The FairTax - Page 15

i.beletesri · #**141** (**permalink**) 08-15-2008, 05:41 PM

Farcical FairTax is anything but

Atlanta Journal Constitution
Published on: 06/02/08

You don't have to have a degree in economics to see the failings of the proposed FairTax, although economists say there are plenty. You don't need to be a lawyer or an accountant to see where it would all go wrong, although lawyers and accountants who have studied the idea say it's unworkable.

All you need is the good sense your momma and daddy gave you, along with a knowledge of human nature.

The core of the idea is to replace the federal income tax, estate tax, capital gains and payroll tax with a 30% sales tax on all goods and services. And to offset the impact of a high sales tax on low-income Americans, every household in the country would receive a significant check every month from the federal government. This year, for example, a family of four would get a monthly rebate of $537, regardless of their income.

Human nature being what it is, tens of millions of households would quickly become addicted to that check. Each month, they would depend on the generosity of their dear Uncle Sam to help them make their car or house payment or buy groceries for their kids. And that ought to drive conservatives nuts. Their biggest fear is a populace that becomes dependent on government, and the FairTax would do more to encourage dependence on government than any program liberals have ever concocted. William F. Buckley would turn over in his grave at the thought that the FairTax was conservative.

Conservatives ought to hate the FairTax for another reason as well: It tries to make our tax burden invisible. Its chief sponsor, U.S. Rep. John Linder of Georgia, brags that by eliminating the income tax and the IRS, the FairTax will "make April 15th just another spring day."

That's fine if you don't care much about higher taxes. Without April 15, Americans would never have the chance to get outraged at seeing just how much they pay in taxes every year. Instead, under the FairTax, the federal tax would be safely hidden in the price of an item or service, where it would barely be noticed.

That creates a great temptation for politicians. A hidden FairTax of 30% could quietly become 30.5%, which becomes 31%, which becomes 31.5%, all without the taxpayer noticing a thing. A painless and invisible tax such as the FairTax ought to be a thinking conservative's nightmare.

So why do some who call themselves conservative embrace the FairTax? In part, they are attracted by the claim that Congress would no longer be able to help their friends and punish their enemies through the tax code. The FairTax would apply to all sales of services and new goods, with the sole exception of tuition. New houses would be taxed; medical care would be taxed; food would be taxed. Even the federal government would pay the tax to itself on goods and services. To FairTax advocates, that universality is one of its biggest selling points.

But it is also hopelessly naive. Passage of the FairTax would not change human nature or the nature of politics. Well-paid lobbyists would not stop begging Congress for special tax breaks on behalf of their clients, and nothing in the FairTax legislation could stop them. Oil companies would demand an exemption, hospitals would demand an exemption, farmers would demand an exemption, and those exemptions would be granted for the same reasons they are granted today.

Yet somehow a FairTax movement that believes in its heart that Congress is a corrupt servant to special interests has fooled itself into believing that very same Congress would become a stalwart champion of integrity under the FairTax. It is an act of willful self-deception.

Then there's the matter of fairness. At Fairtax.org, you'll find a calculator that purports to tell you how much you'll save in taxes under the FairTax.
I can almost guarantee that after you plug in your financial information, you will be promised significant tax savings.
My wife and I certainly would pay a Lot less. Based on their recently released tax returns, so would George and Laura Bush. Under the FairTax, their tax bill would fall by $54,000 on an income of more than $900,000.

That's interesting, because FairTax advocates claim the tax would raise just as much money as the current system. So if a couple with a million-dollar income pays a Lot less, who pays more?

After repeated experiments with the calculator, I finally found that household. A couple with two children, a rented home and income of $40,000 would pay $860 more.

In other words, to balance out the $54,000 tax cut for someone making a Million dollars a year, we would have to Raise taxes on 62 couples trying to raise their family on $40,000 a year.

And they call it a FairTax?

