1 25 6

2009-02-08T19:25:52-08:00

2009-02-08T19:21:25-08:00

355598

false

462

763

active

7512

355598

The factcheck.org analysis seems pretty thorough. However, the bulk of the turmoil their article exhibits is in regard to the absolute numbers representing the fair tax. In my estimation, it will be difficult to ascertain an exact set of numbers to plug in to make the plan tax neutral. Unfortunately, the principles behind the fair tax - tax consumption instead of production - has been ignored. Regardless of the numbers it takes to attain neutrality, the principle at work is what is important.

The factcheck.org analysis seems pretty thorough. However, the bulk of the turmoil their article exhibits is in regard to the absolute numbers representing the fair tax. In my estimation, it will be difficult to ascertain an exact set of numbers to plug in to make the plan tax neutral. Unfortunately, the principles behind the fair tax – tax consumption instead of production – has been ignored. Regardless of the numbers it takes to attain neutrality, the principle at work is what is important.

2009-02-08T19:25:52-08:00

10497

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:17:22-07:00

7512

355598

Good point. Maybe if you write to them, they'll address that too. They seem very thorough.

Good point. Maybe if you write to them, they’ll address that too. They seem very thorough.

2009-02-10T20:58:31-08:00

10669

false

true

published

2009-05-18T14:17:28-07:00

7526

355598

For anyone interested in reading a rebuttal of the factcheck article: http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8249

For anyone interested in reading a rebuttal of the factcheck article: <a href="http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8249" rel="nofollow">http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8249</a>

2009-02-11T05:58:30-08:00

10686

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:17:29-07:00

3064

2009-01-23T20:52:58-08:00

2009-01-23T19:13:45-08:00

318158

false

462

763

945

active

1378

318158

http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/final-report/TaxReform_Ch9.pdf page 209 Below "Retail Sales Tax with No Cash Grant" <-=== means without prebate The Panelâ€™s broad tax base <-==meaning their own invention. The Panel initially evaluated the federal retail sales tax using the broad tax base described by advocates of the â€œFairTaxâ€* retail sales tax proposal. That tax base (the â€œExtended Baseâ€*) would exempt only......... <-=== means fair tax plan = extended base. so chat 9.4 is based on a tax plan other then the fairtax with more exemptions and a higher rate. An other error factless factcheck made

<a href="http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/final-report/TaxReform_Ch9.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/final-report/TaxReform_Ch9.pdf</a> page 209 Below “Retail Sales Tax with No Cash Grant” <-= means without prebate The Panelâ€™s broad tax base <-meaning their own invention. The Panel initially evaluated the federal retail sales tax using the broad tax base described by advocates of the â€œFairTaxâ€* retail sales tax proposal. That tax base (the â€œExtended Baseâ€*) would exempt only……… <-=== means fair tax plan = extended base. so chat 9.4 is based on a tax plan other then the fairtax with more exemptions and a higher rate. An other error factless factcheck made

2009-01-23T20:06:17-08:00

9219

true

false

deleted

2009-05-18T14:16:41-07:00

1378

318158

http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/final-report/TaxReform_Ch9.pdf page 209 Below "Retail Sales Tax with No Cash Grant" <-=== means without prebate The Panelâ€™s broad tax base <-==meaning their own invention. The Panel initially evaluated the federal retail sales tax using the broad tax base described by advocates of the â€œFairTaxâ€* retail sales tax proposal. That tax base (the â€œExtended Baseâ€*) would exempt only......... <-=== means fair tax plan = extended base. Chart 9.4 is based on a tax plan other with a higher rate then the fairtax that is evident in the charts.

