Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Jerry Bowyer :: Townhall.com Columnist
Questions for the Fair Tax Crowd
by Jerry Bowyer
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


 

Why do you think that a sales tax is less prone to corruption and complexity than an income tax?

When the income tax was originally promoted by William Jennings Bryan and other populists it was labeled as being fairer, since it would not hit the poor. When initially implemented it was very simple. However, over time special interest groups were able to lobby for exemptions, deductions, and other special treatment. Why would a sales tax not undergo the same process? Does the fair tax somehow magically abolish selfishness?

Are sales taxes, where they are currently in operation, simple and free from special interest lobbying?

The Europeans have a sales tax, called the VAT, which is extremely complex. Why wouldn’t that happen here? States have sales taxes, which, even despite their low rates still have long lists of items which are exempt or not exempt, and they still have people who cheat on them. If this happens at low rates, why wouldn’t it happen at much higher rates? Does moving the concept from Europe to the U.S., or from the State level to the national level, somehow render the legislative process more pure? If so, why is our income tax so riddled with complexity and special pleading to begin with?

Does it apply to non-profits?

If so, then they’ve become taxable and it would discourage charity. Also, wouldn’t churches become taxable? Aren’t there constitutional issues here? If not, then the tax advantage of non-profits disappears. If they’d be taxed the same way as businesses, wouldn’t this remove a great deal of tax encouragement for non-profit enterprise and shift talent and treasure away from that sector?

Are used goods, non-taxable?

If so, this means less goods production, more yard sales, eBay stuff, etc. Won’t this hurt traditional retailers and goods producers? Why wouldn’t this encourage evasion through rehabilitation? After all what exactly constitutes New vs. Used? If I repair a car, it’s used, but what if I upgrade it? New engine, but old chassis, is that new or used? Computers, too. New hard-drive, but old CPU; is that new or used? How does this not get complicated?

What about the transition period?

Before the sales tax takes effect, won’t there be a buying binge? Afterwards, won’t there be a buying drought? If so, doesn’t that cause a debt spike to finance purchases before the ‘sale’ ends? The implications for banking and currency policy are way too complicated for me to foresee.

Isn’t it true that the rate is not really 23% but 30% at least, because it’s tax-inclusive?

And even this does not count dynamic effects in which changed behavior and evasion narrow the base and raise the rate.

How do we determine the interest portion of mortgage payment?

If non-specified, business will simply give big discounts on price and then make up for it in the interest calculation, as interest is deemed non-taxable. These calculations are highly malleable and can become very complex. Homes will be financed with low-ball prices and high interest rates, and sup-prime mortgages will skyrocket.

If a cap is put on excludable interest, then at what rate? Federal rates? That makes the Fed a tax-setting agency and hyper-politicizes monetary policy.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Jerry Bowyer is a radio and television talk show host.

Be the first to read Nathan Alderman's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Fair Tax Fair?
Good article. I could add volumes of examples which would be at least as complex as our current mess, and hundreds of examples of good folks who would be hurt terribly by a sales tax. Kudos. gene, Longmont

Fair Tax Fair?
Good article. I could add volumes of examples which would be at least as complex as our current mess, and hundreds of examples of good folks who would be hurt terribly by a sales tax. Kudos. gene, Longmont

Need fiscal reform before tax reform
If there is any candidate, or any proponent of the Fair Tax, or the Flat Tax, for that matter, who proposes at the same time reducing federal spending, I haven't heard him.

Any argument about reforming the method of collecting taxes is moot. What we should debate is the size and role of the federal government.

I think we need to cut spending, and tear down the federal government, to a level consistent with a strict reading of the Constitution. That includes repealing the federal income tax altogether, but also, eliminating the Departments of Education, Labor, Commerce, Energy, Health & Human Services, among others.

I'm probably preaching to the choir on this one, but I find it useless to argue about HOW to collect money that shouldn't be collected in the first place. Otherwise, we can just do like our own Governor Fast Eddie Spendell and open casinos to raise money for government extravagence.

Hillary delenda est.

Question 1
To answer the complexity part - it is completely transparent. There is no burying it in a paycheck and slowly confiscating it over the course of a year. You pay it every time you consume services and new goods.

