The Scientology Approved Tax Scheme

According to Bruce Bartlett, John Linder and Neal Boortz’s FairTax idea originated with the Scientologists. That kind of makes it creepy.

No doubt couches everywhere now fear Linder and Boortz are going to start jumping on them, proclaiming their love for the FairTax.

(As Rugby_Fan points out in the comments, Political Insider had this earlier today. That Barlett column must be sailing all around the series of tubes we know as the internets)

UPDATE: Spare me the hate mail on this. I don’t care. I was just posting it because it’s a big issue in Georgia. Count me in favor of any tax plan that gets rid of the IRS. While some of the basic foundations in the FairTax may have been developed by lunatic nutjobs who follow Xenu and his DC-7 space planes Scientologists, it’s worth nothing that the Constitution, prior to the 20th Century, contemplated no income taxes and no IRS. In fact, we had to amend the thing to have an income tax.

61 comments

  1. CobbGOPer says:

    Whatever. Bruce Bartlett isn’t to be trusted anyway. It’s just one more scare tactic to freak people out about the FairTax.

  2. Burdell says:

    Bartlett is against the Fair Tax. Fine. Assume he’s right that Scientologists came up with the idea first. Fine.

    But Bartlett’s actual criticism of the Fair Tax is misleading if not downright dishonest.

    His complaint about “23% is really 30%” ignores the simple fact that this is the case any time you deal in percentages (including the current tax system).

    Whether you impose a 23% sales tax or a 23% income tax, if you make $100 you are still left with the ability to buy $77 worth of goods, with the other $23 going to the gub’mint.

    To use his own example with the $1 widget. Under the FairTax, you have to make $1.30 to buy the widget, because of the $.30 in taxes. But under a 23% income tax, to buy the $1 widget, you have to make…$1.30. (1.30 x .77 = 1.00)

  3. IndyInjun says:

    HA!

    Scientologists, no………

    Follow the money and one finds that the folks who originally funded the Fair????tax org and the “expert economists” (read that as PROSTITUTES) whose “research” underpins this con job gain $tens of BILLIONS in tax forgiveness.

    This while Grandma – retired after paying SS and Medicare tax her entire life – gets hit with a 30% tax on her nursing home care, a huge compnent of which is SS tax.

    Maybe y’all call this ‘FAIR’ , but this writer doesn’t.

    The Fair???tax = CON JOB.

  4. Paul Shuford says:

    Do you guys really think that the Scientologists were the first people to come up with the idea of using a sales tax to collect taxes? Because that’s about how much relation the Scientologists and their CATS plan (which is another, separate bill in Congress) has to the Fair Tax. It’s a completely different idea, and a completely different bill. It doesn’t include many things that are integral to the Fair Tax, like the prebate, and it leaves in place payroll taxes, which the Fair Tax does not.

    Bruce Bartlett’s article is a flat-out hit piece against the Fair Tax, and is filled with lies. The piece is doing far more damage to his reputation than it is doing to the Fair Tax.

  5. IndyInjun says:

    Burdell – The Fair???tax is a 30 cents on the dollar at retail sale tax.

    The way sales taxes are figured, it is a 30% tax rate.

    BTW, Linder admitted on CSpan that the 30% rate was not scored by experts as revenue neutral and the revised rate would be as much as 34% tax-exclusive.

    Boortz is just plain funny in how he tries to spin what the rate is and so are the folks who parrot him.

  6. Paul Shuford says:

    The current tax system is the real con job. It hides taxes away from people, so that they don’t realizing how much they’re actually paying, getting their employers to do the collecting and hiding it away on fine print on their paycheck stubs. And it’s worked so well, people actually think they’re “getting money back” when they get a tax refund!

    The Fair Tax puts the tax out in the open, where everyone can see it. And it doesn’t tax savings, only what people spend, so they can choose how much taxes they pay. Most of all, it takes the power out of the hands of lobbyists and special interest groups who try to get their corporation/trade group/etc. special tax breaks that the rest of us don’t have. Those who are recipients of the current tax systems “special perks” are the ones who have the biggest problem with it.

