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
Monday, January 28, 2008
William Phelps :: Townhall.com Columnist
A Fair Defense for the Fair Tax
by William Phelps
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?


Jerry Bowyer was correct that Fair Tax is a "crowd" ("Questions for the Fair Tax Crowd", 1/9/08). It is a big "crowd"-- thousands of supporters all across the country; a grass roots movement to pass the bipartisan Fair Tax Act (HR 25) pending in Congress with 68 House co- sponsors and 4 Senate co- sponsors. Otherwise, Bowyer's answers to his questions exposed his lack of knowledge of the fair tax.

The fair tax is based on research by some of the most respected economists and institutions in the country funded by $22 million of private funds donated to the non profit, Americans for Fair Taxation. Their research papers are available at fairtax.org.

A 2006 study by Boston University economists Dr. Laurence J. Kotlikoff and Dr. David Rapson, concluded that the fair tax benefits all income groups. For the first time, low income people are tax free due to the prebate reimbursing citizens based on family size of the sales tax paid on the poverty level of spending and the elimination of imbedded costs of corporate income, other income and payroll taxes and compliance costs now in the price of everything sold.

Here are his questions and my rebuttal to his answers:

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

The fair tax is a national retail sales tax that applies only to the purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption. There is no tax on used property. Does Bowyer think that major retail chains like Wal-Mart, Kroger, McDonalds and new car dealers and others who sell most new goods are "prone to corruption"? Does he think the forty five states that have sales tax systems are cheating?

There is no evidence that the administration of state sales taxes is corrupt. Since the states will collect the fair tax for the federal government. it will not be "prone to corruption".

William Jennings Bryan promised that an income tax would fair and tax only the rich. Now we know what happens to a flat income tax which becomes so complex that it includes 66,000 pages of code, rulings and regulations and which is so corrupt that the IRS admits that it fails to collect more than 300 billion each year and while the billions held off shore in tax shelters. The fair tax would tax the underground cash economy of illegals, and drug dealers, who now escape taxes when they buy something new or services.

The fair tax is simple, transparent and efficient.

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

Since there are no exemptions and no tax shelters under the fair tax, there would be no work for the tax lobbyists in Washington who currently manipulate the income tax for the special interests.

Because the fair tax includes the prebate reimbursing on the necessities of life, there is no need for exemptions.

Fair tax is not based on any existing system, but was developed based on original research by leading institutions and economists on the charge to develop of the best tax system for the federal government.

Q: Does it apply to non-profits?

No, it applies only to the purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption. There are no business to business taxes. Because the imbedded corporate income taxes, other income taxes, payroll taxes and compliance costs in the price of all goods and services under the income tax are repealed by the fair tax, purchases by non-profits will cost about 20-22% less than today.

Q: Are used goods taxed?

No. Goods are taxed only once when first sold for personal consumption. The differential between new and used property will be about the same in the market place as it is today, because the fair tax does not add to the cost of new property, but replaces the imbedded taxes of approximately the same rate. Only new replacement parts would be taxed if a used product is rehabilitated.

Q: What about transition?

It will be smooth and will not cause a rush to buy as Bowyer asserts because the total costs paid for goods and services will be about the same the day before and the day after the fair tax becomes effective. Bowyer seems to have the erroneous idea that the fair tax increases to price on new goods. It doesn't because the imbedded taxes are eliminated of approximately the same percentage on the average. There would be a one time credit issued to retailers for the imbedded taxes on inventory on the effective day of the fair tax so that inventory would not be double taxed.

Q: Isn't it that the rate is not really 23% but 30% at least, because it's tax inclusive?

Bowyer doesn't understand that inclusive and exclusive ways of computing rates don't change the dollar amount of the tax. Either way the tax is the same $23 per $100. Computed the same inclusive way as the income tax, the fair tax is $100 -$23 = $77. Computed the exclusive way it is $23 divided by $77. =30%. If you computed the income tax on the exclusive basis, the 25% bracket would be the 33% bracket, or $25 divided by $75 =33%. Either way it is the same $25 tax per $100.

Q. How do we determine interest rate portion of the mortgage?

Just as now, the market rate is the interest rate, but market interest rates will fall to the level of tax free bonds today which will make it easier for home buyers who will be paying the purchase price in pretax dollars, rather than after tax dollars under the income tax. The borrower and lender will continue to state the interest rates in the debt instruments, but this is irrelevant to how the home would be taxed.

The fair tax applies to the purchase price of the home, if it is new. If the home price is stated artificially below market value and the interest rate artificially higher than market rates as Bowyer envisions, then it would constitute tax evasion. Reputable home builders would not be tax evaders subject to criminal penalties for tax evasion and reputable lenders and borrowers would not be willing to participate in a conspiracy to commit tax fraud.

Bowyer should go to www.fairtax.org and become informed about the fair tax.

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


Bill Phelps was elected Lieutenant Governor of Missouri in 1972. He now works as a national spokesman for the FairTax.


 
Popular Articles By Phelps

More needs to be made known
about the Fair Tax in the public domain. I think the MSM is keeping quiet about it because it goes against their liberal/leftist ideals.
The more people try to shoot holes in it or ask questions, the more the Fair Tax can be refined or shown to be the answer that will being about the economic boom that it promises.
So far I believe only one candidate has indicated support for The Fair Tax. I wish all the other Republican Candidates would embrace it. I think it could be the issue that defeats the leftist, more government is the answer Democrats.

The question is moot
The discussion about implementing the Fair Tax, the Flat Tax, or even just reforming the existing IRS code ignores the question of whether the federal government should be collecting this money in the first place. It seems that everyone who makes a statement in these discussions, whether as bloggers/posters on the Internet, or as candidates for office, accept the idea that the federal government has a right to take any of our money.

I challenge that assumption. The discussion should be on how to tear down the oppressive federal ediface, that is slouching towards fascism. Get the federal government out those things not expressly assigned to it in the Constitution, and the need for the federal government to steal from us disappears.

Hillary delenda est.

No business to business taxes
What would prevent me from getting a busines license and buy anything for the business (cars, boats, anything that I wanted), thereby not paying any taxes? Is this a loop hole that could be used? How can this be prevented?

Two questions/problems with it...
I don't buy the shell game argument about the tax rate. Call it a 30% tax (which it is) and we can move on to another point.

The older, and in most cases, wealthiest Americans who have saved all their lives, and have already paid taxes on those savings, will get those dollars taxed again when spent. How does the Fair Tax deal with this problem (if at all)? We may do away with the death tax, but bring it right back when inheritence dollars are spent.

How can we be assured that corporations will lower the cost of their goods and services to reflect the reduction in taxes that they pay? Part Two: Aren't we passing corporate taxes onto the people if those prices aren't reduced?

How will a recession affect the growing national debt and the effect it passes onto our grandchildren? If we have a recession, and people stop buying goods and services, where will revenues for the Federal budget come from?

I have no love for the IRS and would like to see them eliminated as much as anybody. However, I would like answers to legitimate questions rather than see supporters mock those who are asking the questions.

The 800 pound gorrila...
...is the issue of double taxation.

What about the existing savings of all the people that worked all their lives to acquire enough money to retire with.

These funds have alreay been through the State, Fed, FICA, etc. tax extraction process. If this proposal passes, the Feds will get another 23/30% depending on whether you calcuate exclusively or inclusively.

It's great that the proposal allows for an inventory credit to businesses to prevent them from being double taxed, but until someone either offers an equivalent to "we the people" with regards to our personnal savings - or devises an alternative acceptable solution, this proposal won't get past the (eventually educated to the issue) electorate.

Libertarian in NC

Fair tax
23% "inclusive" and 30% exclusive comparison. It is truly irrelevant whether income taxes are inclusive or exclusive. Sales taxes are ALWAYS stated exclusive. This is the same numbers racket as gross margin versus markup. An exclusive sales tax of 100% makes for $1 to the merchant and $1 of tax, but that is stated as only a 50% "inclusive" sales tax. But what if we doubled the tax collected? Th exclusive rate then doubles to 200% but the inclusive rate only goes up to 66% increase. The higher the actual taxes the more the inclusive rate doesn't changeas it can never reach 100%. A $1 item with $999 tax would be 99,900% markup or exclusive sales tax, but it would still only be 99.9% inclusive. Put another way, when the Democrats raise it from 23% inclusive to 25%, the actual taxes collected go up from 30% to 33%,and the government gets 50% more increase than most people think they are. Have the guts to state it plain and simple like a sales tax that people understand.
What about used home sales? If my contractor buys the material for an addition, does he pay tax? Do I pay it on the total value of his bid? IS there sales tax on real estate commission and/or closing costs? What about the cost of an ad in the newspaper if I buy it or if the realtor buys it? I was an enthusiastic supporter, but since finding about the in/exclusive bait and switch and the lack of true details like involving real estate I wonder about the idea's integrity. Not filling in those details implies you have something to hide or you have contempt for our ability to understand the system. Either way, my BS sensor is starting to ping louder and louder.

It's no Gamble
If it's new---yes, If it's used----No. It's really that simple. Review your questions and apply that standard and you have your answers. For instance if the material for your addition is new---yes, if it's left from the torn down shed---no.
You see---at this point the "rate" doesnt matter--it's subject to the whims and fancies of the politicos just as it is now. But to raise it might be very problematic for the candidate.
And hey Bill---you dont have to fill out a tax return. (You know from that file you have next to your seat at home where you throw everything in and when the time comes you have to sort it all out?--Throw that thing away!

Still not sold
Still not sold on this. Nope. No other nation in the world has anything close to it. Nobody really knows how it would work.

Seriously, you will need some agency to enforce the law and audit for compliance. The Fair Tax may get rid of the IRS, but some other agency will take its place.

About special interests and exemptions -- this is another specious argument. The problem with the income tax is the tax code. There is no flat tax in the constitution. Amendment 16 authorizes the income tax, but puts few restrictions upon it.

I have worked retail and people cheat or attempt to cheat on paying sales taxes all the time. That's why states have auditors who check for compliance.

Poor people will have to document their income and track their receipts in order to get rebates. We still have to track income. Poor people are notoriously bad about tracking their finances, but now they must keep their receipts?

soniq
that is my question too. Doesn't it double tax savings? There needs to be an amendment to the fair tax that addresses this. Otherwise, I like the innovative idea.

Explain to me
Why I should acknowledge ANY federal tax law? It's completely unconstitutional. Govt's has proven that they're unable to enforce federal law.

Now, maybe if they'd enforce immigration law the way they enforce tax law, by making examples of the .01 percent they can enforce, and the rest follow out of fear. Oh, they only rule our own people via intimidation, threat of loss of property and business, and threat of imprisonment.

People ALLOW themselves to be governed, and I don't think I want to be governed anymore. I know I don't trust the people collecting and spending the money.

Remember the Constitution?

No mandatory tracking of individuals
JefferyR:

Your concerns are well merited, however, HR 25 (the FairTax bill) has the answers. First off, yes there will need to be agencies to track FairTax compliance; however, these will not be Federal agencies because the states are responsible for collecting the FairTax (and they receive an incentive to do so). Each state will have an agency that tracks retail businesses to make sure they are in compliance with the law. There are hundreds of times more taxpayers currently tracked by the IRS than there are businesses conducting retail, so its considerably less work under HR 25. Plus, the vast majority of retail purchases are carried out in "big box" retailers which have no incentive to cheat the government.

About tracking people's income, this is not necessary whatsoever. It doesn't matter if you make $10 a week or $10 billion a year, you still get a rebate. All you have to do is fill out a one page document that asks a) how many people are you claiming in your household, b) what are their social security numbers, and c) where should we send the check. This way, you fill out the form if you want the rebate, but if you want to remain a more private citizen and not even let the government know this much information, you can choose to do that too and not receive your rebate. Big incentive for illegals to get real SS#s (fake ones or no SS# = no rebate) ie become legal. Also, the FairTax taxes foreigners and people who don't claim "income"

A big concern of mine is that after passing HR 25 we absolutely MUST repeal the 16th Amendment, but that shouldn't be too hard because in order to pass the bill in the first place, we'll have to either a) convince the incumbents to get behind the FairTax or b) vote the bastards out in favor of those who work for us. Either way or a healthy combination of the two should easily result in enough votes to repeal the 16th Amendment.

I too had reservations
Yes there will have to be enforcement and compliance and the agency created from the IRS to do this will probably have to be at least 10% the size of the current IRS. (OK lets say it’s 50%---still billions and billions saved)

Most think that “16” will have to be scuttled. Remember the “prebate” (not rebate) is based on family size and nothing else. Throw those receipts and check stubs away!!

Yes there will be cheaters (but cheaters never prosper) but it can’t be anywhere near the 300 billion or so lost every year on income tax cheaters---many of those really don’t want to cheat it’s just that our system is so intimidating. This is particularly true in our young Americans as well as our oldest Americans and when you throw in the under-educated those numbers get real ugly.