FairTax advocates claim that a lot of the missing revenue would come from illegal immigrants, but that too fails the common sense test. Those immigrants spend next to nothing on taxable services, from lawyers to barbers. They buy used cars, not new cars; used clothing, not new clothing. They send a lot of their earnings back home, where it would escape taxation, and what money they do spend here would probably end up in the underground economy that they themselves personify.

(Of course, Linder and others claim that with the FairTax, the underground economy wouldn't be a problem, even though common sense tells you that millions of people would be very motivated to evade a sales tax rate of at least 30%.)

But the bottom line is, none of it matters anyway.
FairTax supporters are being played for suckers by politicians who have signed their names in support of the proposal but have no intention of enacting such a crazy idea.

Look at the record. Linder's "Fair Tax Act" has been introduced in every Congress since 1999, drawing scores of co-sponsors. For 8 of those years, Republicans controlled both the House and Senate. Yet with all those co-sponsors and all that time under GOP control, FairTax legislation never got so much as one subcommittee vote on its provisions.

That's because Nobody, including its co-sponsors, takes it seriously. And if the idea was ignored when Republicans were in control, what does that say about its future under Democrats?

To make matters even more farfetched, Linder now wants to hold off implementing the FairTax until we also repeal the income tax and the 16th Amendment. So a group that lacks the muscle to get a subcommittee vote on their pet proposal is now going to amend the Constitution with two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate and approval of three-fourths of state legislatures?

Bullfeathers.

Of course, it's fair to wonder why anybody would even write about a bill that has no chance whatsoever of becoming law. I have two answers: One, I guess I'm bothered by the fact that so many well-intended people have been suckered into backing the idea; and two — well, I doubt I'll ever waste my time on it again.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/o...aned_0602.html

Cajun Controller · #**142** (**permalink**) 08-15-2008, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by i.beletesri

Farcical FairTax is anything but

Atlanta Journal Constitution
Published on: 06/02/08

You don't have to have a degree in economics to see the failings of the proposed FairTax, although economists say there are plenty. You don't need to be a lawyer or an accountant to see where it would all go wrong, although lawyers and accountants who have studied the idea say it's unworkable.

All you need is the good sense your momma and daddy gave you, along with a knowledge of human nature.

The core of the idea is to replace the federal income tax, estate tax, capital gains and payroll tax with a 30% sales tax on all goods and services. And to offset the impact of a high sales tax on low-income Americans, every household in the country would receive a significant check every month from the federal government. This year, for example, a family of four would get a monthly rebate of $537, regardless of their income.

Human nature being what it is, tens of millions of households would quickly become addicted to that check. Each month, they would depend on the generosity of their dear Uncle Sam to help them make their car or house payment or buy groceries for their kids. And that ought to drive conservatives nuts. Their biggest fear is a populace that becomes dependent on government, and the FairTax would do more to encourage dependence on government than any program liberals have ever concocted. William F. Buckley would turn over in his grave at the thought that the FairTax was conservative.

Conservatives ought to hate the FairTax for another reason as well: It tries to make our tax burden invisible. Its chief sponsor, U.S. Rep. John Linder of Georgia, brags that by eliminating the income tax and the IRS, the FairTax will "make April 15th just another spring day."

That's fine if you don't care much about higher taxes. Without April 15, Americans would never have the chance to get outraged at seeing just how much they pay in taxes every year. Instead, under the FairTax, the federal tax would be safely hidden in the price of an item or service, where it would barely be noticed.

That creates a great temptation for politicians. A hidden FairTax of 30% could quietly become 30.5%, which becomes 31%, which becomes 31.5%, all without the taxpayer noticing a thing. A painless and invisible tax such as the FairTax ought to be a thinking conservative's nightmare.

