|
These comments, it is easy to see who has read the book and who hasn't. In February another book, answering all the made up 'problems' with the FairTax will be addressed. The primary problem is that for Adler and his ilk to criticize the FairTax, they must rewrite it. I had that pegged on the first page. So, dig into your pockets, buy a copy, hit the internet read H.R. 25. It is ONLY 130 pages (as opposed to the tens of thousands of pages that the current nightmare is.) No one wants to pay more than their share, but this is progressive with built in protection, and EVERYONE pays. |
|
It is pretty clear that a lot of people here, including Hugh, haven't read HR 25. So let's take a look at it, shall we. This bill would:
*Remove ALL Federal taxes (income tax, medicare, social security, corporate taxes, capital gains, the works). Now how much of the average American's pay check is taken away from them in taxes? 25%, 35%, so right off the bat, that is a 25% to 35% INCREASE in the net income of every working individual in this country. And that does not even factor in the proposed prebate on the basic needs (which I personally don't think we would need).
*Secondly by elimating the corporate taxes, this plan would dramically lower the cost of production of goods and services and the market will force these corporations to lower the customer's costs (read sales price) as a result. So your $100 TV is not suddenly going to cost you $130, it will still cost you (the customer) right at $100.
*Also by elimating corporate taxes, you'll bring corporations back into this country (spending their money here, creating jobs here) instead of driving away to parts of the world.
So far I'm not seeing much that will hurt the economy. And lastly (as stated by an earlier post) every state or country that using a consumsion tax instead of an income tax has seen massive economic growth, so really this is a no brainer (for me at least). To not like this plan, you either have to be ignorant about what it does, or just flat at lie about it. |
|
|
|
There are a couple of comments that should be made about the math of the fair tax such as prices will not increase plus you will receive a sizeable rebate plus you entire paycheck so you need to understand a couple of basics about the tax.
I wrote it down for you but then it got too long so that ended up as another blog on this site so please see my comments at
http://grampaswords.townhall.com
Thanks for coming over. |
|
should be on spending.
No amount of changing tax methods will stop the fact that X% of the economy is centrally planned. If anyone truly wishes to see prosperity on an unprescedented scale, call for less government spending with lower taxes instead of just changing the means of collection. |
|
See http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer.
One real danger, as I see it, would be to institute a consumptive tax and then watch as congress incrementally reinstated an income tax on top of it in the name of "correcting inequities." Socialist politicians see tax revenue, no matter the source, as a means to further government control of wealth and income redistribution. The more then they can increase and complicate tax revenues the better. Thus because arguments can easily become convoluted, and people are easily duped (especially including journalists), any such fundamental change should include near-ironclad constitutional protection from future government hanky panky. This is unlikely.
Meanwhile, the proposal should be judged on its merits; and effort to objectively assess those merits (and flaws) is effort well spent. Beware the pundit with an agenda. |
|
|
|
"And Hugh, BG and CDubber are all in the tank for Romney."
My comments have *nothing* to do with my supporting Romney. If Romney proposed a "fair tax" like this I would be opposed to it as well. I'm commenting on fair tax, I'm not commenting on any particular candidate or platform.
Can I please post a comment on this board without you decrying it as Romney propaganda? Thanks. |
|
|
is picking up a bit on this topic, even with the ad hominem attacks! |
|
|
It appears that many of Adler's objections to the Fair Tax have already been dealt with. Just go to http://www.fairtax.org and click on the FAQ. |
|
Some one clarify this for me. You are saying that the "fair tax" will replace all corporate taxes, all individual income taxes and all fica taxes. Is that right?
On the other hand you claim that a 23 % sales tax will generate the same amount of money that those combined taxes generated.
That frankly does not add up.
The fica tax alone (both my and employers contribution is 15.3 % on the first $102,000 of gross wages. The effective corporate tax rate (actual tax rate paid after loop holes) is about 10% and then there is all of the money that us poor smucks pay in federal income tax. Even the rich pay about 15% on gross after loop holes and dodges.
The fica/medicare tax plus the effective corporate tax (priced into goods) is more than 25%.
In essence you are saying that the entire revenues derived from personal income tax can be eliminated and the government will run as normal?