  7. Paul Shuford says:

    IndyInjun,

    You’re again trying to obfuscate the issue. The current income tax is quoted inclusively, meaning the tax rates we pay on income are quoted exactly as the Fair Tax is quoted. It is an INCLUSIVE 23% sales tax. If you quote it EXCLUSIVELY, it’s a 30% sales tax. If you quote the current income tax exclusively, it’s a lot higher number than it is quoted currently now, because quoting a percentage exclusively results in a bigger number than quoting it inclusively.

    However, it’s the same amount of money, regardless. Why are you trying to obfuscate the issue with your scare tactics like this?

  8. IndyInjun says:

    Sure it taxes savings. It taxes the previously taxed savings of retirees that they spend down until death.

    I don’t call making these previously taxed savings last only 2/3 as long in order to pay taxes twice fair.

  9. IndyInjun says:

    It is not ‘obfuscation’

    Obfuscation is making a 30% sales tax look like 23% by a convoluted tax computation that requires that the tax be computed by taking 23% of the sum of the cost of the taxable good/service AND the tax to arrive at the tax.

    Under the sales taxes of the states the tax is simple as taking the stated rate times the price of the good/service.

  10. Paul Shuford says:

    Those same retirees get the prebate, which refunds all of their taxes up to to the poverty level, just like everyone else. Also, this tax plan would supercharge the US economy, making those savings invested in the US economy grow at a much greater rate than they are currently – making up for any taxes that they’ve previously paid.

    The real truth is, most retirees are currently paying taxes on savings they’ve made regardless, because most savings for retirement is put into tax-deferred savings plans, like IRAs and 401 (k)’s. Retirees are paying income taxes on the money that they take out of their tax-deferred savings plans RIGHT NOW.

    So why are you having a problem with what they pull out of savings to live on being taxed by the Fair Tax, when the current tax system is doing the exact same thing?

  11. Paul Shuford says:

    If it’s not obfuscation, IndyInjun, then why aren’t the current income tax rates quoted exclusively? They aren’t they’re quoted inclusively, just like the Fair Tax.

    If you think that the difference between quoting a percentage inclusively vs. exclusively is a “convoluted tax computation”, then you’re not really intelligent enough to have this debate.

  12. IndyInjun says:

    CobbGoper-

    So Bartlett is not to be trusted?

    Who made YOU the guarantor of who is a good conservative or even a real Republican?

    Bruce Bartlett served in Treasury for a couple of GOP presidents, including Reagan.

    He tells the truth about the Fair???Tax plan, although I think he goes far too lightly on it, myself.

  13. buzzbrockway says:

    Bartlett’s story seems far fetched but Scientology as a “religion” would certainly benefit and I’m not sure that’s a bad thing.

    I don’t care if people donate money to Scientology or any other group – and the government shouldn’t care either. Let folks do what they want with their money without worrying about the tax consequences of their actions.

  14. Paul Shuford says:

    Because it’s used to REPLACE THE CURRENT INCOME TAX, WHICH IS QUOTED INCLUSIVELY. And thusly, it should be quoted the same as the current income tax is quoted.

  15. IndyInjun says:

    Shuford,

    There is no way to compare a sales tax system and an income tax system. Under the later, nearly every taxpayer circumstance is different.

    The convoluted way the tax rate is defined has nothing in common with either system.

    SHOW ME another tax system that defines the tax rate in such a manner.

  16. Paul Shuford says:

    Why don’t you explain to us exactly why, in your opinion, “the CATS idea had considerably more merit”, IndyInjun.

  17. IndyInjun says:

    No ‘prebate’ and the rate can be low enough that the system might just work.

    If there were to be a national sales tax like that of the states with low, achievable rates; relatively simple, broad tax base and rate; and truly paid by everyone, I would be the first on the bandwagon for it.

    The Fair???tax is none of these things.

    I don’t think the Fair???taxers have EVER evaluated how their contrivance works relative to existing sales taxes. It is pretty evident that none of the ‘experts’ were state sales tax experts.