So why do some who call themselves conservative embrace the FairTax? In part, they are attracted by the claim that Congress would no longer be able to help their friends and punish their enemies through the tax code. The FairTax would apply to all sales of services and new goods, with the sole exception of tuition. New houses would be taxed; medical care would be taxed; food would be taxed. Even the federal government would pay the tax to itself on goods and services. To FairTax advocates, that universality is one of its biggest selling points.

But it is also hopelessly naive. Passage of the FairTax would not change human nature or the nature of politics. Well-paid lobbyists would not stop begging Congress for special tax breaks on behalf of their clients, and nothing in the FairTax legislation could stop them. Oil companies would demand an exemption, hospitals would demand an exemption, farmers would demand an exemption, and those exemptions would be granted for the same reasons they are granted today.

Yet somehow a FairTax movement that believes in its heart that Congress is a corrupt servant to special interests has fooled itself into believing that very same Congress would become a stalwart champion of integrity under the FairTax. It is an act of willful self-deception.

Then there's the matter of fairness. At Fairtax.org, you'll find a calculator that purports to tell you how much you'll save in taxes under the FairTax. I can almost guarantee that after you plug in your financial information, you will be promised significant tax savings. My wife and I certainly would pay a lot less. Based on their recently released tax returns, so would George and Laura Bush. Under the FairTax, their tax bill would fall by $54,000 on an income of more than $900,000.

That's interesting, because FairTax advocates claim the tax would raise just as much money as the current system. So if a couple with a million-dollar income pays a Lot less, who pays more?

After repeated experiments with the calculator, I finally found that household. A couple with two children, a rented home and income of $40,000 would pay $860 more.

In other words, to balance out the $54,000 tax cut for someone making a million dollars a year, we would have to raise taxes on 62 couples trying to raise their family on $40,000 a year.

And they call it a FairTax?

FairTax advocates claim that a lot of the missing revenue would come from illegal immigrants, but that too fails the common sense test. Those immigrants spend next to nothing on taxable services, from lawyers to barbers. They buy used cars, not new cars; used clothing, not new clothing. They send a lot of their earnings back home, where it would escape taxation, and what money they do spend here would probably end up in the underground economy that they themselves personify.

(Of course, Linder and others claim that with the FairTax, the underground economy wouldn't be a problem, even though common sense tells you that millions of people would be very motivated to evade a sales tax rate of at least 30%.)

But the bottom line is, none of it matters anyway.
FairTax supporters are being played for suckers by politicians who have signed their names in support of the proposal but have no intention of enacting such a crazy idea.

Look at the record. Linder's "Fair Tax Act" has been introduced in every Congress since 1999, drawing scores of co-sponsors. For 8 of those years, Republicans controlled both the House and Senate. Yet with all those co-sponsors and all that time under GOP control, FairTax legislation never got so much as one subcommittee vote on its provisions.

That's because Nobody, including its co-sponsors, takes it seriously. And if the idea was ignored when Republicans were in control, what does that say about its future under Democrats?

To make matters even more farfetched, Linder now wants to hold off implementing the FairTax until we also repeal the income tax and the 16th Amendment. So a group that lacks the muscle to get a subcommittee vote on their pet proposal is now going to amend the Constitution with two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate and approval of three-fourths of state legislatures?

Bullfeathers.

Of course, it's fair to wonder why anybody would even write about a bill that has no chance whatsoever of becoming law. I have two answers: One, I guess I'm bothered by the fact that so many well-intended people have been suckered into backing the idea; and two — well, I doubt I'll ever waste my time on it again.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/o...aned_0602.html

Why don't you say what you mean instead of cutting and pasting. Tell us your summation and just give us the link. Besides I don't really care what the AJC has to say anyway. I wouldn't even wipe my ass with that rag.

i.beletesri · #**143** (**permalink**) 08-15-2008, 05:59 PM

You don't have to read it.

I already said many Times, Including the IDENTICAL THINGS the article said (thx AJC), that I Highlighted and even you Couldn't miss.
ie, "Who pays More?".

And once again your [repeated] statement is utter NONSENSE SPEAK.