I will have to go look up the total income received by the feds from personal income tax but I can guarantee that the Government would go bankrupt very quickly or the deficit will explode if the government is only getting 23 % of sales instead of fica (personal and corporate, 15.3 %), plus corporate tax (10 %), plus personal income tax (probably about 20% of income).
This UNFair tax does not add up.
|
|
|
In the state of WA, sales taxes are applied to services. If I pay someone to paint my house, I pay a tax on that service. Sort of seems like that is a tax on the income of the house painter. Does fair tax apply to labor, as in this example? |
|
The Prebate sounds nuts to me. Why should I give my money to the government so that they can prebate it back to me. At least under the current system I can adjust deductions and keep and use the money (at least most of it).
What if my situation changes and the government has already prebated to much to me for that year?
Further, the prebate sounds like a big government scheme similar to the reverse income tax where people get paid for not making money. Under the prebate scheme people would get paid for hiding as much income and consumption as possible. |
|
In theory the underground will pay more tax. However, in reality the underground will find ways to avoid buying much at retailers who charge the tax and will find ways to claim new goods are used goods and avoid the tax.
Ask yourself what happens to the car industry. The new car sales will drop like a rock due to the 23-30% additional sales tax. However, used cars will jump in value. I guess the car companies will have to lease them to Hertz for a couple of weeks so they are used and then have Hertz sell them.
The UNFair tax will cause all kinds of distortions as the whole economy tries to find ways to avoid the tax. In the final analysis there are a lot of people who avoid the current state sales tax. They would work extra hard to avoid the federal sales tax as it is much higher.
It would be much harder to enforce the UNFair tax as many states would have to put special government enforcement bureaucracy in place to collect. They would have to police every transaction. We currently have the IRS and the whole accounting industry that insures that the current system works (at least to some degree).
Under the UNFair tax the working stiffs who spend much of their money at Wal Mart would pay the tax and the underground would still find a way to avoid the tax.
|
|
1. Families early in the life cycle would get to keep 100% of their earnings; they would get the prebate to balance what they pay in sales tax; and prices of goods and services would be about the same as they are now, since the cost of payroll and corporate taxes are no longer included in the product's final price.
2. Families would not pay sales tax on expenses for education.
3. Religious people give tithes and offerings for reasons other than tax deductions.
4. "Pay a lot more"? If the phrase means "Pay a lot more than they do now", then it would depend on how much payroll tax they pay; also one would have to figure in the higher prices they pay because corporate taxes and the costs of compliance with the tax code that are passed to them.
If the phrase means "pay a lot more than other income brackets", possibly that's true: it would depend on how much the family spends over the amount that's prebated to them. |
|
kclibby
"Please take an economics class from a non-liberal professor, YJM."
Are you trying to make my point about the critics of the critics, or was that an accident?
http://www.wowconservativejew.blogspot.com/ |
|
I will concede that the UNFair tax has some advantages in theory. However, it also have many problems.
The biggest problem is that it is very complicated in its consequences both domestically and globally. Anything that is complicated is extremely difficult to sell to voters, especially when you are talking taxes as most will assume it is a tax raise even if it isn't.
1. I have very strong reservations about the tax as a political platform.
2. I have reservations about the short and long run domestic and global consequences of the tax and of the switching costs.
a. Every deduction we have now for working families is there to fulfill social reasons. We try to encourage and help young families, college education, home ownership and charitable deductions. The UNFair tax changes the cross elasticities between each tax deductible good or service and the ones that are currently not deductible. The UNFair tax will strongly alter behavior that is encouraged by the current deductions. The price of the tax deductible behaviors will jump in cost by the tax shield (deduction) in the short and longer run. That creates a number of dislocations in the economy. I hurts the people who had the deductions and helps the ones who did not have them.
|
|
The UNFair tax is especially bad for young and Evangelical families and individuals.
1. Families early in the life cycle have to spend all that they earn as they get started and as they have and raise children. They consume (and pay sales tax on) all of their income and can't save. They lose deductions for children and also home mortgages. The UNFair tax is a loser for most of them.
2. Families who have children in college will lose deductions for children and also college deductions. Self supporting college students will lose college deductions and recent grads will lose school loan interest deductions.