    Not only that, but almost NONE of the masses calling for the fair???tax have the experience and aptitude to comprehend the actual bill, instead of the Boortz/Linder fiction.

  18. IndyInjun says:

    Jason,

    Ms. Clinton is a hawk on the Iraq war and while, as noted elsewhere, I see nothing ‘conservative’ about it, it does put her at odds with the antiwar Dems.

    Furthermore, the Clinton Administration was a centrist outfit and outrageously prudent in terms of finance relative to the current GOP wastrels.

    Yeah, she evokes the same aversion as a fingernail abrading a chalk board, but I see her as more conservative than the GOP’s Rudy McRompsobee.

    Social conservatism is not my bailiwick, but it certainly seems that the GOP has had more than a fair allocation of gays, substance abusers, and frauds. Could another Clinton Administration be worse?

    Really?

    I never voted for Bill and won’t for Hill, yet the current batch of GOP candidates lack only her shrillness.

    RON PAUL is our answer to the whole lying, stinking, ruinous mess!!!!!

  19. Ian says:

    Indy, I posted the C-SPAN link at The New Republic where Bartlett completely demagoged the FairTax.

    It should be noted that FairTax.org and Dr. Laurence Kotlikoff have rebutted the conclusions of the President’s Tax Panel. Specifically,

    “Panel statement #3: The FairTax proponents

  20. Jason Pye says:

    Could another Clinton Administration be worse?

    Only if she has a Democratic Congress at her disposal.

    I remember having a conversation with Michael Badnarik last year where he said that he “longed for Bill Clinton” after four years of George Bush.

    Furthermore, the Clinton Administration was a centrist outfit and outrageously prudent in terms of finance relative to the current GOP wastrels.

    Was it Clinton or was it a Republican Congress that moderated him? I don’t think it is Clinton’s nature to be moderate, I think he had to work with Congress to get certain measures passed and he did what he had to do. He certainly is a political mastermind, there is no doubt about that.

  21. IndyInjun says:

    Ian,

    Once again, I do not accept the works of paid prostitutes, especially when they overlook obvious facts in their haste to push their con job.

    For example, they claim the Fair???tax base is broader than the state sales tax rates, apparently relying solely on the new taxation of services that the FT entails. They ignore that the state sales tax bases BROADLY TAX BUSINESS PURCHASES and purchases by non-profits, while the Fair???tax exempts these purchases totally.

    I can blow gaping holes in all of their “expert” research and I will not get paid $millions in oil company money to do it either.

    There is simply no way to jigger the math so that retirees spending down previously taxed savings com e out ahead paying a 30% tax on their health care and other necessities.

    The Fair???tax requires a leap of faith in stats ginned up by people paid off and I ain’t buying it.

  22. IndyInjun says:

    Jason,

    It was NEITHER!

    It was the scare that the fiscal conservatives and indies put into BOTH PARTIES by giving Perot 19 million votes.

    “Scared Straight” is how I prefer to look at it.

  23. Jason Pye says:

    By the way, I’ve about had it with Dr. Paul. I’m probably going to vote for him in the primary, but he needs to move onto other issues and stop harping about Iraq so much.

    I have no idea who I’ll vote for in the general election.

  24. IndyInjun says:

    Jason,

    Dr. Paul has been right all along about Iraq.

    The events of this week were a temporary propaganda coup for the administration and a show of gutlessness on the part of the Dems.

    By 2008 these things will have passed and the US public will be even more weary of the Iraq War.

    I agree that Paul should focus elsewhere, particularly on the $trillions in the recent bailouts orchestrated by the FED to bail out the Wall Street Financiers who collected $billions in fees on fraudulent trades.

    If the people ever come to understand the damage that the FED is doing to us all and the unimaginable corruption, there will be the revolution that Henry Ford predicted.

    But then, I suppose that I am dreaming that the people will become wise enough to see these things and reject con jobs like the Fair???tax.