Cajun: "I don't care how you spin it, I am saying that ANYONE who works hard and earns an income Should be able to keep what they earn"

And if that Is NOT enough to Run the government.. WTF does "Should" Mean?

ROTFLMAO!
That's an argument for NO taxes, not 'Fairtaxes'.

Unbelievable.

See my Sig.
It's seems 'Very' was too complimentary. I'm going to replace it with 'Hopelessly'.

Cajun Controller · #**144** (**permalink**) 08-15-2008, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Cajun: "I don't care how you spin it, I am saying that ANYONE who works hard and earns an income Should be able to keep what they earn"

And if that Is NOT enough to Run the government.. WTF does "Should" Mean?

Since you are having so much trouble with the word should I thought I would help you out. Here is the definition as defined by Merriam Webster.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should

Main Entry: should

Pronunciation: \shəd, ˈshu̇d\Function: verbal auxiliary Etymology: Middle English sholde, from Old English sceolde owed, was obliged to, ought toDate: before 12th centurypast of shall
1—used in auxiliary function to express condition <if he should leave his father, his father would die — Genesis 44:22(Revised Standard Version)>2—used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency <'tis commanded I should do so — Shakespeare><this is as it should be — H. L. Savage><you should brush your teeth after each meal>3—used in auxiliary function to express futurity from a point of view in the past <realized that she should have to do most of her farm work before sunrise — Ellen Glasgow>4—used in auxiliary function to express what is probable or expected <with an early start, they should be here by noon>5—used in auxiliary function to express a request in a polite manner or to soften direct statement <I should suggest that a guide…is the first essential — L. D. Reddick>

Meaning, since we don't keep all that we earn now, because the government taxes our earning, (pay close attention now this is were it gets tricky for you) we should get to keep all that we earn because we don't get to keep it now. And I will go back to the beginning for you because you have seem to have lost your place, I support a the Fair Tax because it is a tax based on spending (consumption) not based on earnings, which is what you appear to advocate, especially when it comes to people who make more than you.

i.beletesri · #**145** (**permalink**) 08-15-2008, 09:00 PM

I don't need a definition of 'Should'. Duh!
I was trying to explain to you that "should be able to keep what they make" is Nonsense speak/Moot/academic.

As is rolling out Webster as if you're in a High School debate.
unBElievable. Really unBElievable.
SEE MY SIG.

You wanna play "should".

Quote:

"....Based on their recently released tax returns, so would George and Laura Bush. Under the FairTax, their tax bill would fall by $54,000 on an income of more than $900,000

That's interesting, because FairTax advocates claim the tax would raise just as much money as the current system. So if a couple with a million-dollar income pays a Lot less, who pays more?

After repeated experiments with the calculator, I FINALLY found that household. A couple with two children, a rented home and income of $40,000 would pay $860 more.

In other words, to balance out the $54,000 tax cut for someone making a Million dollars a year, we would have to Raise taxes on 62 couples trying to raise their family on $40,000 a year."

Should 62 Couples with two children making $40,000 a year pay for a $54,000 tax cut for a Tax cut for someone making a million a year?
How about 1000 similar couples paying for someone who makes 10 mil a year?

Yes or No? You never answered this put many ways in my many posts.

NO tax looks fair on SOME 'should' basis.
Got it BOY?

But you can't get 20,000 in taxes from someone who makes 30,000 even if you THINK that's fair on some OTHER Basis (That the Rich "Should" be able to not pay).

I make 5-10 times what you make. My net worth is 20+++x times yours.
My income; tax on Dividends 15%, Interest 35%, Long Term Capital Gains 15%, Short Term Gains 35%, Advisor Fees 35%, and my One-time big hit Estate tax all VANISH under Fairytax.

YOUR Controller salary (and the guys you work with) and your necessary 30%+++ taxed spending is going to make up for what I No Longer pay. Because I live humbly.
Got it BOY?