To answer the corruption part. You could make the same argument about any single piece of legislation. It is not unreasonable to think that once Americans heard that a pol was putting forth the raising of the tax, or the special consideration of a certain group that there would be quite a stir. The FairTax requires the vigilance of the citizens, and is up front about that.

Question 2
You're right, the VAT is extremely complex. The FairTax is clearly not a VAT. This concept is not being tried in Europe, so the question is irrelevant.

Question 3
From the FairTax website - "Religious organizations that meet the above criteria are issued a “qualification certificate” upon application to the state sales tax administering authority (on a form prescribed by the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury).

If churches or nonprofits provide taxable services at no charge (they run a soup kitchen for the poor, for example), these services are not subject to tax."

So, no.

Used or New or Non-Profit
If I "Upgrade" and item I would think that means buying "New" to replace old, seems to me the "Upgrading" doesn't avoid any taxes at all.

People sell items now at yard sales and do not pay any sales tax, how does that change anything?

Used items are bought and sold everyday without sales taxes being paid, by private citizens.

The author is simply indulging in the "what if..." in an attempt to discredit the argument for the Fair Tax.

Oh, by the way, Non-profits already pay sales taxes when they purchase items, non-profit does not equal tax exempt.

Question 4
Yes. You're right, there will be a huge run on used toothbrushes, socks, diapers, cleaning supplies, paper towels, gasoline...

If you upgrade a used car, you will pay tax on the new engine.

If you upgrade a computer, you will pay tax on a new hard-drive.

It is complicated...if you have an IQ of less than 80...

Question 4
Yes. You're right, there will be a huge run on used diapers, batteries, socks, orange juice, gasoline, and celery...

If you upgrade a car, you will pay tax on the new engine.

If you upgrade a computer, you will pay tax on the new hard-drive.

Yes, it is complicated...if you have an IQ of less than 80.

Question for Mr. Bowyer:
Do you often ask your readers to provide you with information rather than actually doing your homework and researching the topic about which you intend to write?

I would answer every one of your questions for you, but you obviously are disinterested in actually learning the answers.

By the way, nice hit job. Next time try using facts, though, not ridiculous questions to which a seven-year-old with Internet access could find the answers. Pitiful. Good day to you.

Question 5
How? People will still have the same amount of money. Maybe for the very wealthy, but all that would do is create additional revenue. How is this bad? Afterwards, no, people will instantly see an increase in income.

Yes, yes
We're all going to stop buying new goods. New sneakers, nah I'll buy used....don't want to pay the sales tax after all. New tires on my car....nah, I'll just go for retreads that can blow out at anytime, but hey, at least I'm not paying the sales tax. New stick of deoderant, nah, I'll just grow some herbs in my back yard and rub them on my body to keep myself smelling fresh!

Holy cow! Are these guys serious about this stuff. People are not going to stop buying new things because of a national sales tax. That's like saying people are going to stop working because the gov't confiscates 30%+ of their paycheck every month.

Coastal Conservative- I hope your typing fingers are ready. It's going to be a long afternoon.

Question 6


BTW
Nice try with using the pic to equate FairTaxers with Schmuckabee. Sure he has plenty of support, but many of us are conservatives first. Don't forget that Duncan Hunter is a co-sponsor...

Anything is better
than the current system.

Surely the writer isn't implying support for a system that lays claim to a sizable percentage of your labor (slavery) via threat of imprisonment, that is based on a set of laws so complex no ordinary citizen can even hope to comprehend them, indeed so convoluted that the very experts (expensive accountants and lawyers) which ordinary citizens must hire in attempt at compliance provide factually incorrect information and advice almost half the time.

Anyone who defends the present system of government confiscation of wealth from its
"free" citizens should be made to read the current set of tax laws in their entirety, then fill out one each of every IRS form.

How long do you think that would take?

Gene...
...um...no, you can't.

And if you can, we'd love to see them. No, really.

Because unlike those folks who can't take the heat, those of us who believe in The Fair Tax want to see genuine problems in the bill. The sooner we do, the sooner they can be addressed and, if necessary, fixed.

Supporters of The Fair Tax aren't looking to muck up the system. We're looking to FIX the system.

Good job, CC
Costal, good job. I don't have nearly the level of knowledge about the Fairtax as you do, but I sat here reading his questions and just common sense blasted most of them to pieces.