  25. Jason Pye says:

    Don’t get me wrong. I agree with him, but he has pegged himself to that one issue. I think he would help his cause by talking about other issues that the grassroots can get warm to, some balance if you will.

  26. IndyInjun says:

    Jason,

    Money printing used to be the very definition of inflation and what we are looking out with the FED’s current efforts is off-the-charts.

    This relates well to the Fair???tax discussion too, for do we dare reward government irresponsibility with a tax system that produces bigger revenues with the greater fiscal irresponsibility.

    When one thinks about it, the Fair???tax is a big government dream that allows obligations to be inflated away, with greater revenues earned on the inflation.

    An example I like to use is the 25 to 30% annual increases I have been seeing on my health insurance premiums. These greatly outstrip income increases in the 5% range. Applying a 30% (and that is the minimum) tax to costs increasing at double digits annually produces even greater revenues than an income tax system.

    Dr. Paul says he favors abolishing the IRS and that is one campaign promise I think we can forget. However, he is astute enough to say that FIRST spending must be slashed to get to the point that a sales tax or other replacement system will work.

    In other words, Dr. Paul is not of the Linder-tax-reform-hawker-who-voted-for-enormous -spending-that-overwhelms-tax-reform school.

  27. Federalist says:

    “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States” (AI,S8)
    I am sorry Erick, but where does it say that Congress can not tax income? This very ambiguous, yet concise, clause says that Congress can tax income so long as the tax is uniform throughout the US. The amendment only legitimized the tax even further. As a matter of fact, the U.S. had an income tax from the early 1860’s through the early 1870’s. Stop making up stuff. The income tax has a long history of success. Interesting enough…the few countries left that do not have income taxes (the the exception of a few U.S. territories in the carribbean, oddly enough) are all third world countries.

  28. Jason Pye says:

    I am sorry Erick, but where does it say that Congress can not tax income?

    If you want to argue this, you’ll have to do it on the grounds of the 16th Amendment. You can’t do it from Article 1, Section 8.

    In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company that a direct tax was unconstitutional.

    What the income tax has is a long history of violating the privacy of Americans and the theft of private property.

    The income tax and IRS should be viewed in the same light as USA PATRIOT Act, NSA wiretapping and the Military Commissions Act.

    And…just because it is not in the Constitution doesn’t give the federal government full reign to do whatever the hell it wants to do (in fact the exact opposite is true), unless you completely ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments, which is essentially what has been done by progressives like yourself.

  29. IndyInjun says:

    Ian-

    I see absolutely no difference in confiscation through withholding and confiscation through taxing the necessities of life.

    The continued FT REQUIREMENT of continued income reporting is an invasion of privacy that the FT was SUPPOSED to remedy, but doesn’t – IT REQUIRES IT.

    Instrusive audits by the IRS replaced by intrusive audits by the state DOR’s is of no gain to the average citizen. The FT requires individuals to keep receipts, puts the burden on them to prove that taxes were paid, and requires the filing of returns. This is IN THE FAIR???TAX bill. Of course it is not in the Boortz-Linder propaganda piece.

    Also, existing state sales tax laws and jurisprudence empowers the state to estimate sales/use tax liabilities, if the taxpayer kept no records. The existing rights of audits vested in the DOR’s are every bit as intrusive as the IRS. No gain there, either.

    The monthly advance is just another UNFUNDED LIABILITY that will have to be funded by creating money out of thin air.

    The hidden taxes are there, but they are far lower than hyped by the fairtaxers…..around 12 to 15% TOPS. The ballyhooed cost of tax systems is overblown to hype fictious compliance costs. IRS data does not support anything like 25% tax savings. In FACT Boortz has admitted that either the embedded tax figures are too OR that a given employee does not get 100% of his paycheck. (Employee SS in wages is being double counted as savings to employer, yet the employee sees no reduction in pay – these are in basic conflict.)

    The revenue agencies of the states will grow to absorb the IRS agents, making them the happy beneficiaries of not just one, but TWO government retirements. Combined state and federal sales tax rates in excess of 40% will produce massive fraud that will require audits of individuals every bit as intrusive as the current IRS agents. Again – no gain under the FT.