<a href="http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/final-report/TaxReform_Ch9.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/final-report/TaxReform_Ch9.pdf</a> page 209 Below “Retail Sales Tax with No Cash Grant” <-= means without prebate The Panelâ€™s broad tax base <-meaning their own invention. The Panel initially evaluated the federal retail sales tax using the broad tax base described by advocates of the â€œFairTaxâ€* retail sales tax proposal. That tax base (the â€œExtended Baseâ€*) would exempt only……… <-=== means fair tax plan = extended base. Chart 9.4 is based on a tax plan other with a higher rate then the fairtax that is evident in the charts.

2009-01-23T20:25:31-08:00

9220

true

false

deleted

2009-05-18T14:16:41-07:00

1378

318158

Below "Retail Sales Tax with No Cash Grant" <-=== (meaning without prebate.) The Panelâ€™s broad tax base <-== (meaning their own invention.) The Panel initially evaluated the federal retail sales tax using the broad tax base described by advocates of the â€œFairTaxâ€* retail sales tax proposal. That tax base (the â€œExtended Baseâ€*) would exempt only......... <-=== (means fair tax plan = extended base, not the tax reform panel's broad base.) Chart 9.4 is based on a tax plan other with a higher rate then the fairtax that is evident in the charts.

Below “Retail Sales Tax with No Cash Grant” <-= (meaning without prebate.) The Panelâ€™s broad tax base <- (meaning their own invention.) The Panel initially evaluated the federal retail sales tax using the broad tax base described by advocates of the â€œFairTaxâ€* retail sales tax proposal. That tax base (the â€œExtended Baseâ€*) would exempt only……… <-=== (means fair tax plan = extended base, not the tax reform panel’s broad base.) Chart 9.4 is based on a tax plan other with a higher rate then the fairtax that is evident in the charts.

2009-01-23T20:52:58-08:00

9223

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:41-07:00

1378

318158

I would almost prefer to just pay the taxes than have to read all this stuff, but ... The way I read the 2005 report from the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, they did use the Extended Base in their calculations. It's vague. They talked about a broad-based tax, then specifically discussed the Extended Base of the Fair Tax, then went off into their analysis. On the other hand, it sounded like they were discussing JUST the Income Tax and not Payroll Taxes (SS & Medicare), not to mention the Estate Tax, the Capital Gains tax, and Corporate taxes. I think the chart compares apples to bicycles. I won't fault the Panel on the discrepancies because i don't know what they had to work with in 2005. I'd like to see a few new charts using the same base and economic assumptions, except as noted below. First, I'd like charts that compare the current percent of tax paid by individuals (i.e., Income + Payroll + Capital Gains + Estate) to the HR25/S25 or whatever the latest Fair Tax proposal is. That would be Figures 9.3 and 9.4 done over. Second, I'd like to see a comparison of the plans versus the Federal Budget. The current situation is already available; that's where we see the government's deficit spending plan in action. The same chart for the Fair Tax would be more conjectural because there's no data, only hypotheses. Does consumer spending go down or stay the same? The $11B IRS goes away but it has to be replaced by the $???B costs of tracking taxpayers, sending out prebates, administering receipts from States, and other essential shuffling of papers.

I would almost prefer to just pay the taxes than have to read all this stuff, but … The way I read the 2005 report from the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, they did use the Extended Base in their calculations. It’s vague. They talked about a broad-based tax, then specifically discussed the Extended Base of the Fair Tax, then went off into their analysis. On the other hand, it sounded like they were discussing JUST the Income Tax and not Payroll Taxes (SS & Medicare), not to mention the Estate Tax, the Capital Gains tax, and Corporate taxes. I think the chart compares apples to bicycles. I won’t fault the Panel on the discrepancies because i don’t know what they had to work with in 2005. I’d like to see a few new charts using the same base and economic assumptions, except as noted below. First, I’d like charts that compare the current percent of tax paid by individuals (i.e., Income + Payroll + Capital Gains + Estate) to the HR25/S25 or whatever the latest Fair Tax proposal is. That would be Figures 9.3 and 9.4 done over. Second, I’d like to see a comparison of the plans versus the Federal Budget. The current situation is already available; that’s where we see the government’s deficit spending plan in action. The same chart for the Fair Tax would be more conjectural because there’s no data, only hypotheses. Does consumer spending go down or stay the same? The $11B IRS goes away but it has to be replaced by the $???B costs of tracking taxpayers, sending out prebates, administering receipts from States, and other essential shuffling of papers.