Baron, I ABSOLUTELY agree that we need spending reform worse than tax reform, but I think the Fairtax is good either way. What we really need is a group to file a class action lawsuit against Congress and the President for illegally spending trillions of tax dollars on unconstitutional programs/projects. We should go through the budget line-by-line and demand a constitutional justification for every nickel. That's what SHOULD happen to every piece of legislation before it's even put to a vote. Instead of a Balanced Budget amendment, we need an amendment demanding that every cent expended by the federal behemoth be required to include the constitutional provision that justifies it. And, someone needs to point out to Congress and the President that the Preamble is NOT part of the operative part of the Constitution (therefore, "common defense" "general welfare" "provide the blessings of liberty" are all NOT powers granted to the Congress)... look up the word "preamble" in the dictionary:
"the introductory part of a statute, deed, or the like, stating the reasons and intent of what follows." NOT part of the statute.

Specifically on the charity issue...
Unless they can't take deductions anywhere else, people don't give to charity for tax reasons. (How smart is it to give away $1000.00 to save $350.00 on your taxes?)

In addition, the evidence points to the fact that the more "disposable" income people have, the more they give to charity.

The Fair Tax lets all of us keep far more of the money we earn, and thus allows us to save, spend, and donate as we all wish.

Fair Tax Complex
Re complexity - There has been a national movement for the last thirty years to codify and enforce a "universal" sales tax, an attempt to define which sales and services are taxable in all states. This would simplify the collection of sales taxes greatly. But the states can't agree. How many years do you think it would take to process all the various appeals (certain to occur) for tax-exempt status - examples include churches, hospitals, government agencies, services vs. materials, resellers, lessors/lessees, the military, travel agencies, airlines (foreign or domestic travel taxed?) And how about exemptions for the handicapped, disabled, seniors, pastors, etc.? Are vendors outside the U.S. going to collect and pay the tax? You are gullible if you think a 23% (in addition to what states already charge) tax will not involve huge litigation and legal hassles.

gene, longmont CPA (don't accuse me of trying to protect my source of income - I'm retired.)

Thanks Sooner
You're absolutely right. Spending has got to be reduced drastically!

Job well done, Coastal Conservative
Questions asked . . . and answered. Ditto to elong, SoonerRed, Todd, Tron5000.

Goatlockerloungelizard
From the name, are you a current or retired CPO? Click my name to get the perspective of a current First Class.

Another thing about the Fair Tax
Other people who currently pay no taxes would now pay their fair share:
drug dealers
pimps and their prostitutes
illegal aliens
other people who get paid 'under the table'
foreigners working or visiting here
foreign DIPLOMATS!
UN staffers!
Welfare leeches
public housing leeches
criminals who steal for a living
all those who use every trick there is, and then some, to currently avoid paying

FairTax is NOT Fair - 1
While I like the idea that a National Sales tax will make people aware of the real cost of government as opposed to it being hidden in employment taxes, etc... The "FairTax" is anything but "Fair".

Consider just a few items...

They claim that it will do away with the IRS and get rid of tax loopholes. Sure the IRS will go away because you won't be sending in a 1040. However every business in the US will now become Uncle Sam's unpaid tax collector and we have to collect, report and send that money somewhere and if we don't the newly renamed IRS will come after the business that don't send in the Sales Tax,

FairTax is NOT Fair - 2
Now as to the Sales Tax. The proponents keep saying that it is 23% But when you find out that the tax on a $100 purchase will be $29.XX that says that the sales tax is really almost 30%.

Additional...
Of course the proponents point out that the "poor" and "middle-class" will get a monthly pre-bate check to cover the sales tax that would be spent on things like butter, milk and eggs, school pencils (etc...). but since there is no IRS to determine who is poor or middle-class that means that every household in the US will be getting these monthly "checks" from the government. Instead of just welfare recipients waiting by their mailboxes for their monthly government check we will have most of America on the "dole". Talk about making a new dependency class! There are 301 millions people in the US (give or take) according to the latest Census estimate. Now these checks will go to every "Household", so you have to report somehow if you are single, married, how many kids, etc... so that the Government knows how big of a check to send you each month to cover the tax on the staples of life as determined by some Civil Servant.