    The FT ‘experts’ were funded to the tune of $4million. The funders get $40 billion in tax foregiveness. I see this for what it is – a scam on working class America, who will have to make up about $1 trillion. This is sufficient cause and effect for ME.

    At least as many economists slam the FT as support it.

    No gains whatsoever under the FT for citizens, but $trillions for the secret funders of the FT movement.

    I read that $150,000 was spent by FT org to send bussloads to Iowa straw polls last month. THAT is some serious spending. The FT org brags that it is spending more than $100 million.

    Are the corps still funding FT org?????

    It sure seems like it.

    The Fair???Tax is a CON JOB.

  30. IndyInjun says:

    Erick wrote: “Count me in favor of any tax plan that gets rid of the IRS.”

    Even if said plan greatly magnifies the power, reach, and intrusiveness of the Georgia Department of Revenue that you rail against on this very page?

  31. Paul Shuford says:

    While reducing the power, reach, and intrusiveness of the Internal Revenue Service or getting rid of it altogether, and greatly reducing the power, reach, and intrusiveness of taxing agencies in this country in the process, as well as getting rid of things like corporate welfare, and the other mechanisms powerful interests use to foist their tax bills off on me and the rest of the citizenry? Sign me up.

  32. CobbGOPer says:

    Oh, and Indy, if you’re going to refuse to read anything supporting the FairTax side of the argument because you think it’s been “bought and paid for,” do you not realize that the same thing happened on the other side of the argument?

    Seriously, you don’t think lobbyists behind the scenes did not play a veeeerrry large part in the activities of the president’s Commission on Tax Reform? Up to and including buying people?

    If not, then you are more naive than I thought.

  33. IndyInjun says:

    No, Cobbgoper, if I had a name like that it would be GodWillStrikeDownGOPers.

    You must be Linder or one of his staffers.

    If not you should ask him why he voted for Medicare D, thereby subverting his own tax reform.

    Shoot, Hillary Clinton is a better conservarive than Linder.

  34. IndyInjun says:

    CobbGOPer,

    I do not REFUSE to read anything pro-FT. I bought the book, read the bill, read the FTorg site, and compared them all to existing sales tax laws, regulations, processes, and jurisprudence.

    If it passes, I have figured where to invest, how to position myself professionally, how to help clients legally circumvent it, and how to capitalize on 20 years of sales tax experience in 17 states.

    My ‘angle’ if there is one, is that I know a great many of elderly and not-so-well-to-do folks who would be greviously hurt.

    I also think it is good to tell the “rest of the story’ the one that deals with the negatives, not the seductively false promise of “getting 100% of your paycheck.

    As for the presidential commission, going in they had expressed interest in a consumption tax at Bush’s direction, but could not get over the various obstacles, the primary one being that the FT does not fund the government.

    It certainly does not fund the government after Linder voted for the $8 trillion unfunded Medicare D.

    You seriously should take Linder’s duplicity up with him.

  35. IndyInjun says:

    As for Indy being GHWT….IF I had a monicker like that, it would be GodWillStrikeGOPDead.

    However, after a lifetime of financial and personal support of the GOP, I would just as soon vote for a Satanist, as anyone with the GOP label.

    How you or anyone can stomach that party is beyond me.

  36. CobbGOPer says:

    Hmm, “20 years of sales tax experienc in 17 states.” What exactly do you do that gives you such experience?

  37. CobbGOPer says:

    And no response to my previous question. How much you want to bet he’s a tax lawyer or accountant? The FairTax must REALLY scare him then…

  38. IndyInjun says:

    Yup, you pegged me….an accountant with lots of STATE SALES TAX experience, one of the few classes of professionals to gain from FT passage. We will be busier than a one-armed paper hanger in a cyclone, if it passes.

    The last time I did any income tax work at all was in 1997 and I have not prepared a 1040 for a client in the last quarter century.