2009-01-24T12:05:39-08:00

9266

false

true

published

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

1372

318158

"I would almost prefer to just pay the taxes than have to read all this stuff" hahahahaha

“I would almost prefer to just pay the taxes than have to read all this stuff” hahahahaha

2009-01-24T13:44:06-08:00

9271

false

published

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

318158

try it out ->http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=calculator <- You can change many things single, married, joint or not, kids , mortgages, changes in interest rates, 401k and ira's, to Assumptions on the reduction in presales tax cost

try it out →<a href="http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=calculator" rel="nofollow">http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=calculator</a> <- You can change many things single, married, joint or not, kids , mortgages, changes in interest rates, 401k and ira’s, to Assumptions on the reduction in presales tax cost

2009-01-24T16:24:01-08:00

9305

true

false

deleted

2009-05-18T14:16:44-07:00

1378

318158

Try it out ->http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=calculator <- You can change many things single, married, joint or not, kids , mortgages, changes in interest rates, 401k and ira's, to Assumptions on the reduction in presales tax cost.

Try it out →<a href="http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=calculator" rel="nofollow">http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=calculator</a> <- You can change many things single, married, joint or not, kids , mortgages, changes in interest rates, 401k and ira’s, to Assumptions on the reduction in presales tax cost.

2009-01-24T22:44:18-08:00

9359

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:45-07:00

1378

318158

Recluse, The President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform did ignore the payroll taxes! Please think about the difference in complexity between 66,000+ pages and 300 pages. Do you think Guitner would have made his errors using the FairTax as opposed to the broken IRC?

Recluse, The President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform did ignore the payroll taxes! Please think about the difference in complexity between 66,000+ pages and 300 pages. Do you think Guitner would have made his errors using the FairTax as opposed to the broken IRC?

2009-01-26T07:06:37-08:00

9502

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:49-07:00

6533

2009-01-22T08:18:51-08:00

2009-01-21T10:58:04-08:00

304835

false

462

763

active

6959

304835

The only arguments against the FairTax are inaccurate. Just as waterboarding, gitmo, driling here, now, gun control. Those opposed are driven by obvious ideology that defies facts. CO2 control, based on manipulated and erroneous data... Same o same o...

The only arguments against the FairTax are inaccurate. Just as waterboarding, gitmo, driling here, now, gun control. Those opposed are driven by obvious ideology that defies facts. CO2 control, based on manipulated and erroneous data… Same o same o…

2009-01-22T08:18:51-08:00

9083

true

false

published

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

1546

2009-01-12T17:01:56-08:00

2009-01-12T17:01:55-08:00

280645

false

462

763

795

active

6750

280645

gramatical change (inserted space between 209, 210)

gramatical change (inserted space between 209, 210)

2009-01-12T17:01:56-08:00

8324

true

false

published

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

6750

280645

It's amassing how many opposers use findings by the taxreformpanel.gov when the taxreformpanel.gov offered analysis's for tax systems other then the fairtax.

It’s amassing how many opposers use findings by the taxreformpanel.gov when the taxreformpanel.gov offered analysis’s for tax systems other then the fairtax.

2009-01-17T14:54:26-08:00

8709

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:16:23-07:00

1378

280645

Yes, I saw the actual text for the first time a couple of days ago, and it turns out to analyze the FairTax's effect on the economy and citizens' tax burdens, the Tax Reform Panel actually analyzed a full-replacement value-added tax and then applied their findings on that tax to the FairTax.

