's remarkably high. I've never heard of property taxes that high. Under LVT, you'd be paying roughly the annual rental value of the land itself annually, and NOTHING on your buildings or other improvements, be they a parking asphalt or a high rise building. (Your incentive, of course, would be to replace the asphalt with a parking garage or a high rise, if the property merited it.) And the fellow who keeps a prime piece of land unused, as an investment, would have incentive to do something with it or sell it to someone who would; there would simply be no percentage in keeping unused land. And that would be a good thing for the community, a good thing for the entrepreneurs, a good thing for people who need a place to live, or a place to work. It wouldn't be very nice for those who are waiting and waiting for their nest egg to be hatched by others' activity and investment.

You pay 6% of the property’s real market value each year? That’s remarkably high. I’ve never heard of property taxes that high. Under LVT, you’d be paying roughly the annual rental value of the land itself annually, and NOTHING on your buildings or other improvements, be they a parking asphalt or a high rise building. (Your incentive, of course, would be to replace the asphalt with a parking garage or a high rise, if the property merited it.) And the fellow who keeps a prime piece of land unused, as an investment, would have incentive to do something with it or sell it to someone who would; there would simply be no percentage in keeping unused land. And that would be a good thing for the community, a good thing for the entrepreneurs, a good thing for people who need a place to live, or a place to work. It wouldn’t be very nice for those who are waiting and waiting for their nest egg to be hatched by others’ activity and investment.

2009-01-04T21:35:17-08:00

7801

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

6601

140171

How does this generate tax revenue equal to the FairTax?

How does this generate tax revenue equal to the FairTax?

2009-01-04T21:37:07-08:00

7803

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

3064

140171

Under the FairTax I can own land and elect to "live off of it" and pay NO TAXES AT ALL!!!!

Under the FairTax I can own land and elect to “live off of it” and pay NO TAXES AT ALL!!!!

2009-01-04T21:38:25-08:00

7804

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

3064

140171

And you don't even need to have "Duke of" in front of your name! You are electing to live off others' labor. Nice deal if you can get it, I suppose, but it sounds like legalized theft to me, under the guise of "property rights." Strikes me as a property wrong. I realize this is an unfamiliar notion.

And you don’t even need to have “Duke of” in front of your name! You are electing to live off others’ labor. Nice deal if you can get it, I suppose, but it sounds like legalized theft to me, under the guise of “property rights.” Strikes me as a property wrong. I realize this is an unfamiliar notion.

2009-01-04T21:47:59-08:00

7811

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

6601

140171

By default, who should own land? If no one, anywhere, paid taxes, who would own their land?

By default, who should own land? If no one, anywhere, paid taxes, who would own their land?

2009-01-04T21:50:22-08:00

7812

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:44-07:00

3064

140171

Title would be as it is now; you can own as much land as you want, as long as you pay into the commons the economic rent on it. And your title would be quite secure. I don't understand your second question yet. Unless you're asking what would happen if you failed to pay your tax, in which case the land would be available to whomever bought it, and would take over the responsibility for paying the rent on it. Only those who intended to put it to use ASAP would have any reason to take title. Land speculation would simply dry up, along with the evils that accompany it. And a young person who needed a bit of land to work on would be able to afford it, because their payment would be going to the commons -- their full tax burden -- not to the seller. See http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Gross_Rent.html and http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Rent.html for more about this.

Title would be as it is now; you can own as much land as you want, as long as you pay into the commons the economic rent on it. And your title would be quite secure. I don’t understand your second question yet. Unless you’re asking what would happen if you failed to pay your tax, in which case the land would be available to whomever bought it, and would take over the responsibility for paying the rent on it. Only those who intended to put it to use ASAP would have any reason to take title. Land speculation would simply dry up, along with the evils that accompany it. And a young person who needed a bit of land to work on would be able to afford it, because their payment would be going to the commons — their full tax burden — not to the seller. See <a href="http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Gross_Rent.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Gross_Rent.html</a> and <a href="http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Rent.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Rent.html</a> for more about this.

2009-01-05T20:30:32-08:00

7863

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:46-07:00

6601

140171

So, under your communist land tax system, the government would ultimately own all of the land and "rent" it to whoever used the property to their liking... All of this would be policed by a government run homeowners association... Yeah... that'll go over like a turd in a punch bowl....

So, under your communist land tax system, the government would ultimately own all of the land and “rent” it to whoever used the property to their liking… All of this would be policed by a government run homeowners association… Yeah… that’ll go over like a turd in a punch bowl….