And...
You're not filling out a 1040 but you are filling out forms. And you have to mail those forms in and somebody has to process them.

So, who is going to receive all that mail and send out 200 million checks every month (the postal service and the paper companies will be happy)? A renamed IRS that's who. Talk about rearranging the deck chairs. Maybe the new entity could be named SRI (for Screwing Residents Individually).

Fair Tax less?
Todd,
You spoke of more money to spend. I'm for that, but the proposal is to keep the total government revenue equal to what it is now. Now if you're proposing government revenues will go down, that's something with which I can agree.

BTW - If I could afford to give my church $500 but I get a deduction worth $200 for my $700 deduction, I'll give the $700. Don't kid yourself - people know about and take advantage of the tax savings implications of donations, interest and medical duductions, etc. gene

Plus...
They also claim that it will do away with the death tax and taxes on investments. I like the doing away with the death tax. If I make the money and I paid taxes on it while earning it why should the government tax it again when I die. They have already been taxing it when it was earning interest. How many times did each of my dollars get taxed by the time I die?

However here is where it is not a "FairTax". Say you want to buy a $200,000 House for You, Dan and Kira to live in. You are going to be charged that 30% tax to buy it. So that House will cost you $260,000. Now let's say I am going to buy that House for an "investment" income. I don't pay that tax. The House cost me $200,000. You can't afford the extra $60k so you rent the House from me. It's investment income and I don't pay tax on the money I earn from renting it to you.

How about BIG loop hole in that system. Mom and Dad buy the House as investment property. The monthly payment is $1,100. They rent it to you for $1,100 to cover the mortgage. When you move they sell the House or if they die they will it to you. No tax every paid on the House by the person that could take advantage of this loophole.

Illegals
The law as written limits the "Prebates" to legal residents. How soon after it is enacted would we hear the cry that it is not fair to the "illegals" living in the shadows and demand that they be included since they are "contributing too.

FairTax and Drug Dealers, Criminals, etc
The FairTax is actually a benefit for the Drug Dealer.

Under the current system the Drug Dealer has to hide his income so that the IRS does not come after him. Why did Al Capone go to jail? Murder? Robbery? Nope. Tax Evasion.

Without the Income Tax reporting the Drug Dealer does not have to hide his money. He can spend it how he wants. If he makes $5 mil what is he going to care about paying a sales tax when he does not have to worry about the conspicuous consumption raising flags based on his reported income.

Paying a Sales Tax is a lower cost of doing business then facing the IRS.

TR-Racer
You stated, "[E]very business in the US will now become Uncle Sam's unpaid tax collector."

Not true. Businesses will keep a portion of the embedded tax as payment for their efforts in collecting, reporting and distributing to the government the taxes paid for new items and services. Your statement is false, but thanks anyway for trying.

Also, TR-Racer
When you purchase an item with a price tag of $100, you will pay the retailer exactly $100. Not $129 or whatever silly number you may come up with. You will hand the retailer $100, and you will receive a receipt that shows that of that $100, $23 will go to the government in the form of taxes.

Not sure in what school system you were educated, but to me, $23 seems to be 23% of $100. I think so, at least.

Unpaid tax collector
I own a business here in Arizona. I collect sales tax. I get to "keep" a fractioin of that tax collected. I asure you that the amount I get to keep does not begin to approach the cost in time that I have to expend accounting for, reporting and sending in that sales tax.

Maybe I'm not "unpaid" but I am certainly not fairly compensated for that work. My 17 year old daughter working at a pizza joint as a cashier makes more per hour then I get compensated for tracking and filling out the sales tax forms.

Must be new math
Before the FairTax the item cost...$100. After the FairTax the item cost $129. That is a 30% tax not 23%.


Also again, TR-Racer
Only new homes are taxed under the FairTax. And if the price of that new home is $200,000, you will pay exactly $200,000 for said house. Not $260,000, not $246,000, but $200,000. I know this concept is difficult for you to understand (don't feel bad...my four-month-old nephew doesn't get it either), but the FairTax is EMBEDDED (embedded means "contained within"). NO taxes are added on to the purchase price of ANYTHING.

A Question About Jerry Bowyer
Did he actually read the FairTax plan? Or did he simply read someone else's misguided critique of the FairTax and accept it as gospel without even doing his own research.