Yes, I saw the actual text for the first time a couple of days ago, and it turns out to analyze the FairTax’s effect on the economy and citizens’ tax burdens, the Tax Reform Panel actually analyzed a full-replacement value-added tax and then applied their findings on that tax to the FairTax.

2009-01-17T21:04:36-08:00

8765

true

false

published

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

6750

2008-12-21T16:00:55-08:00

2008-12-21T15:39:21-08:00

242360

false

462

763

active

1388

242360

I'm not prepared to challenge FactCheck -- but I can say from experience that the presidents tax reform panel was a huge load of soft soap [edited from a much stronger derogatory term].

I’m not prepared to challenge FactCheck — but I can say from experience that the presidents tax reform panel was a huge load of soft soap [edited from a much stronger derogatory term].

2008-12-21T16:00:55-08:00

7012

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:11-07:00

1389

2008-12-21T15:41:34-08:00

2008-12-21T06:45:35-08:00

239114

false

462

763

611

active

1378

239114

spelling corection

spelling corection

2008-12-21T06:45:35-08:00

6960

true

false

deleted

2009-05-18T14:15:09-07:00

1378

239114

http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/final-report/TaxReform_Ch9.pdf On page 209 "The Panel initially evaluated the federal retail sales tax using the broad tax base described by advocates of the â€œFairTaxâ€* retail sales tax proposal". next, also on page 209 "Using the Extended Base and assuming low rates of evasion, the Treasury Department calculated that the tax rate required to replace the federal income tax with a retail sales tax". page 210 contains the chart 9.4(calculated from the extended base) that factcheck.org used addressing the fairtax even though it is was not the fairtax. Maybe factcheck.org needs to do some more fact checking. In English they told us they used their own tax plan different then the fairtax proposal. http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=1541&page=NewsArticle&id=8249 4 points ware factcheck.org analysis was either deceptive or factually incorrect. Addressing point C FactCheck.orgâ€™s assessment is based on a U.S. Treasury Department analysis (Figure 9.4 of which is shown) of a plan which is not the FairTax. The chart and the Treasury study depict an alternative retail sales tax plan invented by the Treasury Department that had a different tax base than the FairTax. In fact, the chart depicts a â€œplanâ€* that does not repeal payroll taxes, which are 41 percent of personal income taxes, and leaves out more than $771 billion in regressive taxes that fall mostly on the poor and middle-income wage earners. Although the chart label refers only to federal income taxes paid, this point is not made in the discussion of the results, thus almost begging for the reader to wrongly infer that the distributional picture portrays the FairTax.

<a href="http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/final-report/TaxReform_Ch9.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/final-report/TaxReform_Ch9.pdf</a> On page 209 “The Panel initially evaluated the federal retail sales tax using the broad tax base described by advocates of the â€œFairTaxâ€* retail sales tax proposal”. next, also on page 209 “Using the Extended Base and assuming low rates of evasion, the Treasury Department calculated that the tax rate required to replace the federal income tax with a retail sales tax”. page 210 contains the chart 9.4(calculated from the extended base) that factcheck.org used addressing the fairtax even though it is was not the fairtax. Maybe factcheck.org needs to do some more fact checking. In English they told us they used their own tax plan different then the fairtax proposal. <a href="http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=1541&page=NewsArticle&id=8249" rel="nofollow">http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=1541&page=NewsArticle&id=8249</a> 4 points ware factcheck.org analysis was either deceptive or factually incorrect. Addressing point C FactCheck.orgâ€™s assessment is based on a U.S. Treasury Department analysis (Figure 9.4 of which is shown) of a plan which is not the FairTax. The chart and the Treasury study depict an alternative retail sales tax plan invented by the Treasury Department that had a different tax base than the FairTax. In fact, the chart depicts a â€œplanâ€* that does not repeal payroll taxes, which are 41 percent of personal income taxes, and leaves out more than $771 billion in regressive taxes that fall mostly on the poor and middle-income wage earners. Although the chart label refers only to federal income taxes paid, this point is not made in the discussion of the results, thus almost begging for the reader to wrongly infer that the distributional picture portrays the FairTax.