2009-01-06T04:56:43-08:00

7875

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:47-07:00

3064

2008-12-16T18:06:16-08:00

2008-12-16T13:25:08-08:00

139448

false

763

active

3963

139448

Rubicon obviously was government school educated. 23% from 100 equals 23 cents inclusive tax, you have to compare apples to apples, not to oranges. The current income tax code is an inclusive tax and so is the proposed Fair Tax. When the Fair Tax is enacted I think you will see state sales taxes changed to inclusive taxes as well which means it will be built in to the purchase price not added on later. You already pay an inclusive sales tax when you buy a gallon of gasoline, so it's not that difficult to extend it to everything we buy.

Rubicon obviously was government school educated. 23% from 100 equals 23 cents inclusive tax, you have to compare apples to apples, not to oranges. The current income tax code is an inclusive tax and so is the proposed Fair Tax. When the Fair Tax is enacted I think you will see state sales taxes changed to inclusive taxes as well which means it will be built in to the purchase price not added on later. You already pay an inclusive sales tax when you buy a gallon of gasoline, so it’s not that difficult to extend it to everything we buy.

2008-12-16T18:06:16-08:00

6352

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:14:47-07:00

4310

139448

barry, rubicon marked the talking point unhelpful because he probable agrees with you.

barry, rubicon marked the talking point unhelpful because he probable agrees with you.

2008-12-16T23:15:58-08:00

6410

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:14:49-07:00

1378

139448

Shomas, As I would have expected, you are on point. Barry34785, I fail to see why you feel that all government school educated people are ignorant. The fact that I agree with you even though you can't seem to understand that, and following your apparently flawed logic, I could devise that non-government school educated people can't use deductive reasoning to uncover other people's intentions. Good day.

Shomas, As I would have expected, you are on point. Barry34785, I fail to see why you feel that all government school educated people are ignorant. The fact that I agree with you even though you can’t seem to understand that, and following your apparently flawed logic, I could devise that non-government school educated people can’t use deductive reasoning to uncover other people’s intentions. Good day.

2008-12-17T07:22:18-08:00

6457

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:14:50-07:00

3963

2008-12-19T06:04:50-08:00

2008-12-08T09:35:16-08:00

130739

false

763

384

active

321

130739

If the goal is to be revenue neutral and the tax system will retain approximately the same level of progessiveness as the current tax system, what difference does it make what the final rate ends up being? It is simply a reflection of the amount of taxes WE ALREADY PAY!!! The taxes now are just split up under many different line items and intentionally hidden from taxpayers. The FairTax would allow taxpayers to see the tax and choose how much of it to pay by choosing how much they consume. The debate over the rate of FairTax is truly a debate over how much we should be taxed. From your argument, it would appear you think we are overtaxed.

If the goal is to be revenue neutral and the tax system will retain approximately the same level of progessiveness as the current tax system, what difference does it make what the final rate ends up being? It is simply a reflection of the amount of taxes WE ALREADY PAY!!! The taxes now are just split up under many different line items and intentionally hidden from taxpayers. The FairTax would allow taxpayers to see the tax and choose how much of it to pay by choosing how much they consume. The debate over the rate of FairTax is truly a debate over how much we should be taxed. From your argument, it would appear you think we are overtaxed.

2008-12-19T06:04:50-08:00

6766

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:01-07:00

5669

130739

If you'd like to see the top 1% paying a tiny fraction of what they pay now, and the poorest folks paying far more -- after their "prebate" -- then this is a very fine idea. But I don't think that's a recipe for widely shared prosperity. If you're a big believer in trickle-down, this may be right up your alley. But I suspect most of us believe that "trickle down economics" are something like the rising tide that lifts all yachts: a lovely fairy tale. Choose how much you consume. Beans? Spinach? Ice cream? Milk? Go for the powdered milk, the dried beans. Make sure that you don't employ any more people than necessary, and spend your time rehydrating the dried stuff, and enjoying the delightful flavor of powdered milk, in order to avoid the 50+% tax on the difference in price. You don't think the demand your your own labor will be affected negatively? I've got a beautiful bridge I can sell you .... cheap!

If you’d like to see the top 1% paying a tiny fraction of what they pay now, and the poorest folks paying far more — after their “prebate” — then this is a very fine idea. But I don’t think that’s a recipe for widely shared prosperity. If you’re a big believer in trickle-down, this may be right up your alley. But I suspect most of us believe that “trickle down economics” are something like the rising tide that lifts all yachts: a lovely fairy tale. Choose how much you consume. Beans? Spinach? Ice cream? Milk? Go for the powdered milk, the dried beans. Make sure that you don’t employ any more people than necessary, and spend your time rehydrating the dried stuff, and enjoying the delightful flavor of powdered milk, in order to avoid the 50+% tax on the difference in price. You don’t think the demand your your own labor will be affected negatively? I’ve got a beautiful bridge I can sell you …. cheap!