Anyone who has actually read the plan knows the answers to these questions and also knows that the way Jerry posed them makes them "loaded." From the way they are presented, I doubt if Jerry even understands how the FairTax is to be applied. At least two questions up above imply that the FairTax would be added to current taxes rather than replacing them as the plans calls for. Didn't Jerry understand that the FairTax replaces all other Federal taxes? He would have if he had actually read the plan.

Another example is when Jerry asks about the 23% rate versus 30% rate. Anyone who has actually read and understood the plan knows that the percentage is irrelevent. The tax on $100 new purchase at the retail level will be $23 whether your think it is 23% or 30%.

Sorry Jerry, but on this issue you are no better as a journalist than Matt Lauer or Katie Couric.

So you admit you were wrong
When you said "unpaid," you really meant "not fairly compensated." Well, "fair" is subjective. What is "fair" to you may not be "fair" to someone else. So you already collect taxes and pass them to the government; what is different about this process should the FairTax be instituted?

And if your businesses doesn't run on of those "ca-ching!" cash registers you see in Westerns, I'm fairly certain that your computer system can keep track of taxes. Mine does, at least.

tron
well you had to open that can didn't you. I happen to agree with you but I promise you'll be driving your head into a wall before long. I've been there!

For all of you "it's a 30% tax" folks......for every dollar you spend, 23 cents goes to the federal gov't. 23 cents....not 30.

FairTax changed the meaning of Sales Tax
Currently Sales tax is "tax exclusive" under the FairTax it becomes "tax inclusive".

"...H.R. 25 proposes a 23% “tax inclusive” sales tax rate. Sales taxes are not traditionally described in a “tax inclusive” manner. Sales taxes are traditionally described in a “tax exclusive” manner. A “tax inclusive” sales tax rate is a percentage of the total register price. A “tax exclusive” sales tax is a tax calculated on the purchase price before the tax is added. As shown below, a 23% “tax inclusive” sales tax rate is equal to a traditionally described “tax exclusive” sales rate of 29.87013%."

TR racer
How much time, energy, and money do you currently spend in compliance costs to be in line with the current tax code?

Home price
Ok, to use your twisted example.

The new home "costs" $200,000 tax inclusive.

The person that wants to buy it and live in it will spend $200,000.

The person that wants to buy it to rent is out will pay what? $200,000? NOT. They get the 29.87013% tax removed from that price and pay $140,259.

OK, I'm done.
No sense trying to reason with someone who does not want to be reasoned with. Ron White was correct: you can't fix stupid.

Collecting Sales Tax
Yes my Accounting system keeps track of the gross sales tax collected (City, State, etc...). However, I then take that number and on the reverse side of the sales tax forms I have to fill out is a set of formulas and exceptions that I have to take my time to fill out. to arrive at the actual sales tax due. I then get to subtract a pitance from that amount as my "compensation" for filling out that form.

So know I will have City (multiple jurisdications), State and Federal Sales tax forms to complete.

Peronal attacks
Just what you would expenct from a the "FairTax" or even the Ron Paul-bots.

Can't answer the real question. You do away with the IRS and replace it with what - someone has to collect the money coming in and mail out the 200 million monthly pre-bate checks? Does the cost and size of governemtn go down? Do the "pre-bates" create a new dependancy class? How does the governement know how big of a pre-bate check to send you - single, married, how big is the family? Not every check will be the same so each household will still have to send in an annual statement decalring the size of their household to detemine the size of their welfare, excuse me, their pre-bate check.

TR-Racer
I understand your confusion regarding the 23% (or 30% for you fuzzy math folks...) Fair Tax. It isn't "in addition to" money...it's "instead of" money. Because the Fair Tax REPLACES all of the embedded federal taxes ALREADY INCLUDED in the cost of an item. That makes the effective cost to the consumer approximately the same.

I know the obvious question is, "How do you raise more money just by replacing one set of 23% taxes with another?"

The answer is a combination of 1) taxing ALL goods AND services (but only once) and 2) expanding the base of those who pay taxes to EVERYONE who buys anything in the USA.

Your drug dealer doesn't have to hide his income anymore, but he's gonna pay tax on everything from his Cheetos to his Cadillac and its tricked-out rims.