2008-12-21T06:46:18-08:00

6961

true

false

deleted

2009-05-18T14:15:09-07:00

1378

239114

Opposers top talking point is http://whitehouse2.org/points/20-factcheck-org-on-the-fair-tax I'm asking Fairtax supporters to drive talking point http://whitehouse2.org/points/462-fairtax-org-rebuts-factcheck-org-fact-less-analysis- to the top of talking points helpful to endorsers, so that people new to the fairtax can analyze which talking point is more truthful.

Opposers top talking point is <a href="http://whitehouse2.org/points/20-factcheck-org-on-the-fair-tax" rel="nofollow">http://whitehouse2.org/points/20-factcheck-org-on-the-fair-tax</a> I’m asking Fairtax supporters to drive talking point <a href="http://whitehouse2.org/points/462-fairtax-org-rebuts-factcheck-org-fact-less-analysis-" rel="nofollow">http://whitehouse2.org/points/462-fairtax-org-rebuts-factcheck-org-fact-less-analysis-</a> to the top of talking points helpful to endorsers, so that people new to the fairtax can analyze which talking point is more truthful.

2008-12-21T08:47:37-08:00

6975

true

false

deleted

2009-05-18T14:15:09-07:00

1378

239114

Factcheck.org chose that name hoping to pass themselves off as a reliable website such as snopes, but really it's just a front for a radical left wing agenda. Don't get me wrong, the Fairtax is nonpartisan, as it should be, but the fact is liberals have always favored higher (and more complicated) taxes, right along with gov't control (both of which are accomplished by our current tax system). So, when something like the Fairtax comes along and threatens to transfer more power back to the people, the liberals are going to do whatever they can to stop it.

Factcheck.org chose that name hoping to pass themselves off as a reliable website such as snopes, but really it’s just a front for a radical left wing agenda. Don’t get me wrong, the Fairtax is nonpartisan, as it should be, but the fact is liberals have always favored higher (and more complicated) taxes, right along with gov’t control (both of which are accomplished by our current tax system). So, when something like the Fairtax comes along and threatens to transfer more power back to the people, the liberals are going to do whatever they can to stop it.

2008-12-21T15:41:34-08:00

7011

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:11-07:00

1388

239114

This is normal for those opposed to the Fairtax without first actually going to the site. How many opposing views would be here, if there weren't something else afoot? I don't believe for a moment the intellectual honesty of anyone opposed to completely un-taxing those in poverty. The very same socialists that champion our current 64,000 to 67,000 page tax-code (depending on who's counting) are the ones that scream their support of the poor and the working man. No lads and lasses, tis more afoot than mere opposing. I invite you all to look at the FairTax site, get it straight from the horses mouth, Then visit the opposers and look at their arguments. What are their claims but continued class warfare? Look at this a different way, and leave your own bigotry at the door. This is vital to the survival of individual liberty. It is time to realize, whatever a socialist's intent, no matter how much the compassion they claim, why depend on government? Please ask youself, would you rather determine your own fate by choosing between New Retail and Used. If you are an evironmentalist, should we not place downward pressure on New Retail Goods purchases by placing a low tax on those that spend more than poverty level on New Retail Goods? Why not reward re-cycling by un-taxing used goods, including homes and cars? What possible reason for any American to be against this? Freedom is scary. We all want "momma to make it go away"? But at what price when we place our government in such power as to take from you the fruits of your labor, even with the use of deadly force? How can anyone be against releasing everyone from that? Can anyone explain that and still hold respect for those that oppose this? The last thing every country has done before it is destroyed is tolorate that which destroys it. Good people doing nothing. I encourage all here to email your groups again and again.. quote the massive response this one priority has generated. The liberals that raised this site, now has a bull by the horns and they've used devices based on response count, not quality, to raise false opposition positions. This is the "game" we play. But what is good is that 4,000 have come out in favor of freedom with only about 140 against their own freedom. Ahh, tis a good day lads and lasses.. www.votesmart.org www.fairtax.org www.ush2.com www.fatheromalley.com "common sense"..