3. The Religious Right will lose deductions on all of the money that they pay to charity (churches).
4. Lower and middle income individuals and families above the poverty line will pay a lot more tax under the UNFair tax.
The bottom line is this. If you are a tithe paying college student, a tithe paying family with college students, or a lower middle class family, the UNFair tax is a real tax increase for you.
Huckabee probably endorsed the UNFair tax a few months ago in order to get the money and activists associated with the UNFair tax. However, it is a UNFair is a tax increase on faithful Evangelical, younger families,families with college students, and lower middle income families and individuals.
The people who have to spend everything they earn to make ends meet will pay a lot more in tax. Huckabee is for raising taxes on the working and struggling lower and middle class.
|
|
|
I like Hugh (that is, I like to listen to his program), but he's stated on his show that he doesn't believe any tax measure would pass that doesn't have a mortgage interest deduction. I think he's like a lot of conventional wisdom types that think the current system's fine, as long as there are low rates and plenty of deductions. I prefer the simplicity of a flat or fair tax. I think the fair tax is a better idea, though. |
|
|
And Hugh, BG and CDubber are all in the tank for Romney. |
|
I am amazed at how many people who don't even know the basics of the fair tax proposal start to fire off their keyboards as if they are the salvations of the world and the church.
(Gee, BG - glad you take advantage of deductions, but why does that matter when under the fair tax INCOME TAXES ARE ELIMINATED? Why would churches be hurt when you are taking home 30% or more - when you figure in ALL payroll taxes (FICA/Medicare) - both your and your employer's contribution.)
Most opponents even forget about the most basic part of the program, the pre-bate.
And math appears to be a weak point in many, including Mr. Adler.
DKK |
|
When I first heard of the Fair Tax, I was put off by the name, because so much of the liberal agenda is proposed in the name of "fairness". When I finally read the book, I realized the plan made a lot of sense. This article that was posted is important, because it gives a lot of detail from an opposing viewpoint. I've skimmed through it, but plan to read through more carefully.
The biggest advantage of the Fair Tax in my opinion is that the Federal Government will no longer have knowledge of people's incomes. That knowledge is apparently used right now to control people's activities and choices. It's a massive invasion of privacy, almost as if the government feels that it "owns" us in some way, and has a right to our income. |
|
|
Boortz would sign up for the debate in a "New York minute". Unfortunately, he gets very few "takers". |
|
|
I have no problem debating the fair tax, but please know what is in the bill and at the very least, read the book (proceeds go to charity if you're looking for a right off on the current tax system!) |
|
|
Anyone remember Smoot-Hawley? Anyone remember the "Great Depression"? Anyone seriously want to replay that period in history? I hope not! |
|
DAMMIT, Hugh, READ the FairTax Book. That goes for all you naysayers. You're so good at dissecting arguments and thinking logically, save for this one foible, and it's utterly maddening. The argument where you advance that it's "really 30%" is a simpleton's argument against it, and it's what I expect out of Chuck Schumer or Charlie Rangel, not you. Even if you didn't write the words of the quote, you advanced them, so it's your argument too.
Please, at least drop the demagoguery, and debate the proposal on its merits. I'd also love to hear you debate Neal Boortz on it, but of course I'm not remotely plugged in to either of your schedules or willingness to take part in such a debate. |
|
Now I don't what world Your Jewish Master lives in, but I think it would be wise to not isolate ourselves from the rest of the world by taxing everyone but ourselves, especially since the rest of the world doesn't directly benefit from the tax expenditures. Further, trading with the outside world would dwindle as the rest of the world would see this tariff as hostile, thus limiting the supply to US consumers and driving up demand and therefore prices. Please take an economics class from a non-liberal professor, YJM.
However, a fair tax would actually welcome foreigners to invest in the US with no corporate income taxes, creating more jobs and income which will inevitably turn in to more tax revenue when that income turns around and is spent. |
|
Dave, what use is money if you don't spend it? So what if a person who earns $1M doesn't spend $900K of it and not get taxed on it one year. He eventually will get taxed on it, now or in the future. The only way he will avoid it is to never spend it. That is his choice, but that would be some sad life to earn so much and spend so little. He would be a person who missed out on the joy of life. A person obviously should plan to save for the future, but to save yourself into misery is something few people would be willing to do.
|
|
|
You and I will still pay some taxes, but under a consumption tax, so will the vast underground economy. If under a fair tax government collects the same amount in currently collects, only now it collects some of it from current tax evaders, criminals, illegals, the entire cash-based economy - then that means the rest of us will pay less on average than we're paying now. |
|
"the states of Texas and Florida - operate on sales taxes as opposed to punishing wage earners for daring to be employed."