Right on!
I emailed my first response to this "article" to Mr. Bowyer himself, and he responded and asked me to humor him by answering each of the questions posed in this "article"!

Don't worry, Coastal Conservative. I informed him that you had already answered each one and that you had done so well.

Honesty on the %
Changing the defination of what a sales tax is (exclusive to inclusive) also changes the amount you get to "say" it is. The "fairer" way to have written the propsed law would have been to keep the defination the same and been honest is saying that the effecive rate was 30% to replace all embedded Federal taxes.

To do it the way that it is currently written is like saying that an item on sale for $29.99 is $29.00 not really $30 bucks.

Mirror, Miror on the Wall
Mirror, mirror on the wall, what's the fairest tax of all? Huck's. Unless you are married to an accountant like the author of the article. Or maybe his wife works for the IRS. I always think as I pay my tax bill, how much of what I pay just goes to the sheer paper work, the folks who pour over it, who call me and I call back, etc, and when I think of their wages and benefits I realize how much of our money just perpetuates the system. It is like we hire a fully manned cruise ship to deliver a package.

A question
"Just what you would expenct from a the "FairTax" or even the Ron Paul-bots."

Ugh....

Anyway, I have a question about the FairTax. Keep in mind that I have calculated that, as the proposal is laid out, my purchasing power will increase 10%, so I already know it would benefit me as it is planned. My concern though:

One of the arguments made by the FairTax advocates is that prices of new goods won't change since there is already a 22% cost embedded in the form of taxes that have to be paid. Where is the extra money coming from then? Right now, if a person loses 20% of their pay in taxes, the pays 22% in embedded taxes, they just gave:

$100*.8=$80
$80*.78=$62.40

The government has effectively taken $37.60 of every $100 earned. Under the FairTax I make $100 and pay 23% in an embedded tax so:

$100*.23=$77

The government has effectively taken $23 out of every $100 I have earned. Where is the extra $14.60 coming from? Keep in mind that this doesn't include all of the other taxes that a FairTax would abolish.

Fair Questions
Jerry, your questions are fair and it should be recognized that the concept of a "fair tax" is a little more complex than it might appear on the surface. However, my profession is in federal taxation and I am not convinced that there isn't a better alternative than the absolute disaster we have in the current system. It appears to me that in your zeal to disparage the concept of getting rid of the IRS and enacting a "fair tax" you have exaggerated the obstacles. I believe it can be done and that it might indeed be more effective and a little less complicated than you have painted it here.

I don't disagree
Does the current system suck. Yes. I own two businesses and I am a partner in another. I have to use an accountant to file my personal and business taxes.

But the unansered question still remains. We get rid of the IRS and replace it with what? An expanded Treasurery Department to mail out 200 million monthly pre-bate checks. Plus when your check does not show up in the mail that month you have to call someone to complain.

The size of government does not go down.

This new pre-bate check will become viewed as an entitement (like SSN, etc...) and the politicians will use it to pander to voters. Instead of "giving" an "earned income tax credit" they will just increase the size of the pre-bate for the Poor. For the Middle class that would not want to be thought of qualifying for that "earned income tax credit" they will instead be bought off with an increase in their "prebate check".

I view these as unintended consequenses of this ill concieved law.

The FairTax makes it easier to wage class warfare.

Fair Tax or Con Job?
I found this comment on the PP explaining issues regarding the fair tax. I hope you find this as educational as I do!

Buzz- I worked in sales taxation for better than 20 years for 9 Fortune 500 companies, and the FAIR???tax bears faint resemblance to state sales taxes.

Objection #1 - It is a CON JOB. The founders of FTorg gathered seed money to the tune of $tens of millions from Enron, Shell Oil, and other capital intensive companies. These $millions were shelled out to the “expert” economists cited ad infinitum in “the Book” as being authoritative. (They are authoritative as any other whore, I suppose, but then I digress. )The capital intensive manipulators have $hundreds of billions in deferred income tax liabilities that are FORGIVEN the moment FT passes.