This is normal for those opposed to the Fairtax without first actually going to the site. How many opposing views would be here, if there weren’t something else afoot? I don’t believe for a moment the intellectual honesty of anyone opposed to completely un-taxing those in poverty. The very same socialists that champion our current 64,000 to 67,000 page tax-code (depending on who’s counting) are the ones that scream their support of the poor and the working man. No lads and lasses, tis more afoot than mere opposing. I invite you all to look at the FairTax site, get it straight from the horses mouth, Then visit the opposers and look at their arguments. What are their claims but continued class warfare? Look at this a different way, and leave your own bigotry at the door. This is vital to the survival of individual liberty. It is time to realize, whatever a socialist’s intent, no matter how much the compassion they claim, why depend on government? Please ask youself, would you rather determine your own fate by choosing between New Retail and Used. If you are an evironmentalist, should we not place downward pressure on New Retail Goods purchases by placing a low tax on those that spend more than poverty level on New Retail Goods? Why not reward re-cycling by un-taxing used goods, including homes and cars? What possible reason for any American to be against this? Freedom is scary. We all want “momma to make it go away”? But at what price when we place our government in such power as to take from you the fruits of your labor, even with the use of deadly force? How can anyone be against releasing everyone from that? Can anyone explain that and still hold respect for those that oppose this? The last thing every country has done before it is destroyed is tolorate that which destroys it. Good people doing nothing. I encourage all here to email your groups again and again.. quote the massive response this one priority has generated. The liberals that raised this site, now has a bull by the horns and they’ve used devices based on response count, not quality, to raise false opposition positions. This is the “game” we play. But what is good is that 4,000 have come out in favor of freedom with only about 140 against their own freedom. Ahh, tis a good day lads and lasses.. <a href="http://www.votesmart.org" rel="nofollow">www.votesmart.org</a> <a href="http://www.fairtax.org" rel="nofollow">www.fairtax.org</a> <a href="http://www.ush2.com" rel="nofollow">www.ush2.com</a> <a href="http://www.fatheromalley.com" rel="nofollow">www.fatheromalley.com</a> “common sense”..

2008-12-22T17:54:59-08:00

7085

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:13-07:00

1546

239114

Ditto fatheromalley Ditto!

Ditto fatheromalley Ditto!

2008-12-26T13:06:47-08:00

7312

true

false

published

2009-05-18T14:15:22-07:00

6426

239114

Fair Tax opposers top talking point is http://whitehouse2.org/points/20-factcheck-org-on-the-fair-tax I'm asking Fairtax supporters to drive talking point http://whitehouse2.org/points/462-fairtax-org-rebuts-factcheck-org-fact-less-analysis- to the top of talking points helpful to endorsers, so that people new to the fairtax can analyze which talking point is more truthful.

Fair Tax opposers top talking point is <a href="http://whitehouse2.org/points/20-factcheck-org-on-the-fair-tax" rel="nofollow">http://whitehouse2.org/points/20-factcheck-org-on-the-fair-tax</a> I’m asking Fairtax supporters to drive talking point <a href="http://whitehouse2.org/points/462-fairtax-org-rebuts-factcheck-org-fact-less-analysis-" rel="nofollow">http://whitehouse2.org/points/462-fairtax-org-rebuts-factcheck-org-fact-less-analysis-</a> to the top of talking points helpful to endorsers, so that people new to the fairtax can analyze which talking point is more truthful.

2008-12-29T02:10:01-08:00

7430

true

false

deleted

2009-05-18T14:15:29-07:00

1378