So I don't 'fault the rich', I'm just sure we can't squeeze any more from the Working poor.

So is Congress/Both parties and the President! Duh!
Who recently approved/ADMITTED the lower/middle were Already Gutted by approving 600/1200 checks for everyone because they had no more to spend and 'Our'/the Rich's stocks were suffering! Hark!
Events/Reality overtook/discredited the regressive 'fairytax' already.
They may even [have to] approve a second round of the same.

Yes, No money left to spend at GM, Walmart, Dell, etc, etc, etc, etc, were hurting the Big portfolios so Bad the rich decided to Cut some slack to the already gutted little guy who even now has no money left to spend.
'Fairytax' would do the Reverse/take this money!

If 'fairytax' ever passed and was instituted at it's real and quickly evaded necessary rate, app 80%, there would be a quick reversal or revolution.

That's why No one with a brain takes it seriously.
-
(Ridiculous indirect reply to follow)

Cajun Controller · #**146** (**permalink**) 08-16-2008, 04:57 AM

Quote:

(Ridiculous indirect reply to follow)

What's really ridiculous is you trying to base your whole argument on earnings instead of spending. All of your figures and numbers are all based on what an individual earns. The Fair Tax system is based on what a person spends regardless of what they earn. And continuing to insult me and others because they have a difference of opinion is not going to help either. So just consider me one more person that refused to believe your garbage and move on.

Cajun Controller · #**147** (**permalink**) 08-16-2008, 11:51 AM

Let’s just take a look at your SIG shall we.
Under the definition of Fair the first sentence of the second paragraph states “Another way of looking at the issue is to ask, "How much should each of us pay for government?"”. Interesting question until you read on to the third paragraph and it states “To be fair we should pay only for the amount of "government" we actually use.” If this is the case then those using the most government services should pay the most. So this statement would suggest that anyone receiving or using government services should somehow pay for those services. The top 3 agencies in order of spending by the Federal Government is Health and Human Services (social programs), the military, and the Treasury Dept. (paying the national debt). Of these three only one is actually used by the general public, HHS. The military and the Treasury Dept are functions of the government that provide services indirectly to all U.S. citizens. The HHS is available to everyone but the overwhelming majority of its users are lower to middle income families. This alone suggests that the lower and middle income families should pay more, to be fair of course. We all know that this is not very likely or possible so the first portion of you SIG is deceptive at best.

Shall we take a look at the second part.
Right of the bat it demonize sales tax or consumption tax by labeling it is a regressive income tax. Well this is false because it is not an income tax it is a consumption tax, based on what you consume or spend not on what you earn or collect as income. In order for it to be a regressive tax this would require taxing someone before they spend their money, in other words if Joe has $10 and Bill has $5 and both were required to pay a $1 in tax from their income, obviously Joe is paying a lower percentage. But when both are purchasing an item they both pay the same tax percentage. Example is if an item cost $1 they will both pay the same no matter what they earn. Now you can say well Bill is still paying a higher percentage of tax, that is true if it is based on what he earns, but it is based on what they spend. Is it Joe’s fault that Bill only earns $5? Maybe Bill likes his job and has no ambition of earning more money. Whatever the reasons that Joe and Bill earn what they do is irrelevant, in any case if they decide to purchase said item they will both be taxed exactly the same based on spending. If either should decied not to purchase said item then they would be taxed nothing because its based on spending. But if tax is base on income then no matter what they spend or don't spend Joe is paying a smaller percentage based on income/earnings.

These were just the first two parts of your SIG and I am already filling it full of holes. The reason is because your argument is base on taxing the income/earnings of individuals, the Fair Tax is based on taxing the spending/consumption of individuals.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
FairTax: Opinions please	tardis	Elections & Campaigns	34	06-16-2008 11:02 AM
Turning the FairTax upside down	BoogiePeople	Budget & Taxes	57	11-04-2007 11:55 AM