Would create a 30% to 89% sales tax on all purchases

thogan58 posted a bulletin Thu Mar 26 10:04:40 -0700 2009 20 comments
Icon_24
1pc
thogan58 (endorses) Thu Mar 26 10:04:40 -0700 2009

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.

Icon_24
2pc
Fairtax absurd nonsense (opposes) Sun May 24 15:43:27 -0700 2009

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.

Icon_24
2pc
Fairtax absurd nonsense (opposes) Sun May 24 15:45:17 -0700 2009

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.

Sbeds1 marked Would create a 30% to 89% sales tax on all purchases unhelpful Mon Mar 23 05:21:33 -0700 2009 2 comments
Icon_24
6pc
Sbeds1 (endorses) Mon Jun 01 09:37:24 -0700 2009

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.

Icon_24
8pc
ziglet1 (endorses) Fri Jun 05 18:37:27 -0700 2009

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.

Icon_24
253pc
Jim Gilliam Fri Feb 13 15:10:48 -0800 2009

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.

Icon_24
3pc
Upgrade (endorses) Fri Feb 13 15:37:47 -0800 2009

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.

Icon_24
253pc
Jim Gilliam Fri Feb 13 15:42:21 -0800 2009

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.)

Icon_24
3pc
Upgrade (endorses) Fri Feb 13 14:44:19 -0800 2009

Because the point is just plain wrong.

Icon_24
2pc
Northwest_Inventor (endorses) Wed Jan 21 23:31:36 -0800 2009

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.

Icon_24
3pc
SouthTexas (endorses) Wed Jan 28 20:15:27 -0800 2009

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.

Icon_24
0pc
creteguy (endorses) Mon Feb 02 16:37:07 -0800 2009

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.

FairTaxUSA marked Would create a 30% to 89% sales tax on all purchases unhelpful Thu Jan 08 22:28:08 -0800 2009 4 comments
Icon_24
0pc
FairTaxUSA (endorses) Thu Jan 08 22:43:05 -0800 2009

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.

Icon_24
3pc
b2swalk (endorses) Tue Jan 13 11:38:11 -0800 2009

Right on here.

Icon_24
5pc
jedi_riccan (endorses) Tue Jan 13 12:22:16 -0800 2009

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

Icon_24
3pc
Wynn (endorses) Sat Jan 24 14:11:43 -0800 2009

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.

traveller1861 marked Would create a 30% to 89% sales tax on all purchases unhelpful Tue Jan 06 15:55:22 -0800 2009 49 comments
Icon_24
2pc
lvtfan (opposes) Wed Jan 07 16:25:09 -0800 2009

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.

Icon_24
2pc
lvtfan (opposes) Tue Jan 13 16:23:25 -0800 2009

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.

Icon_24
3pc
Wynn (endorses) Sat Jan 24 14:25:32 -0800 2009

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 – 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 – everyone pays 10 cents on every dollar earned to the federal government. No exemptions no anything. A simple three line tax form – 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 – equal taxation for rich and poor. It also takes everyone off the dole – 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.

jedi_riccan marked Would create a 30% to 89% sales tax on all purchases unhelpful Tue Jan 06 13:52:47 -0800 2009 3 comments
Icon_24
16pc
DougW (endorses) Wed Jan 07 12:25:43 -0800 2009

Where do you get these figures?

Icon_24
5pc
jedi_riccan (endorses) Wed Jan 07 12:52:37 -0800 2009

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.

Icon_24
163pc
shomas (endorses) Fri Jan 09 00:44:40 -0800 2009

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

shomas marked Would create a 30% to 89% sales tax on all purchases unhelpful Mon Jan 05 03:38:51 -0800 2009 1 comment
Icon_24
163pc
shomas (endorses) Mon Jan 05 03:41:18 -0800 2009

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

Icon_24
0pc
daveilers (endorses) Sat Jan 03 20:06:27 -0800 2009

formatting change

Icon_24
0pc
daveilers (endorses) Sat Jan 03 20:01:29 -0800 2009

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

lvtfan marked Would create a 30% to 89% sales tax on all purchases helpful Fri Jan 02 19:23:16 -0800 2009 19 comments
Icon_24
2pc
lvtfan (opposes) Fri Jan 02 19:33:17 -0800 2009

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.

Icon_24
98pc
Recluse (opposes) Tue Jan 06 21:25:50 -0800 2009

“… 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?

Icon_24
3pc
chuck4hr25 (endorses) Wed Jan 07 08:47:05 -0800 2009

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.

EthanL marked Would create a 30% to 89% sales tax on all purchases unhelpful Mon Dec 22 21:47:44 -0800 2008 2 comments
Icon_24
1pc
Bob-TA (endorses) Tue Dec 23 02:57:44 -0800 2008

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.

Icon_24
2pc
lvtfan (opposes) Sun Jan 04 18:15:34 -0800 2009

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

4liberty marked Would create a 30% to 89% sales tax on all purchases unhelpful Fri Dec 19 05:49:27 -0800 2008 1 comment
Icon_24
0pc
4liberty (endorses) Fri Dec 19 05:52:49 -0800 2008

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.

TomR marked Would create a 30% to 89% sales tax on all purchases unhelpful Fri Dec 19 05:14:42 -0800 2008 15 comments
Icon_24
0pc
TomR (endorses) Fri Dec 19 05:21:11 -0800 2008

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.

Icon_24
2pc
lvtfan (opposes) Mon Jan 05 20:23:26 -0800 2009

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.