And a 30% sales tax *doesn't* punish wage earners how exactly???
As a wage earner, I can see such a system punishing me plenty. I just don't see how I will end up paying less under this system than I paid last year under the current system. I really don't. |
|
"Mr. Adler is currently an assistant professor of accounting at Chapman University. He was previously a partner with Deloitte & Touche, LLP, from which he retired in 2003 after 30 years with that firm. He specialized in tax accounting and served as client service and tax partner for a variety of public and private companies."
http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/personinfo/FromP ersonIdPersonTearsheet.jhtml?passedPersonId=910160
I don't know what dog BG has in this fight, but it is clear which breed Adler has. Adler should consider himself lucky to have had a tax scheme in which to exploit for 30+ years.
Besides, Adler's Townhall piece is full of leftist tripe and class warfare. It's worth a read if only for the chuckle. |
|
not what you earn.
So if you earn $1,000,000, and only spend $100,000, you will only be taxed $23,000. That's 2.3% of what you earned.
If you earn $100,000 and spend $100,000, you still pay the $23,000 in taxes. But now it's 23% of what you earned.
How is that fair? |
|
"The Plumber writes: Friday, November, 23, 2007 3:33 PM
Jewish Master
How about a 15 percent tariff on all imported goods and zero direct taxes on citizens?
I'll bet even a 4th Grader gets that one. "
In fact, convene a Blue Ribbon Commsission of grade schoolers!!
http://www.wowconservativejew.blogspot.com/
|
|
I have not had time to really study Alder in the depth that I need to and I have to leave. However, Adler is suggesting that prices for mass produced mass purchased goods (consumed by the middle and lower classes) would rise. He is also suggesting that these classes would suffer a loss of purchasing power under the "fair tax". Further, these people have planned their lives and retirements on the current tax code and those plans would no longer be optimal. Lastly, the cost of American goods would rise for Americans (only) as the tax alters the price of goods between exports in the global market and the domestic market.
There are a lot more short and long run effects but these are good for a start on how the fair tax actually lowers the purchasing power of American consumers. |
|
If given back the liberty of every cent earned off the sweat of my back, and if given back the privacy of how much money I make, the whole world's economy will collapse and there'll be no charities for all of us working-class schlubs to take our soup bowls to.
For God's sake people! End this Fairtax "scheme" now...or be forced to buy umbrellas to protect you from a falling sky!
Tell me BG, are you a tax attorney? Accountant? Lobbiest? IRS agent? Romney supporter? |
|
So the argument goes, then, that the current system is better for the rich because the rich know how to maneuver the current deduction scheme while the unsophisticated and poor do not or cannot. So, is that fair? Would it not be more "fair" to not allow the rich to take those deductions so that they actually pay the taxes they are bracketed for?
I'm not for taxing the rich unfairly, but I am also not for sitting by letting the rich like Warren Buffet pay only 5% income tax when they are making so many millions just because they can afford the best accountants. |
|
|
The figures in the chart are based upon overall annual expenditures. A person will still be charged 23% tax inclusively at the register for each purchase, but after applying the prebate, a person's or family's overall tax rate will end up equalling about what the above chart says. The rate will also depend upon the poverty line each individual or family. Just thought I should make that clear for those who have a difficult time thinking in more than one dimension. |
|
For those comments about shifting the tax burden to the poor, here is a breakdown of what percentage of income taxpayers would pay on retail purchases after applying the prebate. These figures are approximates based upon expenditures by a family of four:
$25,000 - 0% tax
$50,000 - 11.5% tax
$100,000 - 17.25% tax
$200,000 - 20.125% tax
$1,000,000 - 22.425% tax
And these figures are not based upon brackets. That means that your tax percentage will not change drastically between spending $99,999 and $100,000 (I don't know exactly what the brackets are at the moment, but the basic premise is that if you make $99,999, you might only be taxed 20% but if you make $100,000, you will be taxed 30% - gee, that seems real fair!). The Fair Tax percentage increased progressively with each dollar you spend, so that a person who spends $50,000 will be taxed just slightly more than a person who spends $49,999 but slightly less than a person who spends $50,001. Talk about truly progressive! |
|
I already ran the numbers for me personally before I made any post. I am much better off under the current system and I am in the top 5-10% of income segment.