One of the thoughts about Fair Tax is that states will see how easy it is to collect the same revenue and change the way they go about getting there’s---states where income tax is now collected will change to Fair Tax and save a ton of money at the state level.

‘Tis the season—let’s see where are those 1099’s and those W-2’s and “Honey what did you do with those receipts for medical bills we had”-----sheesh---come on---it’s worth a try---take another look.

Sved
Thank you--I stand corrected.

Double Taxation
Like the article above states, the FairTax replaces the taxes that are currently embedded in the cost of everything. Prices stay essentially the same. People who spend their savings today are (a) paying income tax on the interest (b) paying the embedded taxes in the prices of everything they buy. Under the FairTax, there would be no tax on the interest paid on savings (or corporate income tax, inheritance tax, capital gains, dividends). Under the FairTax, we will keep more of our money and have control over the taxes we pay through our purchasing decisions.

Builders
Builders and their subcontractors buy at wholesale, not retail. The FairTax is collected only on retail goods and services.

Fair Tax: An idea whose time has come?
The biggest obstacles to the Fair Tax are overcoming the inertia in moving such a radical idea forward and the powerful interests vested in the current system which would demagogue the issue at every turn. Of course, difficulty ought not prevent trying. Maybe the positive aspects of a consumption tax, as opposed to the current initiative-killing tax on income, might offer the necessary motivation to take on this battle. Then, there's the small matter of repealing the 16th Amendment. Otherwise we'll have two avenues for government to get into our pockets. This is a big mission to take on in an election year and unless a conservative is elected President, the idea will be DOA anyway.

There is no "Double Tax" on savings
You don't pay any more money out of your savings on a product under the FairTax than you do under the Embedded Income Tax scheme that currently exists.

Seriously - do the math, folks.

CURRENT SYSTEM:
Say you get $4,000 in income, and lose $1,000 to the Income Tax. You've got $3,000 to spend. You spend the $3,000 on new goods. Of that $3,000 you spend $690 (23%) on Embedded Income Tax.

FAIRTAX SYSTEM:
You got $4,000 in income. You lost $1,000 to Old Income Tax. You've got $3,000 to spend. You spend the $3,000 on new goods. Of that, $3,000 you spend $690 (23%) on the FairTax - and you get a receipt that tells you so.

Any income earned after or tax-deferred after the introduction of the FairTax actually gets taxed LESS than it would under the Income Tax System.

The Income Tax System is the one with the Double Tax in place.

Friendly Amendment
Mlund writes:

"FAIRTAX SYSTEM:
You got $4,000 in income. You lost $1,000 to Old Income Tax. You've got $3,000 to spend. You spend the $3,000 on new goods. Of that, $3,000 you spend $690 (23%) on the FairTax - and you get a receipt that tells you so."

I believe that should read:

FAIRTAX SYSTEM:
You got $4,000 in income. You keep your whole paycheck because there is no Income Tax. You've got $4,000 to spend. You spend the $3,000 on new goods. Of that, $3,000 you spend $690 (23%) on the FairTax - and you get a receipt that tells you so. You save $1000 that you didn't have before the FairTax.


Retiree double taxation a red herring
The idea that a retiree who has already been taxed on certain income not part of a deferred taxation strategy will be taxed unfairly again when purchasing a new item is simply denying the impact of the embedded taxes that currently contribute to the cost of retail goods and services.

Businesses -- big, small, or in between -- do not pay taxes, they simply collect them from the final consumer as part of the cost of their product or service. If you spend $100 on an item now the estimated amount of taxes embedded in that $100 cost is approximately $23. When that $23 comes out of the product cost (and it will in a competitive market) to be replaced by $23 in Fair Tax the item will still cost the consumer $100.

The real advantage? You're not paying any more of your already taxed earnings AND when you go to spend money distributed to you from a tax-deferred retirement account you and only you determine how much tax you pay by choosing to buy a new product or choosing to buy used. As a small business owner and a consumer this will be a Godsend.

Fair Tax/double taxation of savings
If the rest of the fools out there would bother to read the book or the law they would realize anyone spending savings now is already paying taxes on spending via corporate taxes that are abolished by the Fair Tax. It doesn't take any real intelligence to realize that corporations never pay taxes. Thoses taxes they "pay" are just passed on to individual buyers as part of the cost of the product.

Fair Tax on Bloney is needed more.
With Ron Paul you know what you get.
With Mike Huckabee pray with him and
you just could get what he has been
praying for, only its not fair tax,
its fair and very open borders to the
wage slaves he is also praying for.

Facts count, this misdirection about
Federal Tax reduction by this snake
charm unGov. of ark-in-saw, does not
hold enough water to float a monkey
in an ark, let alone a the weight of the
U.S. national debt his Democratic look
alikes have amassed over time.

willful blindness is not a good thing

Give and Take
I keep hearing about the folks who saved money under the current system getting double taxed.

Here's my take on that, 1. How many folks actually save? 2. In any new system, and one as big as this change would be, there will be some give and take.

The question is, is it about Us, right now? or our country for our children?

I'm will to take a hit to insure my kids have a better system, if this is a better system.

This is scary ignorant
This article is scarily ignorant. A tax on goods and services hits people on lower incomes more than the wealthy as people on lower incomes spend more of their income on goods and services. For example, George Sorous might spend only 2% of his income on goods and services. He pays tax on 2% of his spending. Lower income people spend up to 100% of their income on goods and services. They pay tax on up to 100% of their spending. This article says the poor can be re-imbursed, but will this be a flat rate or dependant on your income? A flat rate may be unfair as it may not take into account the relative prices for the area a person lives in, the size of the household etc. If it does take all these factors into account, it will be a nightmare to administer.

Huckabee goes further and says he will eliminate IRS. This is repeated by the Huckbots. This is utter utter scary nonsense. Without the IRS, there is no-one to ensure the tax collected is actually paid to the Government. If fact it becomes more complicated as they need to audit all sales. A cash economy will grow as suppliers offer discounts for cash to avoid the tax. It is easy to increase the rate, again having a disproportionate impact on the poor.

It is not a solution for income tax. It will never be accepted. There will never be a rational debate until the proponents of this tax accept it's shortcomings and begin to address these issues.

The Poor Benefit From the FairTax
Right now the poor pay the same rate in Social Security and Medicare as everyone else up to 90K. Under the FairTax, there will be no Social Security, Medicare or Federal income tax withheld; they will take home their whole paychecks, and they will get a PREBATE on the tax that they would spend upto the poverty level on the purchases of new goods and services. However, if they were smart, they'd buy used wherever possible and avoid the tax all togther.

Assumptions
As someone who spent a large portion of his college career sitting through math classes, I can tell you that the results you get out of an analysis depend greatly on the assumptions you take into the analysis. I read the analysis and the assumptions are questionable at best.

The biggest assumption is that we have a static economy. Our economy is anything but. Anyone who has paid attention for last 10 years will see our economy is incredibly dynamic and subject to the vagaries of the human psyche. The analysis doesn't begin to address this.

An example of this is the assumption individuals will spend all of the income that is now witheld for taxes. It fails to take into account the inflationary pressure this would cause.

Another serious defect is it fails to look at the micro-economics. It deals with the macro, but when it gets down to how it will affect individual businesses and people, it fails dramatically.

I am not saying a national sales tax won't work. What I am saying is the Fair Tax is seriously flawed, and it is being sold as something it really is not.

wow, can't wait
as a self-employed, independent business owner with a family, to get a gov't check just like welfare people. sign me up. idiots

All the issues are addressed
You just have to do more than 2.3 minutes of research.
The poor get a "prebate"---right up front! The prebate covers the tax they will be spending on essentials.
This is not about Huckabee and it never has been.
You really think Wal Mart will cheat?
There will be adequate enforcement--much cheaper than it is now.
If your going to attack something with the "disproportionate to the poor"--please find out what your talking about.

Drew et al
"If you spend $100 on an item now the estimated amount of taxes embedded in that $100 cost is approximately $23. When that $23 comes out of the product cost (and it will in a competitive market) to be replaced by $23 in Fair Tax the item will still cost the consumer $100."

This is a fairy tale. The so-called "embedded" tax on goods and services is based on an analysis of the economy as a whole. It is not based on an analysis of the taxes and compliance costs of actual businesses. Most businesses don't pay anywhere near this amount. That means the cost to consumers post-"Fair Tax" will go up substantially.

This is being sold as a panacea, and it just isn't. There are serious issues which have been glossed over by the Fair Tax crowd. Our tax system for better or worse is deeply integrated into our economy. You can't rip it out whole and replace it with something completely different without experiencing serious pain and profuse bleeding.

What are you saying here?
Do you think that a business that matches SS cost doesnt add this to Cost of Sales? And further--if that were to Vanish that C/S wouldnt come down?
This is America--we certainly dont need to follow what some other messed up country is doing, we need to Continue to be the leader--this is innovation and it very well could be the panacea.
Pull out a business P&L--ANY business P&L and add up the tax they pay as a % of sales---you'll be re-thinking the whole idea of imbeded tax.

Bleeders are okay with me
JJBiener:

The biggest bleeders and those experiencing pain will be tax lobbyists on Capital Hill and others who benefit greatly from a complicated tax code. My uncle is a CPA and although he gets a lot of business this time of year, he's told me he'd rather not have to deal with income tax so he can actually offer a meaningful service to his clients. I say let the lobbyists and scam artists bleed. We're talking about completely changing the psyche of the American consumer for the BETTER: saving/investing = good, mindless consuming = not so good. We need to stop taxing production. Period. This is the only solution I have found to this problem.

Assumptions are Very Conservative
Please read as many documents as you can at FairTax.org

What I've seen is very conservative estimates for the benefits. For instance, AFFT uses a figure of $265 billion for compliance costs savings. There are other possible sources for such savings like efficiency savings. I added these up and there's a potential 1 trillion or more. They just weren't reliable enough for AFFT to use. However the potential is there and it could be amazing.

I'm currently researching the original works of Dr. Jorgenson and his calculations are conservative too. For instance, for the sake of simplicity he assumed net foreign investment would stay constant because he had no way to estimate it. In other words he didn't account for the effect of foreign companies relocating here to take advantage of no taxes. Most certainly they will and the effect could be huge.

There's more, start digging. :)


Re JJBeiner...
You do know that 45 states in the union already have sales taxes. So for the most part sales tax collection is already part of the infrastructure. And I know that at least in California and Washington enforcement is quite vigorous because there are fewer businesses than citizens and it makes that enforcement easier and less expensive because you have fewer targets and those you do have are primarily in fixed locations making them easy to find.

Bartlett, Gale & President's Panel
If you're believe the misinformation of Bartlett, Gale or the President's Panel on Tax Reform, be advise all of them are trying to sell their own tax reform plans.

If you look at the Panel's work you should be able to see clearly that it's a sales brochure. They don't bother to mention anything silly like assumptions, equations or calculations lol. If fact they have consistently refused to send AFFT their data for years. What are they trying to hide?

Bartlett and Gale are often cited by lazy journalists that don't do their homework. They have been throughly rebutted at AFFT, look and see for yourselves.

Sved
The big bleeders will be small retail businesses with short supply chains and/or large inventories. Any business that either provides a service or makes extensive use of services will be hit hard.

These businesses don't have the existing tax and compliance costs to offset the imposition of a new tax. They will have to either raise rates and lose out on business or take a direct hit to their bottom line.

"saving/investing = good, mindless consuming = not so good"

I agree, but if people actually do this, the Fair Tax is not revenue neutral. The calculations depend on people spending, not saving, the additional money they receive in their paycheck. We will then be looking at massive deficits or additional "revenue enhancement."

Main Promise - Great GDP Growth
The AFFT says officially: The economy as measured by GDP is 2.4 percent higher in the first year and 11.3 percent higher by the 10th year than it would otherwise be.

However, there are different economic models that can be used to estimate the GDP. Dale Jorgenson, Ph.D., former chairman of the Economics Department at Harvard University, estimated a near-term 9 to 13 percent increase in the Gross Domestic Product.

Reading the early papers of the Joint Committee on Taxation Tax Modeling Project showed me that Dr. Jorgenson's model was not the best one for such things like estimating GDP.

A better model for that would be the type the Robbins' used that shows an increase in the GDP by 36.3%!

Can you imagine even half of that?

What did I say? Lot's of underestimations.

service industry = embedded taxes too!
The service industry has just as many embedded taxes as goods industries. See mention of matching FICA taxes above. Those companies still pay corporate taxes. I really don't see how it will hurt small businesses, if anything it will help them because small business owners will no longer be paying income and payroll taxes. Companies with short supply chains will benefit greatly from less business-associated tax because they probably can't purchase things in such bulk that corporations can, thus more tax removed per item. It would be much cheaper to start a company and easier to maintain it with all the extra capital floating around looking for investments. The inventory problem was already discussed: companies get a one-time reimbursement on goods they stocked pre-FairTax. Where did you get the argument that people will spend all their extra money and not save it, I have never seen that nor do I think the economists who researched the plan would make such a careless assumption. If anything, they would want to assume the money is saved because that frees up more capital for more investment and more growth in the economy. What about the trillions overseas in tax shelters? Where does it go? Back in circulation.

theBaron
Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution says "Congress has the power to tax".