    There goes the theory that I have much to gain from defeat of the FT. (Well in fact I do, having frugally saved previously taxed dollars toward an early retirement that hopefully will not include paying a 40%++ sales tax as I spend down my savings.)

    I would suppose I am Boortz’s worst nightmare – a guy who has much to gain from the FT, but who hates being silent while innocent folks are being conned.

    Also, I don’t like it that Boortz/Linder/Huckabee have set out to bestow double government retirements on IRS agents.

  39. Federalist says:

    Hey fairtax people…fact check. Boortz and linder made up many “facts” in their book.

    -*12min into debate on part 2 (of 2) is very important

    Fair Tax Debate Part 1: http://www.ifilm.com/video/2720387

    Fair Tax Debate Part 2: http://www.ifilm.com/video/2720358

    Dale was responsible for the embedded taxes idea, not wages

    Larry Kotlikoff

    Dale Jorgenson: Harvard economist (not a radio show host). Responsible for research done on taxes embedded in prices. See his academic journal “The Economic Impact of the National Retail Sales Tax.” (available trough JSTOR)

    On the other hand, Larry Kotlikoff, Boston University economist/former economic analyst for the Federal Government (not a radio show host) said wages on stay the same and prices would go up in his report to the Federal Government and to the committee on alternative taxation. (available through Bureau of Economic Statistics)
    In Boortz and Linder’s description of the “fair” tax, using a tee-shirt as the product of “analysis” they came to the conclusion that “wages and prices would stay the same.” The authors even cite Dr. Jorgenson for these “facts.” The only problem is that Jorgenson never included an analysis of the effect a national sales tax would have on wages in the cited work (title noted above). The remaining bits of “information” were derived from a report by Dr. Larry Kotlikoff of Boston College. This was clarified by Yale (tax) Law Professor/Former Undersecretary of the Treasury to Bush 41 and 42 (not a radio show host), Dr. Michael Graetz. None of the experts on tax policy have come out in favor of the Fair Tax. They favor a national sales tax, but only as an addition to the income tax.
    The debate was long and a little boring,…but it was very informative.
    The government witholding taxes is responsible on their part. In the mid 1980’s (as cited by Levitt) saw the “abduction” of some 6 million children! Because tax form began requiring the SSNs of children. Prior to that there was an “honor system” regarding the presence of dependent children in the home. Fact is…the people do not know what is good for themselves. If we did things the libertarian way (pseudo-GOP way) there would be no taxes. There would also be either: no military, roads, education, health care system, etc. or more debt (which happens to be the GOP “conservative” fiscal policy). The Fair Tax has absolutely no real academic, policy, or real world common sense backing.

  40. Federalist says:

    Obviously the “fact checkers” in this forum are not old enough to have gone to school or taught the people that wrote the papers suggesting parts of the fair tax. It is easy to make up stuff with too much information from many sources. People end up not checking the info.

  41. Federalist says:

    Also…for the retired folk like myself…I already paid my share of taxes. The AARP is probably the strongest interest group in the country. Do you really think that when the fair tax gets any real debate time on the floor of the House that the retired people of this country will agree? We get news letters all the time, and when the AARP tells some 40 million retired people that they will be getting a tax increase of 400% in GA (6%then plus an addition 17%, then whatever exemptions are left out, then the exemption that are left out after that because of inadequate funding [and this will happen every year or two, as the GOP committee set out to investigate the fair tax found that the tax rate would need to be at 68% to fund current spending minus deficit spending)

  42. Paul Shuford says:

    Federalist, IndyInjun;

    Why would you be saving for retirement post-tax when there are so many pre-tax retirement saving options that are available and have been for decades?

    And with all of those pre-tax (tax-deferred) savings plans, you’ll be paying income tax on anything you withdraw out of them, just like most retired people. So how will this be any different?

  43. IndyInjun says:

    Shuford,

    TRULY frugal people save much more than allowed under deferred tax plans.

    Previously taxed or not, most retirees do not pay much income tax and they certainly no longer pay employment taxes, so why would they relish paying 40%+++ (state and federal) sales taxes on their vacations, nursing home services, medical services and food, all of these being essential services that they cannot “choose’ to defer?