I am not clueless I know how to use deductions, like most people in that bracket. However, I also have children who would really get ripped by this obscene tax scheme.
I understand that savings will go up. I understand the theory of shifting from an income to a consumption tax base.
This is a political loser. You can sell it to some of the more sophisticated economic Reps and those who hate (maybe justified) the IRS. But this scheme is widely apposed by all parties and income groups.
Remember, when you read a book you are only getting one side of the argument. Adler is pointing out some but not all of the other side.
Churches would be especially hard hit by this scheme. In theory they and other charities could lose up to a 1/3 of their current contributions. I reread Adler article to check.
This scheme is not a flat tax. It is retrogressive for the working poor and the lower middle class. Worse yet it is retrogressive for everyone who makes money and has a decent accountant.
Further, if the US implemented it, that would crash the world stock market and the global economy as the rest of the world adjusted to the demand/consumption shock. That shock could last 2 or more years.
The global economy does not have anti depression mechanisms. It only has cooperation among the G8. There is no global federal reserve to control money supply.
The "Fair Tax" is one of the worst ideas I have seen in a long time. It focuses on narrow economic benefits while ignoring the much broader and severe global consequences. Economically it is a global village (like it or not).
|
|
I'd like to know how a fair tax discourages consumerism? How does the current system not discourage consumerism? Yay, I get to take a home mortgage deduction, and if I buy a Prius, I get a $1500 tax credit. Otherwise, how does the current system encourage me to buy more? If anything, the current system has turned me into a miser because I save every extra penny I can with the realization that, if the Democrats are elected, I will be paying that much more out that I will not be able to save.
If anything, the fair tax encourages consumerism because it will put more money in the hands of the consumers who will have the same price options they had before once the imbedded taxes in the products are taken out.
It seems to me that the naysayers on the Fair Tax have not yet been able to think of the system as a whole. They complain about one aspect of the fair tax as if it existed in isolation, but once the balancing factor is introduced, their argument dries up.
Denise Majette, in her pathetic run for the Senate in 2004, ran a commercial that scared viewers into thinking that Isakson would implement the fair tax, a 23% federal sales tax, on all their purchases. Obviously, anybody would be against that alone. But only a moron could possibly watch that add and believe it was the truth (I will not comment on how many morons their must be). What she failed to mention was the other half of the truth, that the fair tax was to replace the present federal tax system. Hearing that, those who viewed the commercials would likely have been very interested in hearing more.
I truly believe that the only major criticisms against the fair tax can only be made out of context. But I expect that out of those who put politics first, even from those on the same side of the fence when it meets their needs of expediency. |
|
How about a 15 percent tariff on all imported goods and zero direct taxes on citizens?
I'll bet even a 4th Grader gets that one. |
|
BG, how would you feel if you were buying that flat screen t.v. if:
1) you were able to take home your entire income for the month rather that simply your take home pay, since your income and payroll taxes have been repealed; and
2) if the flat screen cost the same after the fair tax has been applied because, after all of the imbedded vat and corporate taxes are taken out of the flat screen t.v. (which is equal to about 22% of the price)?
If you actually stopped to think about the process, you might figure out what a better deal paying a 23% inclusive tax at check-out is (at your own option) as opposed to the government seizing that 23% (or whatever tax bracket you are in) before you ever get a chance to think about it. |
|
I read Linder and Boortz's book. They didn't sell me entirely, but they make a lot of good points. First of all, this is not some untried drawing board theory. Russia and a lot of the other most dynamically growing economies in the world use flat taxes. While the US economoy remains relatively static or in decline, once moribund backwaters such as Russia, Ireland, even Estonia are growing dramatically.
Closer to home, as Linder points out, the 6th and 9th largest economies in the world - the states of Texas and Florida - operate on sales taxes as opposed to punishing wage earners for daring to be employed. Last time I checked, TX and FL were doing just a bit better than high income tax states like Maryland.