Case closed.

dculling
Read through Kotlikoff's stuff. I find his assumptions and methodology creative to say the least.

fairtax is a regressive tax
Income Tax: I make $25,000 a year, with one child, you pay ZERO in income tax.

FairTax: I make the same and then pay 30% on everything i buy.

Small Business Large Compliance
If you all will just read some at FairTax.org you'll find a paper that shows how much more compliance costs hurt small businesses. It makes sense since small business can't afford the small army of tax accountants and/or attorneys that a large corporation can.

Off the top of my head it was something like small businesses tend to pay $700+ to pay $100 worth of taxes. I assume part of that is the time they must waste just doing the tax specific accounting.

JJBiener
Kind of a cop out saying that without a specific example.

Lee
Income taxes are paid by corporations and individuals. I don't know what the proportions are, but let's say it's 50/50 of all income taxes. So, we add 30% sales tax to all goods and services of which 15% used to be paid by corporations. People who use savings for purchases will still pay an extra 15% to cover individual income taxes. Thus, they will pay tax on the savings that they've already paid taxes on.

You're the fool. Maybe you should think before you insult people.

rebate
so I can get the rebate check if I'm retired and live in Costa Rica 11 months out of the year?

The Fair Tax
1) Work for yourself and pay estimated taxes on your proposed income which is guessed at by the IRS or your CPA, both actually.
2) Pay 1/3 or more in taxes at the end of the year of what your CPA notes as your earned and taxable income. Remember you worked hard enumerable hours for this business you run. (Not the total business income)Then be told that you made so much that you owe more instead of getting at least some of your money back.(like the $3500 refund some people/some illegal who don’t pay taxes get)
3) Go ask your CPA what in the world is this self-employment tax about that you have me paying? I have to pay more for the privilege of working for myself? I have read the formula for this tax and the person who wrote this likes to inflict pain to others.
4) Read the book The FairTax Book.
If after all of this you still doubt the fairness of this proposition Good Luck. The result of the current tax system will continue to drag this nation into socialism/communism and a totalitarian dependent state for future Americans. I am not alone having worked hard for the last 38 years I will not be contributing to this IRS failed policy much longer I hope. Then as the work force dwindles if allowed a lot of people will be in trouble.

zapdoodat
Your forgetting that everything you buy has the taxes of the retailer + producer + producer's suppliers + their suppliers and so on plus all the compliance costs all passed on to and embedded into the price of the product. You most certainly are paying taxes whether you see them or not.

Fair Tax/double taxation of savings
Lee you are right on but I see a lot of the public still doesn't recognize it because most politicians say it isn’t so. All business tries to pass on all costs in order to raise profit.

Only People Pay Taxes
Businesses don't pay taxes. Raise a tax on business they will do one of 3 things:

1. Decrease dividends to shareholders many of which are retired and depend on their investments.

2. Raise the price of the product or service.

3. Reduce labor costs; fire employees or cut hours, maybe just pack up and move overseas.

No matter what, people pay the taxes.

dculling
I'm confused about how much this 'embedded' tax is. The IRS's 1040 manual has a pie chart showing all the categories of revenue for the federal government.

personal income tax - 39%
Social Sec, Medicare - 32%
Borrowing - 9%
Corporate income tax - 13%
Excise,customs,estate - 7%
gift and misc. taxes

Corporations only pay income tax when they have a net profit. Just what is this embedded tax?


zapdoodat
Corporations only exist to make a profit. Raise the tax on them and they have to do one of the 3 things above. Only a monopoly could have enough profit to pay the tax only out of profit. However, we have laws against monopolies and I can't think of one that isn't regulated by a local government like in the case of utilities.

In a free competitive market most businesses make a minimum profit. If they raise their prices they sell a lot less of their products and their competitors sell more.

Employees will keep their income taxes. I believe businesses will keep the corporate and payroll (SS and Med) taxes then lower the prices because of competition.

Excise taxes, tobacco, fuel, alcohol ect. will remain.

Customs I don't about.

Estate and gift taxes will be eliminated. Those are true double taxation now.

embedded
still confused about this 'embedded' tax. I don't see in the IRS chart of it's incomes anywhere where it shows up.

And it still seems like a good idea to collect the fairtax rebate check and then hi-tail it to some cheap place like Costa Rica to live.

Flat Tax vs. Fair Tax on Fox Business

FAIR TAX QUESTION?
My question is how can we get rid of the IRS if we give out rebate checks for people who do not make enough money? What would stop people for filing for a refund?

after a little research...
From the FairTax Executive Summary

"The tax is completely transparent in that it is easily seen and understood at the time of purchase. As such, it makes clear to the citizenry the amount of federal revenues collected. This transparency also makes embedding “hidden” federal taxes almost impossible, unlike the current system which taxes goods and services multiple times before the point of purchase."

How come this "embedded" tax is never paid to the US Treasury and doesn't show up in the Federal income pie chart that is published by the IRS?


zapdoodat & John Konop
zapdoodat
The IRS isn't going to list embedded taxes. Just imagine all the taxes that are passed on into the price of a product and all of the producers suppliers and their suppliers and so on. Corporate taxes, payroll ect. Plus how much money all those businesses spend just to pay and try to avoid paying taxes. They even have to do special accounting just for taxes and that costs time which is money.

John Konop
The IRS is not needed to print checks. Social Security sends out millions monthly plus they have the SS database to verify applicants. They might have to add more printers and a few more people, but nothing like the IRS. I'm not saying SS will do it but they could. It's estimated that the expense will be 8 billion less than the current IRS costs.

The prebate goes to any household that applies. There will be many that don't apply because they are wealthy or just proud.

I'd like to see an option on the form to check no prebate then you get a bumper sticker or something that says "I refused the 09 prebate" to encourage people not to get it.

zapdoodat
It is paid by companies that charge you more to pay for it. Their suppliers charge them more and the suppliers' suppliers charge the suppliers more and so on and so on and it's all passed up to you.

All Please Read...
The new book by Neal Boortz called "FairTax: The Truth: Answering the Critics" it will come out on 2/12 and have answers to your questions.

The Fair Tax eliminates Congressional and Presidential power plays in Washington through eliminating them playing tax code changes. It should help cut down on lobbying.

It also eliminates people hiding their income as it is part of every new purchase, but the "prebate" helps lower income levels. Without a change in the tax systems we will continue to have the same mess happen each year.

dculling
so these corporations just hold onto this 'embedded' tax and never pay it to the IRS?

zapdoodat
No they pay it before or after they add part of it to the price of whatever you're buying. Eventually all of it in passed on into all their products.

Taxes are a business cost. Price - costs = profit


THE FAIRTAX IN A NUTSHELL
The FairTax takes the tax code out of business decisions and politics out of the tax code. It shifts tax decisions away from Congress. There is no role for tax lobbyists or policy experts (no exemptions or gimmicks to sell) and they have reacted by throwing the kitchen sink at the idea.

1. There will still exist compliance auditing --but on about 14 million retailers instead of 130 million returns. Oversight will be split between states and the Treasury Department.
2. The prebate will be calculated based on Social Security records. It won't be paid to illegal immigrants (financial disincentive to illiegal immigration).
3. "Embedded" taxes are the amount of existing tax costs that either depress wages or inflate retail prices. Only market forces will forces either to move after the FairTax.
4. The current tax code has 67,500 pages of regulations. It cost taxpayers $265 billion a year to complete returns. The FairTax makes visible all federal taxes and makes stakeholders of all consumers.
5. The income tax system comes up $350 billion short every year. Some from cheating, most from mistakes. The shortfall raises the average taxpayer bill by about $2,000 annually.
6. Congress loves to punish opponents, reward friends and contributors and manipulate citizen behavoir through the tax code.
7. 53% of all lobby expenditures annually in Washington are devoted to the tax code. The income tax system is driven by politics, power and profit--not the economy and not taxpayers.


Ken Hoag
Your post was informative and to the point...and it won't make a bit of difference, for exactly the reasons you mention.

There are too many hands in the current cash box; too many people with jobs in the redundant tax system that will never give up that power. That is why we hear absurd arguments against a fair tax. The skeptics point out possible problems as their reason for not supporting it. How absurd is that? "Hey let's not do this since it won't be perfect and problem free."

Unfortunately I do not see a fair tax coming along in my lifetime, but I certainly hope to be proven wrong.

Begging over scraps
I like the FAIRTAX and support it greatly. I keep hearing whining about the elderly who will be double taxed on their savings...the author already has mentioned that everyone is paying embedded taxes anyway. Then I hear many trying to compute mortgage rates, loss of deductables, ... etc. So many people begging for the scraps thrown from the government table. Here is why I am sold on HR. 25 and these points are not arguable. 1) I pay taxes WHEN I CHOOSE!!! 2) I GET MY MONEY FIRST!!!.. not after the government has withheld a huge chunk. 3) If I get ticked off at Uncle Sam then I buy less or buy used and take money out of his pocket!!! ( and there are no big guys with guns busting down the door to arrest me and take my property from me).

Plus it is a super motivation to get out and earn and invest more. I would much rather pass a system of FREEDOM on to my children and grandchildren than to lamely support the status quo because I'm getting older and looking to the golden years. If it would help get the bill passed I would waive any rights to my Socialist Security (assuming the FED hasn't gone bankrupt in the near future).

Joey and others
Well said, the Fair Tax is a tax for the 21st century unlike the antiquated 20th century income tax.

I'm for the Fair Tax
And please, to end confusion, the proposed rate is 23%.

The easiest way to see this is: The price a seller wants to receive for a new good or service is charged. The 23% Fair Tax is added to that price, and that 23% will go to uncle sam.

The merchant gets his/her price and forwards the 23% tax to the government. Simple.

Those who look to confuse or get mixed up in the inclusive or exclusive tax rates... please remember the seller sets the price and so will his/her competition. The tax is added to the selling price.


Inclusive tax hides the tax
You can look on your paystub and see the tax you pay or you can look on your reciept from the store.

As long as the price marked on th shelf includes the tax it is HIDDEN. If the tax is added on at the register so that you really SEE and FEEL it only then would the FairTax start to have any honesty.

But when added onto to the good at the cash register it rate will be calulated at 30%

What? There is no role for tax lobbyists
or policy experts (no exemptions or gimmicks to sell)"

Are you dreaming?

As soon as the FairTax would be passed there will be calls to raise the prebate because the "poor" are still not getting a fair deal and besides the increase in the prebate won't affect the "Rich".

Politicians will use this to increasingly create an ever bigger dependancey class waiting by their mailboxes for thir monthly welfare/prebat check to arrive.

Be honest about it if you want credence
The very name speaks of liberal propaganda, that begs the question. Fair tax, social justice, bringing America together ... we've heard it all. Give the taxation system a decent *descriptive* name and let us be judge of whether it's "fair" (and by implication that the others are "unfair").

I'm for the Fair Tax
To add a little clarity to the prebate...

The prebate is money the Federal government will give out to every American that completes a form listing the number of persons in a household with valid social security numbers.

The amount given out over the course of a year will depend on the current poverty level for the number of people in a household.

"Approximate" yearly poverty levels are:
(note #'s are rounded to make it easier)

# people --- yrly poverty level --- yrly prebate

1 person --- $10,000 @23% = --- $2,300
2 --- $13,000 --- $3,000
3 --- $16,000 --- $3,700
4 --- $20,000 --- $4,600

So a family of 4 will receive approx. $4,600 over the course of a year. All families of 4 will receive this irregardless of their income.



And the Policy Experts etc
Will seek to "adjust" the proverty level or enact some other sliding scale to increase what they send to the population in that pre-bate.

They will be buying votes with this new "earned income credit".

Doing away with the IRS? What a joke.

Who are the 200 millions families sending that form to?
Who is processing that form and verifying the data collected?
Who is mailing out the 200 millions month checks?
Who do you call when the Postal service accidentally loses your monthly check?
Who prosecutes you if you lie on the form to get a bigger pre-bate?
What about the states that don't currently have a sales tax to collect. They have to create a government entity they don't currently have. Is that an unfunded Federal Mandate?
If the state does not collect it (they are allowed to opt-out) and the Fed's collect it who does that?

Oh the renamed IRS does. Got ya.

One Tax
A fellow town haller named Ron the other night posted a short piece, possibly not for the first time but, the first time I saw it, advocating one tax only. A perfectly exquisite simple way to pass revenue from our pockets to the government.

Since all taxes are paid by the population whether they first hit corporations or pass through any of thousands of avenues in our economy, it should be done only once. It could start out at a certain income level allowing for a standard exemption and then be progressively graduated to satisfy the leftists but, there can be only one tax, one point of collection.