    With oil bumping on $80 per barrel, and gasoline forcast to hit $5 per gallon, I don’t think the wroking class has thought about the ADDITIONAL $2 per gallon that the FT would add to their fuel bill.

    Once again, putting a 40%+++ tax on rapidly inflating costs rising at multiples of income increases is not a good deal. If my income is stagnant, I sure as heck do not want to be paying 40% tax on medical costs that are going up double digits!

    Former GOP Ways and Means Chair Bill Thomas counseled House members on the dangers of running on the Fair???tax plan for these very same reasons.

    Max Burns missed it, because the FT torched him first.

  44. Jason Pye says:

    If we did things the libertarian way (pseudo-GOP way) there would be no taxes. There would also be either: no military, roads, education, health care system, etc. or more debt (which happens to be the GOP

  45. IndyInjun says:

    Thanks, Federalist:

    Graetz had Boortz’s lunch because he read THE BILL and did not rely on the Boortz/Linder propaganda piece.

    Anyone in state or local government who supports the federal Fair???tax either does not understand its impacts or is incompetent.

  46. CobbGOPer says:

    Oh, I’m real sure you’re not a tax accountant. Whatever. Well, at least we’ve got some years on you geezers to get this passed. The thing about AARP is they don’t keep members for long.

  47. CobbGOPer says:

    He’s an accountant, “with Sales Tax specialization.” And by his comments he apparently doesn’t really care one way or the other, he’s just trying to “look out” for the elderly he thinks would get screwed under the FairTax system, per his AARP talking points.

  48. CobbGOPer says:

    And by the way, with each passing year we’re gaining strength with the FairTax movement. I’ve been following it for seven years, and every year we get more press and more support.

    Listen, I get your point, ok? Oldsters who’ve been paying taxes, don’t want to pay again now that they’re retired, blah blah. Not fair, cause the youngsters haven’t paid as long and they’ll see more benefits from the system in the long run since they won’t be paying income taxes, blah blah. Catch-22.

    It will require a hard choice, a choice made not with current selfish interests at heart, but a choice made to benefit future generations.

    Regardless if it’s the FairTax or some other proposed system: someone’s gonna get screwed in the short term. That shouldn’t stop us from making the fundamental changes necessary to get future generations out from under the yoke of the income tax and the federal government.

  49. IndyInjun says:

    CobbGOPer – They are not AARP talking points, they are the results of my own research of HR 25. I was glad to listen to Professor Graetz, for I was surprised to find that he had reached most of the same conclusions, although I have more objections arising from my experience with how sales taxes really work.

    Ron Paul gets it. You cannot get to tax reform in an environment where the principal tax reformer, Linder, goes out and sabotages it by voted for an $8 trillion new entitlement. You cannot get tax reform without curtailing entitlements that are on the precipice of being net revenue drains of $tens of trillions. Tax reform is the wrong subject.

    I am with the younger folks. I never figured on getting a dime of SS. As far as I am concerned, SS can be cut and drastically so.

    Tax reform is fun to think on, but spending cuts are painful. However, the real deal is the latter and tax reform is just a popular distraction from tackling the necessary.

    Buzz – After we cut entitlements and gut Mr. Linder’s massive spending programs, almost any tax reform would be OK by me. A national sales tax like the current state sales taxes would be great – the problem with the Fair??? tax is that the rate is astronomical, it is NOT fair, everyone does not pay, it is not broadly based, and it does not eliminate the IRS, it just replaces it.

    I actually prefer a flat tax as championed by Steve Forbes and Dick Armey. It is actually achievable.

    NO tax reform is possible without spending limits.

    As for me, I figure the public really is gullible and stupid enough to be fooled by the Fair???taxers and have anticipated how and where to invest. Also, I have figured out how to thrive from the chaos. You won’t find many folks this ideally positioned.

    My whole deal with the Fair???tax is that I cannot stand a con job and that is what Boortz and Linder are pushing.

Comments are closed.