2009-01-04T19:18:19-08:00

7763

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:43-07:00

6601

130739

Ivtfan- I don't see how you could make such statements if you truly understand how the FairTax works. The top 1% now pays at a capital gains income rate of only 15% because they rely most heavily on investment income rather than wage or salary income yet they spend FAR MORE per capita than the bottom 50% - so the top 1%'s tax burden would probably increase depending on how much they decided to spend, but their tax rate would definitely increase. Back to the bottom 50% - how can you say they will pay far more? If all people get a tax prebate (as you realize) up to the poverty level (meaning that someone living at the poverty level has an effective tax rate of 0%), then an individual's tax rate becomes progressively HIGHER as their spending level increases, up to near 23% (or 30% exclusive, however you want to call it) for that top 1% of society. The beauty in the system is the simplicity, progressiveness, and transparency, and control given to the people - an idealization of the values the founding members of government used to write the constitution.

Ivtfan- I don’t see how you could make such statements if you truly understand how the FairTax works. The top 1% now pays at a capital gains income rate of only 15% because they rely most heavily on investment income rather than wage or salary income yet they spend FAR MORE per capita than the bottom 50% – so the top 1%’s tax burden would probably increase depending on how much they decided to spend, but their tax rate would definitely increase. Back to the bottom 50% – how can you say they will pay far more? If all people get a tax prebate (as you realize) up to the poverty level (meaning that someone living at the poverty level has an effective tax rate of 0%), then an individual’s tax rate becomes progressively HIGHER as their spending level increases, up to near 23% (or 30% exclusive, however you want to call it) for that top 1% of society. The beauty in the system is the simplicity, progressiveness, and transparency, and control given to the people – an idealization of the values the founding members of government used to write the constitution.

2009-01-06T07:44:38-08:00

7879

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:47-07:00

6660

130739

Benny1560, you don't know what you're talking about. The middle quintile spends 76% of their income; the upper quintile spends 46%. The middle quintile currently pays 14% in Federal taxes; the top quintile pays 29%. It's obvious the middle class is going to end up paying more and the rich are going to end up paying less.

Benny1560, you don’t know what you’re talking about. The middle quintile spends 76% of their income; the upper quintile spends 46%. The middle quintile currently pays 14% in Federal taxes; the top quintile pays 29%. It’s obvious the middle class is going to end up paying more and the rich are going to end up paying less.

2009-01-06T09:19:52-08:00

7884

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:47-07:00

321

130739

Aaron, are you sugesting the rich will never spend their investments and what happens if they loos their money in an investment.

Aaron, are you sugesting the rich will never spend their investments and what happens if they loos their money in an investment.

2009-01-06T10:03:03-08:00

7885

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:47-07:00

3496

130739

rewtyou: In reality, this is how much they spend. Why don't they eventually spend all their investments? Because they give them to their kids. (But of course you guys want to get rid of the estate tax as well...) What happens if they lose money? Then they lose money? How is this relevant?

rewtyou: In reality, this is how much they spend. Why don’t they eventually spend all their investments? Because they give them to their kids. (But of course you guys want to get rid of the estate tax as well…) What happens if they lose money? Then they lose money? How is this relevant?

2009-01-06T10:09:36-08:00

7886

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:15:47-07:00

321

130739

AaronSW: What do their kids do with the money when it is given to them? Spend it. Which point they would be tax payers. And why do you think that the estate tax is ok? If someone earns money and pays taxes on those earnings, why should they be taxed again just for dying? Do the math. After the embedded income taxes are removed, the prices of goods and services would remain nearly the same with the FairTax as they are now. The low- and middle-classes will have their entire paycheck plus the prebate to spend or save as they see fit. How does this not put the low- and middle classes in a much better position than they are today?

AaronSW: What do their kids do with the money when it is given to them? Spend it. Which point they would be tax payers. And why do you think that the estate tax is ok? If someone earns money and pays taxes on those earnings, why should they be taxed again just for dying? Do the math. After the embedded income taxes are removed, the prices of goods and services would remain nearly the same with the FairTax as they are now. The low- and middle-classes will have their entire paycheck plus the prebate to spend or save as they see fit. How does this not put the low- and middle classes in a much better position than they are today?

2009-01-11T03:51:47-08:00

8253

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:05-07:00

4092

2008-12-04T18:52:07-08:00

127368

false

763

347

active

1378

127368

more clear

more clear

2008-12-04T18:52:07-08:00

5765

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:14:26-07:00

1378

127368

Regardless of what the percentage winds up being, it is there for all to see with the FairTax Act.. now you don't know what you really pay in taxes because of corporate taxes and the Employer Matching Funds tax (50% of FICA paid by those mean old employers).. people should call their reps at 1 877 SOB U SOB (1 877 762-8762). Somehow, I find the number quite appropriate...