Objection #2 - The FT hawkers claim that one gets “100% of your paycheck” and that there are 22% embedded tax savings to be had by FT passage. BOTH CLAIMS include the employee’s share of SS and Medicare. Both cannot be true. Even Boortz has been forced to admit this. Besides the FT applies to EMPLOYER PAID health insurance premiums and the taxes would more than likely be payroll-deducted, leaving less than “100%” of paychecks.

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/fair-tax-or-con-jo b

The IRS gone??????
As one who has dealt with sales tax audits in the past, let me assure you a national sales tax does not eliminate the need for a audit/collection/enforecement agency like the IRS.

Sales Tax returns continue to be filed (probably monthly instead of annualy) by companies, taxpayers have the burden of proving the amounts of taxes paid or not paid, and watch dogs (like the IRS) will continue to oversee the compliance process making sure taxpayers aren't cheating on their returns.

Anyone who thinks the Fair Tax will eliminate the IRS is living in a dream world.

To All
This sounds great but to yall honestly believe that the DO NOTHING DEM LED CONGRESS is going to vote to take away their PORK MONEY. I would make my bet on CONGRESS. We have seen pork spending go up. Wait until RANGEL tries to pass his MOTHER OF ALL TAXES on the PEEPS then we will see if the PEEPS have the B#LLS to challenge them like we did on the AMNESTY BILL. Now if I see the People stand up like that then I will vote for the FAIR TAX. But dont hold your breath because it sounds to simple and we know Congress cant deal with anything SIMPLE.


DONT TAX ME BRO, DONT TAX ME

Better questions
Since the Congress used the tax code to punish and reward and thus part of its power, why would 67 or so members of the Senate and 292 house members vote for the repeal of the income tax? Isn't the claim by "fair tax" supporters of the biggest transfer of power blah blah blah also its biggest weakness?

Since states are addicted to Federal pork much of which comes from the income tax, why would 38 state houses vote to repeal the 16th amendment even if it did get out of Congress?

The answer of course is not a chance in hell. Thus any debates over is it 23% or 30% or what is taxed and what is not is simply mental masturbation. It is about as germane to real life as talking about if I was in a car going so fast the red light looked green...


TR-Racer
You've got it wrong on your house purchase example. Some people mistakenly believe that an investor has an advantage purchasing a NEW home because the investor pays no sales tax. But what can the investor then do with the house? Either sell it or rent it, both of which are taxable exchanges and therefore erase any original tax advantage.

Here's how it works. Investor buys new house for $200K, then turns around and sells it for $200K. The buyer has to pay $200K plus $60K tax, which is the same amount a non-investor would have had to pay for the home in the first place. The investor cannot sell it tax-free, because it's still considered to be NEW (by definition, a product is new the first time it is sold to an end-consumer). So, an investor would have no motivation to snap up new homes tax free simply to re-sell them.

As an alternative, the investor could rent the home. However, rents are taxable. So, a renter would have to pay enough rent to cover the investor's mortgage on the $200K PLUS the tax on the rent. The mortgage amount PLUS the tax that makes up the rent payment would be economically equivalent to what a homeowner would pay to buy the house for $260K (including the tax). So, once again, the investor has zero economic advantage in purchasing the home and renting (i.e., the investor will not be able to offer a purchased home for rent any cheaper than if a homeowner had simply bought the home outright).

This whole issue highlights the primary problem with the FairTax -- it's a great idea, but because it requires a different way of thinking (and at least a basic understanding of economics), it is prone to misunderstanding and mischaracterization by the naive as well as the malevolent.

Economic principles are typically not intuitive, so people are easily led astray when they try to figure out the economic impact of particular policies. If you don't have the training or understanding, please, leave it to the professionals.

Used vs. New
Note, most states already have a sales tax, and no one raises these same concerns with regard to state sales taxes. In Georgia, used cars are not taxed, but no one is blustering about how that's ruining the new car market. Think it through from an economic perspective. What happens to the prices of used items when new items are taxed? The prices of used items RISE to make up the difference. Why? Supply and demand. The simple fact is we will always need new items because old things wear out and new technologies are invented. In a market with new items that are taxed, sellers of used items won't settle for lower prices. Ultimately, the market will reach an equilibrium.

23 vs. 30 - who cares?
First, great comments Coastal Conservative!

All the people against the fair tax keep bringing up that its 30% not 23%. It doesn't matter. The point of the Fair Tax is to be tax neutral. So whatever it is or whatever way you choose to calculate and report it, it the same as you are paying now. It's probably more than 30%.