I don't know how many supporters you got Ron but, count one more. ONE TAX.

dculling
"No they pay it" - Who do these companies pay that embedded cost to???

I have an MBA, I know what profit is and still don't understand this embedded tax.

This embedded cost is starting to sound something like if I throw a party and buy beer and hamburgers then the beer is an 'embedded' cost of having a good time. I pay it but I certainly wouldn't call it a tax.

TR Racer
Uncle Sam will get 23%. Period.
The seller will get the price they set. Period.


The only way you can confuse this is to have two different stores selling at different prices. Or to have them using included and excluded tax.
And guess what? the lower priced goods will get more customers. Period.
Whether the tax is included on sticker or added at the cash register, consumers will know what store has a better price.

Where would you buy?
Store 1: Tax included price = $100
Store 2: Charging $100 plus 23% tax = $123

Each of these two stores are collecting a different amount for the same product.
Store 1 makes $81.30 collects 23% tax of $18.70
total collected = $100.00

Store 2 makes $100 collects 23% tax of $23.00
total collected $123.00

I'll see you at store # 1.
It's only confusing if you want it to be.


Hitchhiker
There are three governments that I am subjected to. National, state and my city have jurisdiction over me and can and do impose their own taxes on me. I don't think there can only be one tax. (unless you mean one federal tax)

Soniq
You raise a good question. In actuality there is no double taxation as currently all our goods include a 22-25% embedded tax all through the manufacturing and distribution processes. Thus a $100 item now will only cost approx. $77 and the sales tax added coming out to about $100 which is what the original cost of the item would have been to begin with. I am a huge Fairtax fan, but no fan of Huckabee. I would rather these two not be linked. Visit Fairtax.org

slum lords
Under the so called fair tax if a house were for sale for $100,000 an investor could buy it for $100,000 but a young couple trying to buy their first home would pay $100,000 plus $30,000 in sales tax. They would also have to finance the $30,000 in tax and pay interest on it for 30 years.

However, young couples would not be able to afford housing which would be bought up by the investors. The young couple would then have to rent for say $1000 per month and also pay an additional $300 a month on the rent for the rest of their lives.

Really fair. The housing gets bought up by slum lords and the rising generation get stuck paying tax on their rent.

The fair tax is a joke and a disaster for the middle class.

LIked Huckabee, not sure about FairTax
I hadn't heard of the FairTax until I got real involved in supporting Huckabee. I honestly felt it was the weakest part of his platform. Like most I didn't even get to the fine print because I didn't believe you could sell it to the American People, and had an even less of a chance getting it through Congress.

But the more I read about it the more I like it. I too was skeptical that good would actually remain at close to the same cost after the Fair Tax was added on as they were before, but I'm starting to come around.

First of all if this was passed then it would have to be sold to the American People as not increasing costs because embedded taxes would go away. There would be a certain amount of consumer expectation. If businesses failed to match this then consumers would respond in reduced spending, and we know what that does to businesses.

Also the idea of collecting taxes on the underground economy as well as bringing back all that money that is offshore is very appealing. People and businesses could make as much money as they possibly could without fear of being taxed more.

I think what we're finding out is that we have a bunch of CINO's :-) Conservatives In Name Only! Seems like a True Conservative (hmm where have I heard that criticism before) would support getting rid of the IRS and untaxing productivity.

Fair Tax would bankrupt me overnight
As a small businessman who does business requiring cheap electronics from huge suppliers that I must buy wholesale, but can't because I'm too small (they won't set me up with an account that gives me better deals that what I can get mail order), so I'd be paying 30% taxes on my supplies which I'd have to get reimbursed. Sounds like no problem except that I make only 10% profit - I'd need $80K up front to hold me over until the national sales tax reimbursement comes in the mail. It would sink me dead in the first month.

Thats just one way it would kill my business. See the next post for another way it will kill my business.

Another way it would bankrupt me
I set up family websites for consumers (not businesses) that are customized - far better than what social networking websites offer. My competition is worldwise. The only reason people go with me is because I'm cost competitive, as the other sites do all their customer service via web-based forms, and they have english speakers if someone needs to talk on the phone.

The moment "fair tax" goes into practice my prices will have to go up 30%. Not so with my competitors. Since the product is all digital and on the internet, being in the US provides no advantage - in fact costing 30% more.

I'd have to move to Canada or somewhere else just to stay in business.

No such thing as a free lunch
Embedded taxes, double taxation, yada yada...

It all ends up as income for the federal government that must be replaced one way or another. Sure the IRS load isn't as great - but they consume what ... maybe 1% (guessing out loud) of the total tax load? I'd be surprised if even that.

Point is that it's true that embedded taxes, double taxation, whatever you want to call it does indeed disappear with the fair tax, and that's a problem. Fair tax proponents claim that it's a blessing to make this tax disappear, as if those taxes are being swallowed up by some mythical monster that doesn't produce anything useful.

Well, it isn't mythical, it's real and that monster is called the federal government, and it produces security, education, welfare, legal system, interstate services, etc. Those taxes don't disappear- they get added to the National Sales Tax burden.

No more hand-waving math here, people. You're just embarrassing yourselves.

Non issues addressed
"We can't control our government and get the FairTax passed."

Our Constitution was written by men that firmly believed that government should be of the people, by the people and for the people. If the people rise up and demand a change it must be done. If politicians try to stand in the way we can kick them out of office. We have the power and it's time to use it because the current tax system is irretrievably broken greatly slowing our economy, depriving us all a better standard of living.

"Inclusive tax hides the tax."

The FairTax is planned to be included in the price on the shelf, however, when you pay at the register it will be totaled on the receipt. Far more visible than the current taxes where corporate, payroll and other businesses taxes are hidden in the price of products. Many people never pay attention to withholding and payroll taxes on their paycheck stubs.

"Congress will fiddle with it."

Not likely because anything they do that raises the tax like trying to increase the prebate will result in an increase of the FairTax which everyone pays the same rate and sees clearly on their receipts. Currently congress could raise your tax rate and you might not know about it until a year later when you're filling out your taxes. Also congress loves to raise taxes in hidden ways like raising corporate taxes that are simply passed on to us in higher prices. The whole point of withholding and payroll taxes is to grab your money before you even have a chance and so that people get used to not noticing anything but their take home pay. Did you notice the last few points of increase in your payroll taxes?
continued...


Non issues addressed 2
continued from above...
"Will still have the IRS"

Read the FairTax bill, HR 25. HR 25 completely dismantles the IRS. To keep congress from rebuilding it in the future we have to repeal the 16th amendment. To address concerns we might end up with 2 tax systems Rep. Linder plans to add a provision in the next session of congress that will make the FairTax unlawful if the 16th amendment is not repealed within 5 years of the passage of the FairTax.

Currently the IRS is a power unto itself, answerable to no one, completely in defiance of the concept of separation of powers. It enforces and sets its own "laws" and punishments and it is the most tyrannical arm of our government. The abuses of power of the IRS are legendary.

The founding fathers all turned in their graves on the passage of the 16th amendment; the only taxes they ever considered were consumption taxes. The first taxes were excise taxes on imports. The execution of the IRS is long past due.

It is no coincidence that the 2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto is: “a heavy and progressive income tax;” that's where our "progressive" thinkers got the idea.

"The administration of the FairTax will be too hard or expensive."

80% of all tax returns are eliminated. What remains for businesses to file is orders of magnitude easier. It is estimated that the federal administration will costs 1/5 what the IRS costs today.

The states will collect the tax and 45 or so already have state sales taxes and thus the administration which the FairTax will just piggyback on to. They will have the incentive of ¼ of 1% of the FairTax collected they get to keep for administration. Most likely the other 5 or so states will adopt their own FairTax and switch their income tax administrations to FairTax. They have plenty of other states’ experiences to help them with the switchover.
continued below...

Non issues addressed 3
continued from above...
Form and mail processing and writing checks are all things our government does well, some would say too well. It's all automated today. There's no army of people stuffing envelopes.

Applications for the prebate will use Social Security numbers to verify who is entitled to how much of a prebate. This is a simple check to a database to see if a number has already been used or not. Computers from 10-15 years ago could already do this at lightening speed. If there is Social Security fraud then we should enforce the laws. That’s not a FairTax issue as much as it is a general law enforcement issue.

Since the early 90s, economists started taking advantage of the cheap and readily available processing power of the computer revolution. They worked on sophisticated programs designed to model the economy in fine detail. In 1997 congress held a symposium where economists showed and explained the results of their models. Unanimously they showed consumption taxes are the best at improving the economy for everyone.
continued below...

Non issues addressed 4
continued from above...
So why hasn’t congress passed into law some kind of consumption tax? They have wasted 10 years or more of economic growth for what purpose? Apparently it’s more important to them to keep the power to control and manipulate us through the tax code than economic growth that benefits us all. With the ever escalating debt of entitlement programs we need all the economic growth we can get or in 20 years or so there will be major problems just paying the interest on the debt. The sooner we act the less the impact will be, possibly even restoring the Social Security trust fund. Economic growth is like compound interest in that the sooner you start and/or the higher the rate the better the end result.

We can no longer allow our politicians to pass the buck to the next guy. We must rise up and demand the FairTax, minor problems or not, for its promise of economic growth that will allow our children to attain the quality of life we have enjoyed and possibly even better.

David Austin
How much do you pay in taxes now? Have you tried the FairTax calculator?

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=calculator

Economic growth is good for everyone.

tax
Fair tax would only work if they did away with the 16th amendment. You don't want both. Fair tax would have to have caps on percentage. Look at the tax rate on cigarettes as an example of sales tax without percentage caps.

Embedded Tax is WRONG - Other problems!!
I don't understand claims that the "embedded tax" is 23% or 30%. Is it the same percentage for every business? Absolutely not!

Most businesses have FICA and payroll taxes, and possibly a tax on profits, but these amounts vary wildly depending on how many employees the business has compared to its sales, and on their actual profits, if any.

In many businesses, these so-called "embedded taxes" won't add up to anywhere near the magic 23%/30%, yet the Fair Tax plan wants consumers to pay that amount regardless of the type of goods they buy. How is this fair?

I am also still not convinced that retired people will not get double-taxed when they spend their savings which was taxed under the current system. Yes, I have read responses saying saying this isn't true, but I don't buy it.

How can what's left of one person's saved income AFTER BEING TAXED under the present system be on equal footing with someone else's UNTAXED income under this so-called Fair Tax? Answer: It can't. In each of these cases the individual will pay the same 23%/30% tax when purchasing goods. I don't need to do any math to see that this is unfair! In order to be on equal footing, a tax waiver (or "prebate") will be needed for the individual spending from his or her ALREADY-TAXED savings, otherwise he or she IS being taxed twice! We want this to be "FAIR" right?

Maybe the government should give people $23 or $30 for every $100 that they have in savings. Yea, that'll fly! :)

My point is that this Fair Tax plan is loaded with problems, yet some people seem convinced that it is the greatest thing since sliced bread!


The FairTax DOES apply to non-profits.
The author is incorrect. The FairTax does tax non-profit purchases that are not for resale or export. As Kotlikoff states in his AFFT funded research (http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/TaxingSalesUnderFairTax.pdf):

“The FairTax taxes nonprofits’ sales of goods and services to individuals and their purchases of goods and services that are not sold on to individuals, including capital goods.”

He shows non-profits paying ~$36 billion in FairTax in 2007.

I've emailed Mr. Phelps. We'll see if he corrects this article or not.

dculling
I can see you did your homework....unlike most posters on here...THANK YOU for clearing up those issues

Bowyer never even read the plan
In the original article, when Bowyer asked this question:

Q: Are used goods taxed?

I knew immediately that he had never even read the FairTax Plan. Bowyer is taking alot of grief for his January 9, 2008 column and rightly so. People who haven't even read the Fairtax Plan really shouldn't be offering comment on it.

CommonSense
The differences in savings for different industries are listed in Thr FairTax Book. They go from a low of 15% for leather goods to a high of 27% for trade industries. It appears to me it depends mainly on the price of labor in the individual industries.

The study that determined those did not consider the costs of complying with the tax code; time, accountants, learning etc. Compliance costs are everything spent just to be able to fill out taxes. AFFT uses the figure of $265 billion that is wasted yearly in compliance costs. However, as I mentioned in an earlier post the true costs could 1 trillion or more.

Compliance costs also hit small business the hardest. They tend to around $700+ just to pay $100 in taxes. This sounds high but consider they are forced to use an accounting practice which is really not suited to business needs. This wastes a considerable amount of time which is money.

continued...

CommonSense 2
continued from above...
Any employee that pays taxes now must earn that money from their employer. The employer considers that's all part of the costs of labor and that cost is reflected in the price of the product or service. Of course the employer buys supplies and his suppliers does the same thing and so on down the entire supply chain.