Icon_24
2pc
mhalavo (endorses) Tue Jan 06 04:59:55 -0800 2009

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

RMForbes marked Would create a 30% to 89% sales tax on all purchases unhelpful Thu Dec 18 16:01:58 -0800 2008 3 comments
Icon_24
3pc
RMForbes (endorses) Thu Dec 18 16:07:55 -0800 2008

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

Icon_24
2pc
lvtfan (opposes) Sun Jan 04 19:04:49 -0800 2009

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?

Icon_24
3pc
RMForbes (endorses) Mon Jan 05 08:51:34 -0800 2009

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.

CPRF marked Would create a 30% to 89% sales tax on all purchases unhelpful Thu Dec 18 13:21:51 -0800 2008 1 comment
Icon_24
0pc
skinner1 (endorses) Thu Dec 18 13:29:49 -0800 2008

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

Eugene marked Would create a 30% to 89% sales tax on all purchases unhelpful Wed Dec 17 15:29:11 -0800 2008 1 comment
Icon_24
3pc
bradginn (endorses) Thu Dec 18 12:15:10 -0800 2008

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

PeeperKeeper marked Would create a 30% to 89% sales tax on all purchases unhelpful Wed Dec 17 13:45:31 -0800 2008 25 comments
Icon_24
3pc
PeeperKeeper (endorses) Wed Dec 17 13:55:26 -0800 2008

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?

Icon_24
2pc
mhalavo (endorses) Mon Jan 12 18:22:54 -0800 2009

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.

Icon_24
3pc
PeeperKeeper (endorses) Tue Jan 13 12:12:08 -0800 2009

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!

kg5na marked Would create a 30% to 89% sales tax on all purchases unhelpful Tue Dec 16 21:23:50 -0800 2008 1 comment
Icon_24
3pc
Benjamin D. G. (endorses) Tue Dec 16 21:28:34 -0800 2008

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.

dubldc marked Would create a 30% to 89% sales tax on all purchases unhelpful Tue Dec 16 13:35:05 -0800 2008 19 comments
Icon_24
1pc
OldSchoolAmerican (endorses) Tue Dec 16 16:39:20 -0800 2008

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!

Icon_24
2pc
lvtfan (opposes) Mon Jan 05 20:30:32 -0800 2009

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.

Icon_24
2pc
mhalavo (endorses) Tue Jan 06 04:56:43 -0800 2009

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….

Rubicon marked Would create a 30% to 89% sales tax on all purchases unhelpful Tue Dec 16 13:25:08 -0800 2008 3 comments
Icon_24
7pc
Barry34785 (endorses) Tue Dec 16 18:06:16 -0800 2008

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.

Icon_24
163pc
shomas (endorses) Tue Dec 16 23:15:58 -0800 2008

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

Icon_24
26pc
Rubicon (endorses) Wed Dec 17 07:22:18 -0800 2008

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.

Icon_24
1pc
LibertyBent (endorses) Fri Dec 19 06:04:50 -0800 2008

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.

Icon_24
5pc
AaronSw (opposes) Tue Jan 06 10:09:36 -0800 2009

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?

Icon_24
3pc
JamesUSC (endorses) Sun Jan 11 03:51:47 -0800 2009

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?

Icon_24
163pc
shomas (endorses) Thu Dec 04 18:52:07 -0800 2008

more clear

Icon_24
5pc
fatheromalley (endorses) Thu Dec 04 22:44:23 -0800 2008

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…

Icon_24
163pc
shomas (endorses) Thu Dec 04 18:44:31 -0800 2008

tired of a lies and misrepresentation being forced to the top with out being corrected

Icon_24
0pc
Ben333 (endorses) Sat Dec 06 12:09:06 -0800 2008

So, do you think that the people making all of those “really really big incomes” are just keeping that money? No. They spend it.

Icon_24
1pc
Kristen (endorses) Wed Dec 17 10:24:50 -0800 2008

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.

Revisions
Icon_24 Jim Gilliam revision
Fri Feb 13 15:10:48 -0800 2009

Icon_24 AaronSw revision
Fri Feb 13 14:46:21 -0800 2009

Icon_24 Upgrade revision
Fri Feb 13 14:44:18 -0800 2009

Icon_24 AaronSw revision
Mon Jan 05 05:57:33 -0800 2009

Icon_24 daveilers revision
Sat Jan 03 20:06:27 -0800 2009

Icon_24 daveilers revision
Sat Jan 03 20:01:28 -0800 2009

Icon_24 AaronSw revision
Mon Dec 08 09:35:16 -0800 2008

Icon_24 shomas revision
Thu Dec 04 18:52:07 -0800 2008

Icon_24 shomas revision
Thu Dec 04 18:46:13 -0800 2008

Icon_24 shomas revision
Thu Dec 04 18:44:30 -0800 2008

Icon_24 AaronSw revision
Sun Nov 23 12:53:19 -0800 2008

White House 2 is a multi-partisan network of 10535 citizens imagining how the White House might work if it was run completely democratically by thousands of people over the internet. It's free and all U.S. citizens can join.

We're setting priorities, collaborating on policy, and creating a massive database of 2867 talking points covering all sides of every important issue facing our country. Watch the video intro.

Getting involved is easy and fun. Just join and start setting your priorities, like a todo list. The more people who endorse a priority, the higher it rises in the charts. The more people who join the network, the more clout we will have with the President and the media.