The main difference with the fair tax is that it is out in the open. You must see and pay the tax amount every time you buy something.

One of the big problems with the current tax system is that most people don't realize how much they are paying. If people had to write a check every quarter for their tax liability, like people who run their own business do, there would be a lot more people concerned with the level of taxes in the US.

23% vs. 30% is red herring
First, yes, it's a 30% tax-exclusive rate. But, it is just as accurate to say it's a 23% tax-inclusive rate. The reason the inclusive rate is often cited is to equate it to income tax rates. Of course, that's completely appopriate, because it is being proposed as a replacement for the income tax.

Now, if you insist we must cite all tax rates as tax-exclusive, then you must agree to convert income tax rates to tax-exclusive rates as well. In that case, the 25% (inclusive) income tax rate is really a 33% exclusive rate. Let's say I earn $133 dollars. The government takes 25% = $33, leaving me with $100, which I can use to buy a $100 item. Under the FairTax, I would pay $100 + $30 tax = $130.

So, it's perfectly valid to describe the tax either way -- but when comparing a sales tax to an income tax, you have to desribe them both in the SAME way.

That having been said, the exact tax rate is largely irrelevant. Who cares what the exact rate has to be? The bottom line is that the FairTax is designed to be revenue neutral, so whatever the rate has to be, it's not going to extract any more tax from the people than the current system. Furthermore, the Fairtax will reduce compliance and administrative costs and greatly boost the economy, so it will have a dramatic net positive effect on people's net spendable income even while remaining revenue neutral (it will also promote saving, investing, and education -- all of which will benefit us individually and collectively).

Of course, at some point we need to pin down the precise tax rate in order to determine exactly how particular individuals will fare relative to the current system. But the basic notion of revenue neutrality plus economic benefit means the net tax burden on the country will actually be at least somewhat lower than the current system. So don't worry about the exact rate -- whatever it is, it won't require us to pay any more taxes than we currently do (at least not collectively).

for TR-Racer
TR-Racer writes: "The FairTax is actually a benefit for the Drug Dealer."

Not only that, but it puts the Government in the odd position of making money from drug pushing. It's bad enough that the state governments' lotteries are making money from gambling addiction. Now the Federal Government will be making money from the sale of illicit drugs at the same time the D.E.A. is trying to stamp out illicit drugs. A conflict of interest.

Either the FairTax has to exclude taxing illegal enterprises, or else this becomes a powerful argument for legalizing drugs. If the Government is going to tax marijuana sales, you might as well legalize marijuana altogether and encourage more of its production, to give the Government more tax revenue.


Seriously...an entire column??
It's 2008.

If you want "answers" go to fairtax.org.

But that's not what you want.

You want
1) to poke at FairTax proponents

2) shout "Look at me. I got a column. I'm smart!" and pad your resume.

But hey let's keep doing it your way...y'know..cause, it's working so well.

dork.

It's Brilliant because the RICH...
the CRIMINAL, and the ILLEGAL ALL must pay!

Not everyone has a legal income- but everyone BUYS things.

FAIRTAX Questions...Are you kidding me!!
JEEESUUUS guy, I had questions about the FAIRTAX plan about 6 months ago. SO I PURCHASED THE BOOK!!!! Got it used either off of AMAZON or EBAY for next to nothing. Cost more to ship it than to purchase it. Answers all your questions if one has a reading level above 4th grade. Your article was either the laziest form of journalism around or a cheap shot of attacking HR. 25/ S1025 without the gonads of coming right out and saying so. Since I purchased this incredibly simple and easy to understand FAIRTAX book I know understand why Neal Boortz blows his top so much with people who misrepresent it. Doesn't matter if one is for or against FAIRTAX....the plan is simple to understand and the above articles questions are covered (if you have a reading level above 4th grade, that is).

Would it happen?
As I have indicated elsewhere I do believe that both proponents and opponents of a "fair tax" have overblown their arguments, often to the point of distortion. But as others have said the odds of anything really "fair" getting enacted into law are probably about zero to none. I would like to see a drastically simplified and fairer system of financing our country, but I am pretty pessimistic such will happen during my lifetime.