Businesses and employees get their money to pay taxes from the sale of their products or services which means you and I are really paying the taxes when we buy the product or service. The FairTax just brings those hidden taxes to the surface plus eliminates the excessive costs of compliance hidden in the product or service.

If you are living off of savings now you are probably paying taxes on the returns of those investments and all the embedded costs when you buy something. The FairTax will eliminate any tax on those investments. Plus you will get a prebate guaranteeing you won't pay any tax on spending up to the poverty level. Social Security will also get a cost of living adjustment to account for any increase do to the FairTax.

If anything we should be thinking about how to get all those taxes that were never paid with those pre-tax savings plan. Naa, will let that slide. :)

JohnnyM
You're welcome and thanks.


Fair tax problems ..............
First is the prebate. This sets up Congress to expand the prebate check for welfare distribution. A Democracy that votes a pay check from the public treasury is doomed.

Second is the savings of conservative people. Taxation will be double for these folks.

Third is the rate. I don't want an income neutral replacement for the IRS. Let us set the National sales tax at 15% exclusive and then let Congress adjust its spending to balance the budget. Actually I would like to see the sales tax go to 10% exclusive and do away with the prebate.

Fourth problem is Congress. Does anybody think that Congress will give up the IRS and throw away the power it gives them?

Deacon
Come on, I've already addressed these issues.

I do believe in reducing spending but that's a separate issue and has to stay that way so it can get passed.

The best argument against a fair tax
Forgive me if this has already been addressed, and for the record I am a staunch supporter of the fair tax. The one argument I to which I give credence is the double taxation on savings. I agree it would be unfair to tax people again for money that they saved over the years and were already taxed for. I think it would be prudent to offer a voucher type program for people who have saved X amount of money in savings on which they have already been taxed.
Also, some merit is given to the notion that it is actually a 30% tax because if 23 cents of every dollar goes to the tax, that means the average cost of the item is 77 cents, and thus 23 cents is 30% of 77. That must be made clear.
However, despite these honest concerns, the Fair Tax is wholly preferential to the current regressive system. For me, the most compelling reason goes as follows:YOU, AS AMERICANS, SHOULD NEVER BE FORCED TO REPORT YOUR INCOME TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AT THE POINT OF A GUN, AND THAT IS THE CURRENT SYSTEM. Of course there are details that need to be ironed out, but this fundamental principle ought to motivate all of us to figure those details out, thus we leave to posterity a more prosperous and FREE society.

dculling
writes 'Come on, I've already addressed these issues.'

Yes you did but Readers Digest summary is easier to read.

I agree spending will not be forced to go lower by changing the tax rate. But I also know that when people get accustomed to something they tend to fuss less. Impliment the Fair Tax at 30% exclusive and within a year the people will be desensitzed to the rate. So my worry is from where will the push to cut the rate come from? Most people are not engaged in the political process enough to wage a long battle. If the Fair Tax is passed the rate it starts with will be the lowest rate it will ever have.

Deacon
Do you think it is appropriate to have to report your income to the federal government or face punishment?

HankRearden writes
'Do you think it is appropriate to have to report your income to the federal government or face punishment?'

Of course not! The idea of freedom is at stake. To report to a government under duress is a form of enslavement. In the law system a statement given under duress is inadmissable.

The choice We the People have to make very soon is whether we want freedom or slavery. The government will provide slavery at the cost of our individual rights for freedom. Both parties are committed to large government (ie less freedom)so where do We the People turn?

If enough people care a viable third party will have to be raised from the ashes of the other two parties. Who will lead that third party? I hope it will be We the people.

Getting it passed
The only anti-fair tax comments that make any sense are those that question it's possible passage.
The supporters of fair tax continue to come in and over time it just might be enough.
I heard my congressman this morning saying he was against it for this reason only. He was then asked if he found that it might be able to get enough votes--would he then get on board. His answer was "Yes".

The "fair" tax is rather silly
If you wish to tax consumption, excise taxes are a lot easier to do and almost impossible to evade. But the very best tax system is a combination of asset taxation and excise taxation with all asset tax proceeds funding the right hand of government and all excise tax proceeds funding the left. Asset taxes are indirect and so too are excise taxes.

http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/Asset_Tax_System.php

The Trucker ...
Explain asset tax. If this is property tax then asset tax is even worse than income tax.

Phelps wrote:
Q: Isn't it that the rate is not really 23% but 30% at least, because it's tax inclusive?

Bowyer doesn't understand that inclusive and exclusive ways of computing rates don't change the dollar amount of the tax. Either way the tax is the same $23 per $100. Computed the same inclusive way as the income tax, the fair tax is $100 -$23 = $77. Computed the exclusive way it is $23 divided by $77. =30%. If you computed the income tax on the exclusive basis, the 25% bracket would be the 33% bracket, or $25 divided by $75 =33%. Either way it is the same $25 tax per $100.
****

Come on Vic,

Since Phelps said the exact same thing I did in the comments of Bowyer's column. Phelps may have said it better, but he made the same point I did. I'm waiting for you to accuse Phelps of being disingenuous too!

I really want to see you accuse a graduate of the University of Missouri-Columbia with degrees in economics and law, and who received scholarship and leadership honors of being disingenuous. Doing so will prove my point that those opposed to the FairTax will do or say anything to create the appearance of an issue to use against it.

The whole 23% vs 30% argument is a red herring argument to demagogue the FairTax.

Typically, critics of
the Fair Tax are ignorant of how it will operate. There is little else to explain those who believe the income tax is a superior system to the Fair Tax.

A NST Everyone Could Support
A consumption tax could garner more support if services/labor were taxed at a lower rate than new products. More US dollars would remain in domestic circulation putting Americans to work in service and repair, and less would be sent overseas to purchase cheap consumer goods. Such a plan would appeal to the labor unions, the environmentalists and the economists.

Deacon
I'd be completely in favor of requiring a 2/3 vote for any tax increase and a simple majority for a decrease. Better yet might be allowing to Fed to decrease the rate if they think the economy needs it, but in no way should the Fed be able to raise it. It could be another tool the Fed could use and better than just lowing the prime rate and printing more money which just causes inflation.

However, I seriously doubt we'd get many Democrats to vote for those ideas.

I believe seeing that 23% total on each and every receipt will encourage far more people to be engaged than what are currently. Imagine how many people when buying a new car will sit down and think, what if it was 1%, 2%, 3% ect less, how much money they could save.

Since all new cash registers appear to be using inkjet like printers, maybe we could get the FairTax and it's total in bold or a bigger font or something where possible. I'd sure go for that.

I assume that the thought of more people being so engaged in the tax rate is a main reason it's mostly Democrats fighting it. Denying us the economic growth is also denying themselves the increased revenues from that growth and their opposition doesn't make one bit of sense to me.

I think we should start it at 20% because that's a nice round number :) and because I think we will have enough growth in the economy that will make up the difference. However, that will never get the support of Democrats.

What We Need
What we need , but most likely will never happen,is a televised national debate. This debate would be solely about the FairTax verus the current tax code,a Flat Tax, and a VAT. The FairTax will win hands down. The entire 133 pages of the FairTax could be placed on stage next to the 60,000 plus pages of the current tax code.

Also people who write negatively about the FairTax never ever quote the FairTax, " AS WRITTEN." That's why there is much false information floating around.


Another benefit of the FairTax that is never mentioned is the fact that it would stop all this stupid commercials about helping you with the IRS.

There are many things I'd rather be doing than preparing everything for April 15th right now.

It's up to us
Hellernot writes:
"Getting it passed
The only anti-fair tax comments that make any sense are those that question it's possible passage."

I understand that arguement, but it's really based in feelings of hopelessness and powerlessness. It really is up to us and I say, come on let's do it. It will be fun showing those politicians who really runs this country.

Congratulations!
I started reading this thread with gritted teeth, expecting the usual inane comments from those who had not bothered to inform themselves about the FairTax before criticizing it.

Today I see people (with only a few exceptions) coming and being educated instead of just spouting their ignorance.

Good work! Keep it up!

Question for dculling...
What is Fair tax's projected impact on international trade and new jobs in USA?

Well,...
eddie writes:
Typically, critics of
the Fair Tax are ignorant of how it will operate. There is little else to explain those who believe the income tax is a superior system to the Fair Tax.
-------
Well, every critic is a potential convert. I know this because when I first heard about it I saw the 23% rate and said, "yeah right" and blew it off for months. It wasn't till I happened to catch Neal Boortz on the radio saying he'd talked to someone in upper management of a big chain store like Wal-Mart or Home Depot, but was not free to say which one. This person said that on the day the FairTax goes into effect they will lower all their prices by that exact amount. I went, "What!?" and started reading about it on the Internet and haven't stopped yet.

Yeah, I'm a convert. :)

dculling
Thank you for your insight and expertise. We convert them one at a time and if you didnt convert any on this thread--you certainly took the naysayers to task. Well Done!

Eddie
Typically, people who support the Fair Tax don't know much about it either. They certainly haven't done much serious thinking about it.

Do you know why carnival barkers make money? Because some people will buy anything. The Fair Tax is the shell game, 3 card monty and the old bait and switch all rolled together. They all play on a person's greed, and they use that to take advantage.

Look at the pitch. You get to keep all of your paycheck. You don't pay any more for goods and services. And you don't lose any government benefits because it is revenue neutral. It is enough to make one say, "Gee. This is too good to be true." Well, if it seems to good to be true, it usually is. And so it is with this.

Like so many politicians, the Fair Tax crowd is offering you something for nothing. When someone offers you a deal like that, check your wallet because it is about to get picked.

You suggest most of the opponents haven't read the supporting materials. I did. I even read the math. I once supported the Fair Tax. I read the documents so I could defend it to its critics. That is when I realized they were playing fast and loose with the numbers. They did a good job hiding the numbers, but the evidence is there. If more people read the material with a dispassionate eye, far fewer people would be taken in by the whole thing.

Debate
tkrop writes:
What We Need
What we need , but most likely will never happen,is a televised national debate...
------
I've often said the same thing myself. Even opponents should welcome a debate.

I already know what the result will be. I've been reading about all the different econometric models used to test several different tax ideas in a paper from the 1997 Joint Committee on Taxation Tax Modeling Project and for economic growth the consumption tax wins hands down.

Other tax reform plans sacrifice growth for things like an easier transition period or ease of enforcement. Growth is number one in my book. Others may think different.

I found a downloadable copy of the of the Joint Committee on Taxation Tax Modeling Project and 1997 Tax Symposium Papers.

http://www.house.gov/jct/s-21-97.pdf

Not very easy to read but full of info.

dculling
Can I interest you in an Amway dealership?

dculling
"Growth is number one in my book."

Since you claim to understand the economics of the Fair Tax, explain what happens to an economy with 5% unemployment that experiences 10% GDP growth. Explain what happens when average net income jumps 15-25%. Explain what happens when an entire industry employing hundreds of thousands of people is eliminated with the stroke of a pen.

Point taken zapdoodat
but not specifically to tax personal incomes. That's why the 16th Amendment was passed, settling that debate in favor of those who wanted to broaden the federal government's reach.

I still say it's unconstitutional, and one can debate on that point.

Hillary delenda est.

JJ
Your anti fair tax argument is overwhelming and full of facts and data. Clearly fair tax is a way to get power and money for the---how did you say it "fair tax crowd" or something like that. In my 34 years in accounting I dont think I've ever seen the "carnival barker" argument used so well. Sort of sums everything up. Thanks for sharing.

READ THE BOOK
I am continually amazed at the ignorance of those who criticize the "Fair Tax". Please note I said "ignorance" not "stupidity". Ignorance can be cured through education, stupidity cannot.

Those who criticize the "Fair Tax" have probably not read the book. Most likely they read some article about someone said that someone said that someone wrote .... READ THE BOOK.

There has been and will always be an underground economy. There has been and will always be cheaters. At least the "Fair Tax" brings more out into the open.

Politicians do not like this idea because it reduces their control over you.

There is also a new book that will be published soon that will answer the critics of the "Fair Tax". Another book that will help you better understand economics is: "Basic Economics", by Thomas Sowell.

Tibby

Foreign Trade
Deacon writes:
Question for dculling...
What is Fair tax's projected impact on international trade and new jobs in USA?
-----
From page 106 The FairTax Book:
"Economists estimate that in the first year after the FairTax Act becomes law, the economy will grow by 10.5 percent. Exports will grow by 26 percent. And capital spending will increase by more than 70 percent. Increases in capital spending make the American worker more productive, and their paychecks
increase in exact correspondence with that spending."

Consider too once businesses are tax free how many foreign companies will relocate here. I saw a study somewhere that said 500 foreign companies were asked if they would consider relocating here after the passage of the FairTax. 400 said they definite would and the rest said they would certainly consider it.

Detroit made Mercedes Benz anyone?

JJBiener
Let's see this proof of funny math you're talking about. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air.