Regardless of what the percentage winds up being, it is there for all to see with the FairTax Act.. now you don’t know what you really pay in taxes because of corporate taxes and the Employer Matching Funds tax (50% of FICA paid by those mean old employers).. people should call their reps at 1 877 SOB U SOB (1 877 762-8762). Somehow, I find the number quite appropriate…

2008-12-04T22:44:23-08:00

5786

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:14:27-07:00

1546

2008-12-04T18:44:31-08:00

2008-12-04T18:44:30-08:00

127347

false

763

345

active

1378

127347

tired of a lies and misrepresentation being forced to the top with out being corrected

tired of a lies and misrepresentation being forced to the top with out being corrected

2008-12-04T18:44:31-08:00

5762

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:14:26-07:00

1378

127347

changed "proposes a 23% sales tax" to proposes a 23% inclusive sales tax.

changed “proposes a 23% sales tax” to proposes a 23% inclusive sales tax.

2008-12-04T18:49:30-08:00

5763

true

false

deleted

2009-05-18T14:14:26-07:00

1378

127347

changed "proposes a 23% sales tax" to "proposes a 23% inclusive sales tax".

changed “proposes a 23% sales tax” to “proposes a 23% inclusive sales tax”.

2008-12-04T18:49:58-08:00

5764

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:14:26-07:00

1378

127347

Thats the affect of math on "ratings" that are biased towards descent. With so many for and so few against, even FaceBook and other "in" sites couldn't muster enoug opposes and it drives the socialists of the Democratic Party crazy.. Remember this is all to be "fair". Fair to whom? Like our tax code, 50% is paying 97% of the taxes to be FAIR.. that's called "new math my friend...now we must play their game and beat them at it. They'll get so pissy they'll "tweek the rules again" to be Fair.. eh? Maybe,.. maybe not. who knows.. ? It's fun for a while.. call 1 877 SOB U SOB (1 877 762-8762). Somehow, I find the number quite appropriate...

Thats the affect of math on “ratings” that are biased towards descent. With so many for and so few against, even FaceBook and other “in” sites couldn’t muster enoug opposes and it drives the socialists of the Democratic Party crazy.. Remember this is all to be “fair”. Fair to whom? Like our tax code, 50% is paying 97% of the taxes to be FAIR.. that’s called "new math my friend…now we must play their game and beat them at it. They’ll get so pissy they’ll “tweek the rules again” to be Fair.. eh? Maybe,.. maybe not. who knows.. ? It’s fun for a while.. call 1 877 SOB U SOB (1 877 762-8762). Somehow, I find the number quite appropriate…

2008-12-04T22:48:55-08:00

5787

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:14:27-07:00

1546

127347

Why do you think it is more fair to tax consumption vs. income? If we stop taxing income, the people who make really really really big incomes are the ones who will benefit. Guess what, that's not 99% of us. That's the 1% on top. Why should I support that? What is fair about giving Bill Gates a tax break?

Why do you think it is more fair to tax consumption vs. income? If we stop taxing income, the people who make really really really big incomes are the ones who will benefit. Guess what, that’s not 99% of us. That’s the 1% on top. Why should I support that? What is fair about giving Bill Gates a tax break?

2008-12-05T23:17:41-08:00

5850

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:14:31-07:00

3191

127347

So, do you think that the people making all of those "really really big incomes" are just keeping that money? No. They spend it.

So, do you think that the people making all of those “really really big incomes” are just keeping that money? No. They spend it.

2008-12-06T12:09:06-08:00

5869

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:14:32-07:00

1622

127347

right - the people "at the bottom" will get the prebate, and whatever they spend beyond that will be taxed as equally as those "at the top." What is so great about the FairTax, however, is that those at the bottom are already spending less, and therefore they bring home a larger income and are able to pay bills, etc. Those at the top who have always spent more will be paying more taxes than those at the bottom, of course; but even they won't be taxed more if they decide not to spend as much. It also takes into account demographics: people at certain age levels and with different roles throughout their lives will spend according to what their paycheck brings them.

right – the people “at the bottom” will get the prebate, and whatever they spend beyond that will be taxed as equally as those “at the top.” What is so great about the FairTax, however, is that those at the bottom are already spending less, and therefore they bring home a larger income and are able to pay bills, etc. Those at the top who have always spent more will be paying more taxes than those at the bottom, of course; but even they won’t be taxed more if they decide not to spend as much. It also takes into account demographics: people at certain age levels and with different roles throughout their lives will spend according to what their paycheck brings them.

2008-12-17T10:24:50-08:00

6505

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:14:52-07:00

4550