We don't have to be the guinea pig, as we already have numerous examples of this working like a charm. And if for whatever reason we tried it and wanted to go back to our 100,000 page tax code, well, that would still be an option.
There's no reason to fear just trying it. We've tried forced military conscription, daylight bleeping savings time, even Prohibition. Just try it. It's not irreversible. |
|
Most Evangelicals have probably not thought about it but the UNFair tax could effect them a lot more than the secular humanists.
The tithe paying religious right now get to deduct their charitable contributions. They are paying in after tax dollars.
I am not sure if the UNFair tax would tax contributions to religions for religious services rendered, but in any case there would be no tax shield.
There would be strong incentive to give less to charitable causes.
Further, only about 35 % of Reps, Dems and Independents favor replacing the IRS with a national sales tax (there is universal opposition). Opposition is greatest in the $50,000 income range. Support (in the 40s) is greatest among the wealthiest.
This is just a really bad idea. We can win votes by simplifying and flattening the current tax.
|
|
I have been surprised at how quick conservatives have been to jump on this, hook, line and sinker.
The critics of the critics give it away for me. They want to vilify those that disagree.
Of course our current system is not Nirvana. But until a solution can be fashioned that is so transparent an 8th grader can understand it, I am not buying it. |
|
"simplify" our taxes, they get more onerous and complicated.
The burden falls on every business to do the work currently done by the IRS.
The "Fair Tax" is also more than it should be. Even God only wants 10%... |
|
I had to got to Fry's for an ink cartridge. It was so jammed I had to park down the road in a strip mall. Inside was a zoo. I found may cartridge and then tried to find the end of the checkout line. It literally snaked around the store through many isles to the far reaches of this enormous store. It may have been 200 yards long. I gave up and went to Office Max and got a cartridge.
1. This should be a good Christmas selling period after all.
2. How do you think I would have felt if I had to stand in line with a big screen TV and then pay an additional 23-30 % sales tax on top of the 8.5 % local and state sales tax?
The answer is tax revolt and that is why the UNFair tax will never pass. The voters will revolt and prevent any idiot who campaigns on it from getting into office. |
|
A 35% inclusive marginal tax rate is precisely 53.04615% on an exclusive basis.
I'd be interested to see you dissect the "Mother of all Tax Bills" next. I doubt Honorable Rangel would be pleased. |
|
I see you didn't read/understand the concept of the "prebate" in the Fair Tax.
I agree with your final statement; it is lunacy. Also, note that that is actually 25% on an exclusive basis.
By the way, speaking of consumption taxes, you paid for the spell checker. Try using it. |
|
The rich must love this idea. Shift the taxs to those poor slobs who MUST spend 100% of their income to live. They are taxed at 100% of their income while those who couldn't possibly throw away their money go untaxed on their excess. This is even better than the numberous loopholes and tax shelters they currently enjoy!
Shrinking the power and cost of government is the best way to fix it. Government that consumes 20% of GDP is loonesy. |
|
|
An earlier poster has it right. You need to compare exclusive to exclusive with all taxes, not to just the Fair Tax to inclusive values give the impression that it is more severe than our current system. |
|
Hugh,
Attacking the fair tax is yet another example of the daily apologetics you've engaged in for Romney. Could it just be that this post emerges as a reason not to vote for Huckabee who is closing hard and fast on Mitt Romney? What happened to that reasoned and fair mind that emerged in 2004 when facts triumphed over propoganda? |
|
The Fair Tax concept represents a sea change in the way revenue is raised for operating government. The Law of Unintended Consequences demands that such a thing be fully debated - and that objections be answered, not shouted down.
Thus far, the comments on this post are almost "Gore-ian" in their refusal to answer any criticism on the merits. |
|
Fair Tax. It does promote savings, in theory captures lost taxes, and increases incentives to invest, but it also discourages consumerism (which could have a devestating effect on the economy), probably increases federal tax for most persons, and I expect people will figure out a way to cheat on it.
The fair tax deserves a fair debate, but Hugh is engaging in hit and run journalism to take Huckabee down a notch. |
|
Nope. Not with a 16,000 page tax code. Not when the head of a multinational corporation has more say over a change to the tax code (and everything else) than a group of concerned citizens, even if THEY number in the millions.