Hellernot
Please feel free to weigh in on any or all of the questions I asked dculling above. I would be fascinated to read your take on them.

Since you are an accountant, I have one for you. How can you eliminate all taxes on corporations, capital gains, etc., plus give everyone a tax break and still stay revenue neutral? Don't tell me to read the book. I've read the book. I have read the white papers. I've worked through the math. Show me I am wrong.

Deacon -
"What is Fair tax's projected impact on international trade and new jobs in USA?"

The FT gives domestic mfg a leg up by reducing the cost of production, especially for goods exported and sold overseas. If your competitor has to pay corporate taxes and you don't, all other things being equal, you can sell your product for a lower price and still maintain the same net margin as your competitor. This gives you a larger market share, induces you to build a larger facility and hire more Americans to work for you.

It also motivates your foriegn competition to build their next plant here in the U.S. And that's not a bad thing either since they will use domestic construction materials and hire Americans to work in their new facilities.

Fair Tax /question
It appears for the Fair Tax (FT)to succeed, everyone's gross wages before FT has to be reduced to their take home pay (not technically correct) after FT implemented.

Example: Gross wage before FT is 3000/mo and take home is 2400/mo. Person can buy 6 widgets at 400 apiece before FT. If person keeps gross wages after FT and prices stay the same, person could buy 7.5 widgets (3000/400). If businesses cannot reduce their costs for personal income tax, the assumption that prices will stay the same is not possible.

FT proponents have not discussed this aspect because it would bring up major problems in the implementation of the FT. IE how to implement the reduction in wages on a national basis in a fair and consistent manner.



Growth
JJBiener writes:
dculling
"Growth is number one in my book."

Since you claim to understand the economics of the Fair Tax, explain what happens to an economy with 5% unemployment that experiences 10% GDP growth.
-----
Demand for labor rises and thus wages. If necessary we can increase legal immigration. Companies can invest in more automation like robotics and on the job training from grunt laborers to technicians to run and maintain the new equipment.
-----
Explain what happens when average net income jumps 15-25%.
-----
Demand will rise for certain goods. Prices will rise for those with inelastic supplies. Over time companies will improve production to meet demand then prices will fall back down.

Most necessities of life have plenty of substitutions and many producers so there will be many low prices alternatives almost immediately.

Savings and investment will grow too.
-----
Explain what happens when an entire industry employing hundreds of thousands of people is eliminated with the stroke of a pen.
-----
The former IRS employees and other tax accountants could find work in the expansion and growth of business. They will be needed to help businesses make better business decisions instead of tax decisions. Their math skills would be most useful helping business be more efficient, improve quality, reduce costs and pollution and generally more competitive and profitable.

They will find life more challenging, but also more rewarding spending their time doing something useful instead of pointless mind-numbing paper pushing.

JJBiener
Since you don't favor the fair tax. What kind of tax system would you like to see?

Revenue Neutrality
JJBiener writes:

How can you eliminate all taxes on corporations, capital gains, etc., plus give everyone a tax break and still stay revenue neutral?
------

Mainly by widening the tax base then eliminating waste and inefficiency.

Currently there are approximately 300 million Americans of which only around 150 million pay federal taxes. I think it's safe to assume all 300 million buy things or have things bought for them so would be paying the FairTax

Of those that don't pay federal income taxes some are so wealthy they have their wealth stashed away in tax free investments like municipal bonds or in offshore accounts.

Then there's the underground economy estimated to be 1 - 1.5 trillion consisting of criminals, illegals and whatnot.

There certainly is no free lunch, but there are separate tickets to share the tab.

JJ
Don't forget that it isnt just the tax--it's the compliance! If corporations dont have to fill out the papers and send in the payroll taxes every week--you'd be surprised how much they would save (read higher profit margins or lower prices). Now multiply that by all the other returns they must constantly mess with and if all we saved on this was the cost of compliance--well it's huge and makes us much more competitive in the world market. I know our company is ready to lower prices the day this is enacted.
To your question---all those revenues are still there--they've just taken another form. Instead of in this case---corporations--sending in the money--the retailer sends it in.
I'm not saying that 23% is the right number and perhaps this has to be adjusted--I dont care--even if it is raised substantially--we will still save a ton (compliance).

prbob writes:
"If businesses cannot reduce their costs for personal income tax, the assumption that prices will stay the same is not possible."

Hey Bob, employee wages are a fixed expense. If I pay you $100, I must add my "contribution" of FICA to what you cost me, so my total expense of hiring you is $107.65. On the other hand, you also "contribute" to FICA paying the same percentage, so you would net $92.35 before income taxes are deducted.

If the FT is enacted, I would pay you the entire $100 and pocket the $7.35 that I had to pitch in.

YOU: Take home 100% of your wage.
ME: Lower my employee costs by 7.65%. Plus I no longer have any Corporate income tax liability, plus I can reduce my compliance costs, plus I can make better intrinsic business decisions in stead of first having to call my CPA and Atty every time I want to buy new equipment or make other business related (vs tax related) choices in making my company more efficient. Take each of these "EMBEDDED" components of cost into consideration and I could easily lower my prices to my customers while maintaining my previous net profit margins.

prbob
"If businesses cannot reduce their costs for personal income tax, the assumption that prices will stay the same is not possible."

Your statement has me confused. Once the "Fair Tax" is implemented there will be no personal income tax. What is your point ? Maybe it hasn't been addressed is because it will not happen.

Your concern with a "fair and consistent manner" suggests that you are not aware of the present inconsistencies with the existing tax code. Not that I should criticize, I don't know that it is possible for anyone to understand the incredibly complex existing tax code. Even the IRS does not understand the tax code.

I am at loss to understand your analysis that everyone's wages will have to be reduced for the "Fair Tax" to work. Have you read the book??

Here's a question I have for you. How many businesses purchase other businesses in an attempt to avoid paying corporate taxes. If they can keep more money in their pocket by buying a business and then writing it off as it is run into the ground why would they want to pay the taxes. If their motivation has changed under the "Fair Tax" system to one of pure profit that will not be taxed, as opposed to the existing system which encourages buy-out decisions on the basis of reducing tax liability, what will that do to employment ?

Here is a fact that is often overlooked. Poor people do not employ others, only "rich" people and corporations do that. If you punish productivity you will get less of it. If you reward unproductive businesses and people, you will get more of those. Which philosophy would promote economic growth?

The 'Fair Tax" has been designed to be revenue neutral...and simple.

Tibby

Joe, I will elaborate
It is my understanding that the 23% embedded tax includes the personal income tax component plus other taxes such as employer FICA, etc.

Although individuals pay it, it is part of a business's cost. Going back to my example, the business does not care how it pays the 3000. If it pays 2400 to the person and 600 to the government, the business still has a cost of 3000 for that person. For the business to reduce its costs for all of the embedded portion, its employees have to have their wages taken down to "take home pay". Otherwise business would not be able to lower their costs to reduce the price.

If the wages stay at gross after FT, there would be a immediate say 10-15% increase in prices because that embedded component was not taken out of the costs of the business. The impact on prices would be harmful to people with after tax savings

Fair tax/imports
I'm surprised that there hasn't been discussion of this. What I see as one of the biggest factors in the fair tax, is that it will tend to make US-produced goods and services cheaper relative to foreign imported ones (to the extent that the 23% number is correct for the so-called embedded taxes, obviously that is irrelevant for any imported good).

Of course, some of this assumes that workers will be willing to have their stated wage-rates reduced to the value of their take-home pay, and things like that. Also that owners/stockholders will have to be willing to have dividends and distributions reduced as well to reflect "after tax" net.

Still undiscussed is why the proponents think the states will administer the tax, and what the effect will be on the 43 states with personal income taxes.

And replying to something way up the thread, repealing the 16th amendment will not stop the income tax. the 16th amendment only addresses the question of which rule (uniformity or apportionment) must be used in applying the income tax.

Tibby, yes I have read the book
If the personal income tax component is not taken out of the business cost, prices cannot be expected to remain the same after the FT is implemented. Go back to my example and reread it. If prices remain the same, a person would be able to buy more widgets after the FT than before the FT. If gross wages stay the same after FT and he can only buy the same number of widgets, it implies prices have increased to 500 per widget. FT proponents say prices will stay relatively the same so how can this be?

No wage adjustment
Not in the plan--where did that come from? Look you make 200K/year and I make 20K/year. You go out and buy a nice new boat and a new car. I go out and buy a can of beans and some whiskey. You pay a TON of tax and I pay very little. In fact this month my PREbate was more than the tax I paid on my essentials--so next month I'm moving up to Crown!
That's all there is to it. Nobody had their pay adjusted.

I've never quite heard...
...a completely honest analysis of the Fair Tax. If the 23% (or 30%) rate is supposed to represent all of the embedded taxes associated with the product. Therefore, if all the other taxes are done away with and replaced with the Fair Tax, the price of goods should remain substantially the same. The problem is that the taxes that an employee pays on his income are included in those embedded taxes and in order to do away with that cost, employees would have to be paid on a gross basis the same amount that they take home after taxes today. This leaves the average worker in exactly the same situation that he's in under the current system.

There's nothing wrong with this, but it is often overlooked by proponents when they discuss the benefits of the plan. The whole point of the Fair Tax is to be revenue neutral. Therefore, the average person must come out exactly the same under either scenario, with different individual's outcomes varying based on their circumstances.

The value of the Fair Tax to my mind has nothing to do with it saving money to the average taxpayer. The value has to do with its transparency. When Joe Taxpayer can look at one number to find out what he's paying in taxes, it's easier for him to see any fluctuations, and thus it encourages him to put pressure on the federal government to keep costs low. This pressure should eventually result in smaller government, which is where the savings come in.

FairTax SCHEME embedded tax myth
One of the supposed selling points of the FairTax SCHEME is that there is, on average a 22% hidden tax on everything we currently buy and this tax will be removed when the FairTax SCHEME is passed, removing this tax will lower the price of an item 22% and this will defray the 23-30% proposed consumption tax that will replace the income tax. The myth perpetrated by the FairTax SCHEME zealots is that the price of everything will remain about the same.

The 22% embedded tax that FairTax SCHEME zealots continue to claim will be removed from the price of an item is deceptive at a minimum and most likely an outright lie.

This is what they do not tell you.

The 22% is a AVERAGE figure derived from some mysterious voodoo formula AND FairTax SCHEME financed economists. I stress it is an AVERAGE of embedded tax on ALL items sold at retail. It has been stated in another column that the embedded taxes on a Ford car is close to 50%. Under the boortz/Simpson (as in Homer Simpson) tax you MAY be able to buy a new car once in a great while and get the 50% reduction in price plus the added 23-40% boortz/Simpson tax. Or a total reduction in out-the-door price to the consumer of 35% plus or minus 10%. Expensive jewelry, furs are about the same.

More



And now I see...
...that several people mentioned the same point while I was distractedly composing my post. Oh well!

FairTax SCHEME embedded tax myth
continued

But consider this: Joe Smith started the day early having set his alarm clock (made in Japan) for 6am. While his coffee pot (made in China) was perking, he shaved with his electric razor (made in Hong Kong). He put on a dress shirt (made in Sri Lanka), designer jeans (made in Singapore) and his shoes (made in Korea). After cooking his breakfast in his new electric skillet (made in India! ) he sat down with his calculator (made in Mexico) to see how much he could spend today. After setting his watch (made in Taiwan) to the radio (made in India) he got in his car (made in Germany) filled it with GAS (from Saudi Arabia) and continued his search for a good paying AMERICAN JOB. At the end of yet another discouraging and fruitless day checking his Computer (made in Malaysia), Joe decided to relax for a while. He put on his sandals (made in BRAZIL) poured himself a glass of wine (made in France) and turned on his TV (made in Indonesia). None of these items have an embedded tax that can be removed. There might be a small expense (incurring embedded taxes) in moving the item from the sea port to the retail outlet, but that is infinitesimal. Fresh foods do not have a big embedded tax either. Neither do the bananas From So America, lettuce from Mexico, beef from Brazil, lamb from New Zealand, fish from Japan, etc, etc, etc Therefore there will be NO REDUCTION in price of these things you and I buy on a regular basis. But the boortz/Simpson tax does ADD 30% consumption tax to the price.



To Sum it up

So you get a price increase of at least 30% on the things you buy on a regular basis and the guy occasionally buying a Ford or jewelry on rare occasions gets a 35% reduction in price.

Boy what a fair tax. That’s just one of the many reasons I refer to it as the boortz/Simpson tax (as in Homer Simpson).



The Assumption
It’s true that Dr. Jorgenson made a ridiculous assumption for his original work. He just assumed employees’ tax savings would reduce the costs to employers.’ This wasn’t caught by AFFT until after many things had already been printed like The FairTax Book. However, he did not consider the costs of compliance and how that savings would stack up through the supply chain. As I pointed out earlier compliance costs savings have the potential to be huge, but AFFT is using a very safe and conservative estimate.

