-taxed “without having voting rights.”

Nothing is more un-American that this FairTax and its mindless propaganda.

Just say no to taxation without representation.

Who wants to go down in history as the first elected American to tax people who can’t vote? Must be a Republican!

The thing is, the FairTax would make reporting of this more important and at the same time would make detecting and investigating it more difficult. To be fair (pun not intended), barter of used goods would have no impact – FairTax is supposed to apply only to “new” goods. However, services are always new goods. Thus the barter example is one of the more blatant examples of why the allegation that the FairTax would eliminate the need for the IRS is absolutely wrong.

Kirk

Kirk

See, the first time I read it I was nodding in general agreement – till I read the appendix that showed the actual calculation of tax rate. And the reveal of that sleight of hand had me go back through it with a fine tooth comb and soundly question if not reject the things I’d slid past before.

The sleight of hand? Throughout the common number cited is 23%. Only at the end do you discover he’s using mathematical semantics – most readers would call the number 30%. On the second passthrough the second glaring sleight of hand arose – the claim it would eliminate the need for the IRS. Quite simply, bull. The nature of the system is such that MORE investigators will be required.

There will also be a need for a network of rules almost as complex as those presently existing. No? If a church member purchases bond and donates them to a church, who pays the sales tax? (Oh, I know the answer. Stocks and bonds aren’t taxed as they’re not ‘really’ sales. And I’ll be returning to that point shortly).

I do recall the description of the hidden economy that allegedly doesn’t pay “its fair share”, but the problem is that when I started working through the numbers two facts arose. First, there were an extraordinary number of duplications – people who fit more than one category. Second, a very large proportion of those ‘not paying taxes’ would be living almost entirely on the prebate – in other words, still “not paying taxes.” Since the lower class is still paying a lower proportion, they’re ok. And the taxes of the upper levels of income decline. They don’t? Bull. What proportion of the income of anyone earning under $100,000 (over double the median) goes to taxable goods in a year? Answer, 70% or better. What proportion of the income of anyone earning over $500,000 goes to taxable goods in a year? Answer, less than 40%. Recall that investments are tax-free. (Yes, investments, those non-taxed stocks and bonds.) The rich, then, pay less than they did. So if the rich pay less and the poor pay about the same, it means the middle class pays more. Even though the book says otherwise.

And it completely ignores the fact that a new underground economy would emerge — If I mow your grass for the summer and in exchange you fix my car, how much does the government collect? How does it know? Oh, I have to fill out a tax form? If I don’t, how do you know I SHOULD have done so? Oops, even more enforcement officers.

Bottom line, the FAIRTax isn’t simpler, it doesn’t reduce the size of the IRS or the tax code. It won’t stop a non-taxed underground economy from operating. It does reduce the taxes the rich pay, but it’s not the poor that pick up the slack – it’s me. I decline the offer.

It still rewards, as Neal Boortz would call them, “brood mares”. It is still progressive (although I wouldn’t feel that way if we could do away with that darned check). The rebate just adds up to a bunch of negatives and even worse the potential for more negatives and abuses.

Danny,
I pre-ordered tha paperback for a May 2nd shipment. I will read it as soon as it arrives.

Thanks for the good debate. I wish I had read the book prior to seeing this discussion. I felt a little unarmed. Good luck!!

Personally, I would prefer to get my rebate annually, but let’s not pick nits here. The idea is sound and I think good. It is the only one that helps to solve the issue of non-payment of taxes on a grand scale while simplifying our tax code.

Frankly, I am for anything that simplifies our tax code and would willingly go from “worse to bad,” at least it would be a step in the right direction.

My point is simple. You guys have been trying to change it for several years and barely got noticed. If you do get it changed, it will take even more years to change it again. It is extremely important that it be fixed correctly this time. I don’t want it to go from worse to bad. I believe that’s what will happen with the fair tax as I understand it from the web site. Like I said, I’ll read the book and may change my mind, but beginning a fix with a compromise keeps getting us into trouble with other issues (such as the immigration problem we’re addressing here). I don’t understand why it’s a good idea with our tax system.

BTW, my only problem with the check isn’t the progressive bend it adds to the fair tax. Someone has to maintain a list of people who should receive a check. Someone has to fold, spindle and mutilate the check. Someone has to take it to the post office to mail it. Sounds like we might need a bureau for that. I wonder what it’ll cost. I wonder what will happen when they decide people who make over $30K a year don’t get a check… or maybe a smaller check than someone who makes $15K but a larger check than someone who makes $60K. Hmmm, sounds familiar.

I’ll read the book while you read the history of our current tax system and the I.R.S. Deal?? It wasn’t supposed to be this way.

You’re a good advocate for Fair Tax. It’s nice to see passion about an important issue. I just think it needs more thought and more work.

Obviously, you didn’t read the book closely enough. It goes into great detail about the underground economy which pays no taxes whatsoever into our current system. Folks like drug dealers, prostitutes and other criminals, illegal aliens and Willie Nelson (j/k – tax evaders). Their inclusion would add billions of dollars to the fold.

Folks who hide their money in offshore accounts would become subject to these taxes when they buy things with their money in the States. In fact, imagine the influx of money that is currently outside of America into our nation’s banks!

Imagine the amount of tourists who visit our country and the money they spend coming here. All of that would be subject to the consumption tax as well.

lhuff,

If your only problem is the monthly tax rebate check each family would receive under this system – then I really am perplexed by why you would oppose it. Certainly, you have more than one problem with our current complex tax system.

I think you are somewhat optomistic and perhaps a bit idealistic. We are currently living under a reduction in tax (which the Republican congress we worked so hard to elect refuses to make permanent) and I haven’t seen any reduction in the cost of any items I buy. I understand it’s not 23%, but regardless, it has helped the economy and reduced my tax burden a few cents, but it hasn’t reduced prices.

Thanks for your reply. We certainly need to do something, but I don’t believe the Fair Tax as it is described on fairtax.org will do the job. I’ll buy the book and read it. Maybe I’ll change my mind.

Here’s my basic problem with the FairTax. It doesn’t appear to be levelling with its readers.

The implication of the book is that everyone gets to pay less tax. But realistically, if you’re reducing someone’s burden you’re increasing that of someone else.

Who pays more and how much more do they pay? Ideally I’d like to see that on a per capita measure, but I’ll take knowing the demographic slice and the amount and I probably can figure that for myself.

Secondarily, who pays less and how much less do they pay? I’d use that as a reality check – the increase to one group should match the decrease to the other.

And yes I’ve read the book, which is why I’m asking the question. Because again the book – when it gets to such details – feels like someone’s trying to sell me “something for nothing”.

See, to me “failed” means that the government doesn’t collect enough to pay for the services it provides. It may be due to poor budgeting, or it may be to inefficiencies in methodology and/or collection. But last time I looked, Georgia collected a small surplus this year. So “failed” seems to be the wrong word.

So I need to ask – just why are folk calling the current system “failed”?