Land of the Brave? Not so long as self-described conservatives "tacitly" defend the corruption and waste inherent in the current system. It's one thing to admit that government is necessary, it's a whole other thing to deny that it is evil. THAT'S what Democrats do.
There should be no direct taxes imposed on US citizens from government at the Federal level. I know it's an extreme view, but it's the correct one for a myriad of reasons. ANY move in this direction is an improvement.
Take Huck down with immigration, not for meaningful tax reform.
BTW, for a poor person, "just" paying for SS and Medicare is a tremendous blow. I know. I've been there and I remember all too well what it was like. SS and Medicare need to go the same way as direct Federal taxation on personal income.
|
|
Most Rep voters will perceive (and rightly so) a 23 or 30 % national sales tax as a tax increase.
So much for fair and so much for Huckabee being for the little guy.
This unfair scheme rips the wallet of every working stiff in the country. If you think you can win the primary, let alone the general election, by promising to raise taxes on the working poor and middle class you are delusional. |
|
|
The fairtax eliminates ALL income taxes including Social Security and Medicare. Add in the prebate (based on household size) for basic goods and services and the "poorest third" will be totally untaxed except when they CHOOSE to buy NEW goods and sercices after they spend their prebate. |
|
... because illegals, criminals, drug dealers, theives, the rich- EVERYBODY PAYS!!
Not JUST YOU and ME!
And HOW much TAX you pay depends on HOW MUCH YOU SPEND and NOT ON HOW MUCH YOU EARN!!!!
How bad do you want those diamonds, expensive cars, private jets?? Yes I know it would also impact on everything else we buy--BUT YOU GET TO KEEP YOUR WHOLE PAYCHECK!!! EVERY BIT! JUST LIKE THE ILLEGALS!!!
And - FOR ONCE- those who SAVE the most are taxed the least- BRILLIANT! |
|
|
Right now the poorest third pay virtually no federal tax (other than Social Security and Medicare). The middle class, for the most part, pay considerably less of a percentage than the wealthy do. Politically for the fair tax to ever work it had better not increase taxes for the poor and middle class, or you will be in a political situation like Forbes was when he proposed a flat tax that would lower his tax burden and increase taxes for about 90% of the country. Not a wise political strategy since most voters would not consider that "fair." |
|
Medved is for it. So is Neil Boortz. This is just a way for Hugh to take Huckabee down a notch, not a fair debate on the fair tax.
No doubt it would be difficult to implement a new system of taxation. But can we agree the current system is not exactly nirvana? |
|
Nice.
So when should we expect the Huckabee bashing over the Fair Tax to begin Hugh???
And when will Romney's views/your interview with Romney/an excerpt from your book be posted on this subject.
LOL!!
You're a clown. |
|
that the citizenry must provide the funds necessary to support the constitutional functions of government.
There is a serious question regarding the pain and complexity of the present system of funding both the constitutional functions of government and the redistribution of income from the productive to the unproductive.
Perhaps a law requiring members of Congress to prepare their own tax returns would be a good way to start the tax simplification process. Elimination of automatic withholding would be a good second step. |
|
|
Sure our current tax system is needlessly complex and allows breaks and loopholes for special interests that should have been done away with long ago, and the AMT issue definitely needs to be addressed, but middle-income taxpayers (like me) who think a Fair Tax or Flat Tax is going to benefit them need to take a look at their effective tax rate from their last tax return. After all my standard deductions (typical stuff; mortgage, dependents, etc.), my effective tax rate is under 5%. Every "simplified" tax proposal I've seen outlined in the past would appear to raise my effective tax rate significantly. No thanks. |
|
The problem with using that method of comparison is that it make the Fair Tax seem higher than it should.
Income taxes are inclusive. If you want to compare Apples to Apples, then one should also talk about Income Taxes as exclusive. They would, of course, end up being a much higher percentage than currently.
I welcome a robust debate on the merits of the Fair Tax, but instead what happens is misrepresentation of the Fair Tax that is argued against. |
|
I did not know that townhall.com printed liberal trash as put up by Hank Adler.
I have always seen townhall.com as a place where conservatives got the facts right on topics. I am deeply disappointed to see such fiction in here on the FairTax Amendment. |
|