I think it would be a good idea to try and keep final prices from rising permanently too high because of the tax. It would be a big help if employees would accept the idea of a pay cut equal to their share of payroll taxes of 7.65% which would not be bad considering most will still end up with more take home pay. It is after all a forced payment for government programs that will be funded a different way. As far as personal finances goes it’s a wash.

This would give businesses an immediate 15.3% discount on labor which is the highest cost for most things. Add that up with all the businesses taxes and compliance costs savings all down the supply chain and I wouldn’t be surprised if retail prices stayed about the same after the FairTax as before it.

I would like to see AFFT do best case – worst case scenarios. However, from what I’ve seen I suspect the data they give us now is already pretty much the worst case. I suppose the thought of 300 million pissed off Americans might have something to do with that lol.

There are old economists and bold economists, but there are no old bold economists. :)

Hellernot writes:
--so next month I'm moving up to Crown!
****

LOL!

Pessimists are forgetting...
Only businesses create wealth. Freeing them from all the loses in time, money and efficiency directly and indirectly related to paying taxes allows them concentrate almost all their time to creating wealth. Thus more total wealth created. How exactly does that hurt us?

All the pessimists keep forgetting the tremendous savings the businesses experience ends up coming back to us one way or another. It is therefore not a zero sum game. One way or another our buying power improves with the FairTax.

Average taxpayer will pay about the same
The nice thing about quoting the FairTax rate of 23% in an inclusive manner is that you can compare it directly to the income tax which is also computed inclusively.

All Americans pay 7.6% of their income (up to the cap) in FICA SS and Medicare taxes.
Most Americans are likely in the 10%-15% bracket - with an effective rate slighly lower. Just for the sake of argument - let's split the difference and say that the average effective rate is about 12.5%.

Under the current system, then, the average American already pays ~12.5%+7.6% or 20.1%.

How hard do you think it is to rack up another 3% in tax on individuals? (To match the proposed FairTax rate.)

Just the employer SS matching is 5%. If you add the fact that about 20% of Federal revenues come from Corporate taxes and assume that the costs are passed along to consumers, stockholders and employees (in the form of lower wages) - then I find it very easy to believe that the average American Taxpayer already pays (at least) 23% of their income under the current system. In fact, I suspect that the FairTax rate would be much higher than 23% if it didn't expand the tax base.

FairTax is designed to be revenue neutral. The poor (those who live within their means, at least) will be completely untaxed under the plan (compared to the 7.6% they currently pay in SS/Med) - which is good. Odds are that some income groups (likely higher up the income chain) are going to pay a little more than they do now to make up the difference. Odd are, the average American will pay about the same amount of taxes that they do now. It will simply be collected in a different way.

I fail to see how the FairTax concept can be doomed to failure when 45 states currently collect a sales tax. Why haven't their economies collapsed from fraud and evasion?

Foreign products
Frankly I couldn't care less if the prices of foreign produced goods rises. They've had an unfair advantage for far too long. With a level playing field I wouldn't be surprised if we start making those kinds of products, but with new robotic factories that produce at rates the entire Chinese army couldn't keep up with. To toxic Chinese products I say good riddance.

Hello to toxin free Matel toys made in the good old USA.

Where does the money come from?
According to Kotlikoff, the tax base for the Fair Fax is $11.2 trillion. I wondered where he got that number. It turns out that is the total of all personal income in the US. In other words, in order for the Fair Tax to be revenue neutral, everyone has to spend every dollar they earn on something that is taxable. The problem is that used homes and cars aren't taxed. Payments on existing home loans, car loans, etc. aren't taxed. State and local taxes aren't taxed. Savings and investments aren't taxed.

I think you can see where this is heading.

Further Thoughts
I am neither for or against the Fair Tax at this point. I am trying to understand the pluses and minuses.

The Fair Tax at a minimum will take a lot of power away from the political class which is a mighty big plus. It will furthermore, allow us taxpayers to realize how much money the Federal government is taking from us. We will see it everytime we buy something.

I do not buy that the IRS will go away. It might change names but it will still be there in one form or another because effort has to be made to collect the funds (If nothing else to maintain the prebate program). It may be in the states' role but it will be there.

Arguments like the 23 or 30% thing, prices will go up by 30%, everybody will get their gross wages,etc. are nonsense arguments meant to confuse and mislead the public.

I would like to see more rational discussions of how this plan will be implemented. For example, how do wages (dividends, interest) get adjusted to "take home pay",

which industries benefit the most by this plan and which ones are hurt (IE which catagories of prices will decrease the most and which ones will not decrease as much),

how are after-tax savings going to be treated to minimize the loss of purchase power of those savings.

what new powers will the government try to get to oversee the transition of this plan.

What about this idea:
Maybe someone has mentioned this already; I will admit that I have not read the 100+ comments posted so far. I expect that they contain the usual insults and counter-insults with a sprinkling of intelligent discourse.

Some (much?) of the resistance to the FairTax that I have encountered essentially boils down to fear of the unknown. The FairTax would be a very radical change from our current tax structure, and its proponents (of which I am one) must admit that we cannot predict all its ramifications and unintended consequences.

Other resistance comes from those who honestly believe that a Flat (income) Tax is just a better way to do things.

Why not combine the two?

Normally, I am not a split-the-difference kind of guy. However, in this case, it may be an easier sell to combine the approaches of the FairTax and a Flat Tax. Combining the two would mitigate whatever difficulties the FairTax might bring, while still being a MASSIVE improvement over the current system and (I believe) a significant improvement over any solely income-based tax system.

The obvious problem is the potential for mischief from the Congress-critters. This potential is inescapable, and their perpetual chicanery requires our constant vigilance.

Let's stop arguing FairTax/Flat Tax. We can do both, and still kill the IRS.

Just get rid of the central bank
And there would be no need for any income tax, or IRS.

dculling
After reading your response, I have come to the conclusion that your source for economic information is MAD Magazine. According to you the everything the Fed does to control the money supply is completely unnecessary. Brilliant.

JJBiener
JJBiener writes:
Where does the money come from?
According to Kotlikoff, the tax base for the Fair Fax is $11.2 trillion. I wondered where he got that number. It turns out that is the total of all personal income in the US.
-----
No it's 81% of GDP. He explains how he gets that number. He starts with NIPA data for consumption and then makes some adjustments.

JJBiener
JJBiener writes:
dculling
After reading your response, I have come to the conclusion that your source for economic information is MAD Magazine. According to you the everything the Fed does to control the money supply is completely unnecessary. Brilliant.
------
I never said what the Fed does is unnecessary. Controlling the money supply by printing money causes inflation though when it's used to try and stop a recession. Inflation robs us all by making our dollars worth less.

There was no need to be rude.

JJBiener
Again I ask, if you don't like the fair tax. What kind of tax structure would you like to see in place?

JohnnyM writes:
JJBiener
Again I ask, if you don't like the fair tax. What kind of tax structure would you like to see in place?
****

I have a feeling you will not get an answer.

Many of the FairTax opponents on TH refuse to answer that question because the few who have realise that almost any answer besides no tax at all turns out to be a worse idea even more full of loopholes, potential fraud, special interest exemptions, and fail to remove power from politicians and put it back in the hands of the people where it belongs.

Trolls
Me thinks the trolls fled.

Christopher Parisho
I am not holding my breath for a response. Most are ignorant on this subject or they think the job maybe on the line if the Fair Tax ever became law. Very shortsighted thinking on their part. Dculling I really enjoyed reading your post. I can tell your a person in the know.

JohnnyM
Thank you for your kind words. I have been spending basically all my free time reading about the FairTax and participating in discussions on the Internet. I'm glad to hear at least one person thinks I just might be helping.

Answer to the question
prbob writes: Tuesday, January, 29, 2008 2:08 PM
'gross pay 3000 take home pay 2400. With income tax buy 6 widgets @ 400 after FairTax widgets stay the same price and then you could buy 7.5 widgets with 3000 take home pay.'

Did I miss the answer? Would the 1.5 extra widgets a person could buy be from imports not lowering a full 22%?

I have not seen that question posted before or the answer to it.

dculling
Ever question thrown at you, you had the answer for. Unlike some who wouldn't response to my question. The tax code we have now punishes people who are productive. Why on earth would some want a tax code that does just that? Here is Pennsylvania we are having trouble with our lawmakers when it comes to doing away with the school property tax. A punitive tax to say the least. Here again we punish people who take care of their property with a higher tax. Just DOESN'T make sense to me.

FairTax experts help me out
There have been a lot of questions (most snide) about whether the embedded costs within goods and services includes more than just employer FICA and corporate taxes (and the ripple effect thereof within the supply chain.) There have also been questions about whether keeping your "full" paycheck means getting your gross pay (a defacto pay raise) or whether it means your pay will be reduced to what you currently take home - but 100% of THAT will be yours.

I have come to the conclusion that the embedded taxes assumption within the FairTax does (and must) include the income tax that employees pay. Here's why:

According to FairTax proponent (and FairTax book author) Neil Boortz - the price of goods/services will remain about the same after the adoption of the FairTax. He states that the 23% FairTax will simply replace the ~22% embedded costs contained within everything we buy. Okay, fair enough.

From this, I derive: a) Embedded costs in new goods services ~22% = b)FairTax 23% on retail of new goods/services at retail. (a = b) continued...

whatever twice
I don't think prbob was talking about imports. Prices should rise on imports because of the tax. However, it may depend on whether foreign producers are being subsidized by their governments or in some other way the producers are already making a good profit. Regardless they are not going to lose much American business without a fight.

I believe prbob original point was he didn't think it was possible for employees to take home gross pay and have prices remain the same. However he was forgetting about the tremendous wastes that producers have to put up with now just to comply with the income tax laws. AFFT estimates this at $265 billion, but I've seen that's a very conservative estimate when you consider other factors like the tax gap and efficiency gains.

Also if the widget maker is a small business they will realize even greater savings that they can pass on to lower prices because small businesses are hit the hardest trying to comply with the law. 80% or so of Americans work for small businesses.

My own assumption is that to keep prices close to where they are now with the FairTax included will probably require employees to give up their 7.65% of pay that now goes to payroll taxes. This makes sense to save the employer that cost because those programs are going to be funded from the wider base of the FairTax. Since no employee ever sees their payroll taxes as take home pay, most should find that acceptable since most if not all will have greater take home pay anyway.


FairTax experts help me out (cont.)
I also understand that the FairTax will replace the current taxes which generate federal revenue (income, SS, corporate, excise customs etc taxes).

(h/t:zapdoodat I haven't confirmed these nunbers but they look about right)

c: current sources of fed revenue
personal income tax - 39%
Social Sec, Medicare - 32%
Borrowing - 9%
Corporate income tax - 13%
Excise,customs,estate - 7%
gift and misc. taxes

So, from this I derive: b)FairTax 23% on retail of new goods/services at retail = c) current sources of federal revenue. (b = c)

Ergo, if a = b, and b = c then a = c. "a" being the embedded costs ~22% within new goods and "c" being all the current taxes that produce federal revenue.

Unless I'm wrong, then the embedded costs do and must contain the cost of individual income taxes.

JohnnyM
Check out Michigan's plan to replace all state taxes with a FairTax, even property taxes.
http://www.mma-net.org/content/pdf/tx_estimate-MIfairtax111 505.pdf

I looks like they are thinking ahead and planning for all those foreign businesses that are going to want to relocate here. What state will they pick? The one will the least taxes put on their businesses of course.

As I said earlier, how about a Detroit made Mercedes Benz?

FairTax experts help me out (cont.)
Slight correction to my last - obviously FairTax wouldn't replace borrowing as a source of Fed income!

So, unless I'm wrong about the embedded costs included all the cost of the current tax structure - including personal income taxes - I must accept a few things about the FairTax.

1) Either you will get a "pay raise" equal to what you currently pay in income and SS taxes and prices of goods and services will also increase (by 23% less the costs of employer SS matching and corporate taxes) or...

2) You'll take home what you currently take home - paying no tax on any of that income and reporting none of it to the IRS (Woo-hoo!) - and prices will remain about the same as they were before (~22% embedded tax replaced by 23% FairTax.)

3) There will be a transition period. Employers may not be able to immediately reduce their labor cost (by paying employees what they used to take-home rather than their previous gross pay.) In addiiton, the embedded costs in goods and services will not disappear overnight. In a perfect world these two things would adjust in opposite directions at roughly the same rate (i.e. wages would fall to current take-home levels as prices fall back to their original levels.)

Unless I'm mistaken, the current FairTax book talks about this very thing in a revised chapter. The original version said you would get the defacto pay raise ("keep all your salary!") AND prices would remain the same. Obviously that can't be true and the authors (Boortz and Linder) say so.

Somebody set me straight if I'm wrong. I'm a FairTax supporter, but I wan't people to understand what they are buying.

dculling
"No it's 81% of GDP. He explains how he gets that number. He starts with NIPA data for consumption and then makes some adjustments."

I read the paper. It just happens to be the same figure as the national income, so the implications are the same regardless of how he calculated it. He is depending on people spending the equivalent of everything they earn on taxable items. Since many things would be exempt, the total revenue is going to fall short. When you add the fact that everyone will receive a check from the government, the deficit looms even larger.

If the proposed system is not revenue neutral, a whole list of problems crop up which haven't been discussed because of their claim of neutrality.

vipertrunk
In an earlier post I discussed how Dr. Jorgenson apparently just assumed employees would willing give all tax savings to help their employers reduced costs. From an employees point of view that was a silly assumption, but of course Dr. Jorgenson was looking at it in a different way. He also did not include all the possible savings from compliance, tax gap and efficiency gains; these can be huge.

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/WhatTheFederalTaxSystemIsCosting You.pdf

I think that shows that the AFFT is playing it safe with conservative estimates. I've seen other documents that suggests AFFT is playing it safe in other ways too.

The AFFT was kinda caught by surprise by Dr. Jorgenson's assumption and they'd already had printed many documents like The FairTax Book.

dculling
"Controlling the money supply by printing money causes inflation though when it's used to try and stop a recession."

I am hoping you are using the term "printing money" as a metaphor and you don't really thing the money supply is amount of paper money in circulation. If that is what you believe, this whole conversation has been a waste of time.

As to the substance of this statement, expanding the money supply is only inflationary if the economy is at full employment. This is why I asked my initial questions. Specifically, what happens to an economy that experiences 10% growth with 5% unemployment? The answer is inflation, which as you noted rob us all.

As for my statement being rude, yeah, it probably was, but I asked three serious questions and your response was essentially the economy will fix it. The economy really doesn't work that way.

Excessive growth (ie more than 4-5%) causes inflation. Inflation will cause the Fed to jack up interest rates. Higher interest rates will sink the shaky real estate market and ripple through the entire economy. And so the dominos fall.

Growth in and of itself is not always good. Only controlled growth is. Uncontrolled growth leads to uncontrolled contractions, and from my read of history, we don't want to go through that.

JohnnyM
"Again I ask, if you don't like the fair tax. What kind of tax structure would you like to see in place?"

I'm sorry. I missed this question yesterday. I hate to disappoint Mr Parisho, but I will answer it.

My preference is for a simplified income tax, preferably a flat tax with an exclusion for all income under 2x poverty level. This income tax would apply to capital gains, but only when the income is realized. It would not apply as long as the income remains invested either in the same instrument or in another.

I would like to see the IRS code rewritten from scratch with all the incentives and disincentives removed. I think tax code that favors one industry over another or favors one group over another should be considered either the fulfillment or the solicitation of a bribe and dealt with accordingly.

Is all this realistic? Probably not, but then neither is the "Fair Tax." Then again, you asked what I favor, not what I believe will actually happen.

JJBiener
"Those amounts sum to $11.244 trillion dollars, representing 81 percent of 2007 U.S. gross domestic product as projected by the CBO."

The chart with GDP only goes up to 2005 so where did you get it?

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nom inal)
United States 13,194,700

JJBiener writes:

"As someone who spent a large portion of his college career sitting through math classes, I can tell you that the results you get out of an analysis depend greatly on the assumptions you take into the analysis."

"I think you can see where this is heading."

"I have come to the conclusion that your source for economic information is MAD Magazine."

"Can I interest you in an Amway dealership?"

dculling
The figure of $265 billion in compliance costs applies to the collection of all taxes, not just business. The source of the number I believe the the Tax Foundation. The amount from business which could be figured into the embedded costs in $148 billion.

This number can't simply be added into the equation because most of this will still have to be spent to comply with state and local taxes. The amount of compliance spent by individuals will be fed back into the economy, but the vast majority of that is now spent by high income earners and most people will see little benefit. The $30 I spend on TurboTax each year is not going to make me rich.

dculling
I was not forgetting about compliance costs in my example but was focusing on the economics of a business to reduce costs enough to get to the 22%.

My own opinion is that those compliance costs are not as onerous as the FT proponents indicate or it will be somewhat replaced by compliance costs to maintain the FT system. My own experience says compliance costs for a business is way less than 1% of its total costs to do business. It is even less for small business owners who just like to complain.

Labor including salaries, ins, taxes, etc., account for 30-35% of a manufacturer's total costs. Thus the FICA of 15.3 time 30% = approx. 5% which leaves 17% remaining for other embedded taxes. If I assume that 15% of labor costs are employees withheld taxes, another 5% can be subtracted leaving 12% to be covered by reduced prices for material (material cost of sales) and other services in G&A, sales and Corp Income tax.

I do not know what percentage or amount of govt revenue is from estate taxes but I hope it is not too big. Businesses do not pay estate taxes so its cost cannot be reduced for that.

As you can tell, I am very concerned what inflationary impact the FT may have on the economy during the transition years.




JJBiener writes:
I hate to disappoint Mr Parisho, but I will answer it (JohnnyM's question).

My preference is for a simplified income tax, preferably a flat tax with an exclusion for all income under 2x poverty level.
****

No disappointment. At least you have to courage to do so when others do not.

As for your preference, what it tells me is that by supporting an income tax of any type you wish to continue empowering the politicians, punishing those who work hard for their earnings, and discouraging people from wanting to strive to use their skills and abilities to advance themselves in life.

All income taxes are punitive. By taking a cut off the top of every persons earnings they are little by little giving the people the message that if they work hard someone else will come take what they worked hard for.

I like the idea of a flat tax, but not on income. Apply the flat tax logic to another method of collection and I'd be fine with it. The FairTax does this by taxing consumption, similar to excise taxes, but instead of applying it to specific items it applies it to any new good or service.

Excise taxes and Tariffs are what the Federal Government operated on for over 150 years. They managed to do the job of the federal government but had the hard limit of excise and tariff revenue to keep the size, spending, and political power in check. Once an income tax was put in place spending increased, new massive government programs were developed which increased spending even more, and the power hungry saw politics as a career rather than a duty as our fore fathers did.

I am
with JJ on this one. I was kind of considering it when I read an article by Gary D. Halbert comparing the pros and cons of the Fair Tax and the Flat Tax. To be honest, he wasn't impressed with either one.

I get it, however...
dculling writes:

"In an earlier post I discussed how Dr. Jorgenson apparently just assumed employees would willing give all tax savings to help their employers reduced costs... He also did not include all the possible savings from compliance, tax gap and efficiency gains; these can be huge."

I'm with you. However, if 39% of Fed revenue is from personal income taxes - $1.13T - the compliance cost savings are going to help, but they aren't going to replace this revenue.

The fact remains that many FairTax supporters are still saying what AFFT/Boortz/Linder originally said which is: a) You'll keep your full paycheck and b) Prices will remain the same despite the addition of the 23% FairTax (due to embedded costs).

What they should really be saying is a) the amount of money you have to spend will remain unchanged and b) the things you spend money on will cost about the same.

Now, all the other benefits of the FairTax - business investment, the return of offshore capital, economic growth, compliance savings, untaxing the poor, stripping power from politicians in DC, growth in the economy... I believe in all of these things.

I just wish people would stop distorting the FairTax as a panacea that will put more money in your pocket while simultaneously filling the government's coffers to the same level without impacting the price of goods/services. You can do 2 out of 3 (you pick) but you can't have all 3 unless (until) the economy expands.



Parisho
"...what it tells me is that by supporting an income tax of any type you wish to continue empowering the politicians, punishing those who work hard for their earnings..."

What this tells me is you are more interested in repeating platitudes than you are in having a real discussion.

"All income taxes are punitive."

All taxes are punitive. They only differ in the activities they punish.

"By taking a cut off the top of every persons earnings they are …giving … the message that if they work hard someone else will come take what they worked hard for."

If I had suggested a multi-tier progressive income tax, you might have a point. Since I didn't you are once again resorting to platitudes.

"I like the idea of a flat tax, but not on income... The FairTax does this by taxing consumption"

Consumption taxes are inherently regressive. All the prebate does in the Fair Tax is shift the regressive nature of the tax onto the middle class. I don't think you are going win many elections telling them they have to do the majority of the heavy lifting.

Parisho Cont.
"Once an income tax was put in place spending increased…."

You are using a "Post hoc ergto propter hoc" fallacy here. These things weren't caused by the income tax. Rather they were caused by the willingness of politicians to buy votes using the public treasury and the willingness of the electorate to be bought. These things would exist regardless of the funding mechanism. The Fair Tax is not going to do anything to alleviate these problems.

The best we can hope for from a taxation system is to fund the essential services of government while imposing the least distortion to the normal functioning of the economy. A simplified flat tax offers most of the benefits of the "Fair Tax" without the level of distortion to the economy caused by taxing the demand side of the equation.

I am not claiming the flat tax is perfect because no tax is perfect. It just imposes the least amount of damage to economy.

JJBiener writes:
I'm all for real discussion, but the moment someone challenges your preferred tax system you get a little defensive and dismiss people accusing them of repeating platitudes and using a "Post hoc ergto propter hoc" fallacy.

I agree, no tax is perfect, but IMO the FairTax is better than the Flat Tax because it executes all the benefits of a simple flat rate, but also removes the income taxation/with holding system which shifts power away from the politicians.

Yes, politicians wanting to buy votes caused the spending issues I cite, but they could not have done so to the degree they have if not for the income tax system. I said it the way I did not to blame the income tax system as the cause, I did it to point out that but for having it as a tool politicians would not be able to act as easily as they do today.

If we still funded the federal government as we did for 150 before the income tax was enacted the politicians would have only had the funds in the treasury or donations to their campaign funds to buy votes with, now they take our earnings (before we get it) and buy votes with it.

You appear to agree that politicians seek the power to do what they desire yet based on your comments here you still want to retain an income tax system, all be it a flat one, which grants them that power.

Parisho
If you wanted a real discussion why did you start out by accusing me of wanting to "continue empowering the politicians, punishing those who work hard for their earnings, and discouraging people from wanting to strive to use their skills and abilities to advance themselves in life?" Those are ideological platitudes. They are not the result of serious thought, nor are they serious arguments.

The tax code doesn't empower Congress with the power of the purse. The Constitution does. No tax legislation will prevent them using that power to enhance their own political careers. The only thing that will prevent them is when the electorate refuses to be bought. I am not holding my breath for that one.

If we were still funding the government the way the Founding Fathers envisioned, we would be at best a third-world nation. More likely we would be a client state of some superpower who was not so concerned about how it raised revenue.

For better or worse, our rise in world to the position of a superpower was financed by the income tax. As flawed as it is, it is an effective means of funding the necessary functions of government. Unfortunately, it is also an effective means of funding the egregious aspirations of politicians, but not even the "Fair Tax" addresses that.

If you want to argue in favor of the "Fair Tax" - fine, but don't try to argue that it would or even could disempower our representatives in Congress.

Wealth
Wealth is only created by businesses. It makes no sense at all to make them spend even one minute doing anything else. The more time they spend creating wealth the more wealth is created...for everyone.

Since businesses create all the wealth they also pay all the taxes, compliance costs, tax gaps and efficiency losses one way or an other and these are completely unnecessary burdens. I've pasted the link that shows these costs can be over 1 trillion and if you convert to today's dollars may even be 1.5 trillion or more. A Flat Tax will not relieve businesses of all of these burdens, the FairTax will.

Economic growth will not cause significant inflation especially with the return of dollars from offshore accounts.

Anyway, to be afraid of, say, 15% growth because you might lose 2% due to additional inflation seems silly to me.

The way evidence from the AFFT is just waved off and ignored suggests demagoguery to me.
------


I'll be happy to discuss the FairTax with anyone that really would like to learn about it. I would suggest checking any suspicious or negative statements at FairTax.org, especially from those that have been rude.

JJBiener
I didn't accuse you of anything...I said "what it tells me is" which is another way of saying based on your statement my impression or opinion is.

You had the chance to refute what my impression or opinion is, but thus far all you've done is take offence (maybe because there is truth to my opinion) or attack my opinion with labels that allow you to dismiss me (typical liberal tactic BTW).

As for you contention that if not for the income tax system we would be a "at best a third-world nation. More likely we would be a client state of some superpower"; now I believe you may just have gone and proven my opinion right with that gem of a statement.

This nation became a super power because we had the freedom to dream up new ideas, experiment with those ideas, and invent those ideas into products or services which we and the world wanted and would use. That freedom is a right to all in this nation thanks to our constitution, but with amendments like the 16th our freedom is slowly taken from the people and given to those we elect to office. Yes, we control the elections with our vote (do the degree that real voters out number dead people and pets who are registered and active voters), but because the income tax system hides the effective tax rates on us in its complexity the average citizen isn't aware of how bad things are and thus isn't motivated to take action and use their vote to make change.

You want to call my position an ideological platitude, but what