[ChrisF says: I was tempted to bump this with a Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett/Ed McMahon Open thread, but Icky has a goon squad so decided better to just see that is wishes are carried out]
If you’re reading this somewhere near Friday, it’s because one of the other front page gremlins was kind enough to release it from the draft queue. I’m out of here, and if I post something between Thursday night and Sunday, assume I’m very, very handsome at that moment.
In our little Fair Tax Friday series, there seems to be a distinct disconnect between supporters and critics. Supporters, well trained by Boortz, reply to most criticisms “you need to read the book” or “it’s in the book”. They seem totally unfazed when the critical reply is based on the bill.
As I stated in the thread last week, though the bill and the book share a co-author, only one has the potential to have the power of law. So while I’ll concede the book is great in concept, I still believe the bill is what must be debated.
As such, I’d like the bill’s detractors to outline some of their problems with “the bill”. And I would like the supporters to work on how these problems, if different from “the book”, could be changed in “the bill” to make them more like the book.
Ultimately, if we can tighten this up, I’d like to get an actual list of proposed changes over to Congressman Linder’s office and let them either make the changes in the actual bill, or explain why things are good in “concept” but are good in “law”.
I’m on vacation, but you folks need to get to work.
Oh yeah, OPEN THREAD:
{ 93 comments }
I support a wealth tax because I believe in freedom, and freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.
LOL
Happy Birthday Icky!
“You need to read the book” is just an Appeal to Authority.
The second problem is if one reads the book and still disagrees with the book (for whatever reason) then claiming it “needs” to be done loses all value.
What if you read it but lack reading comprehension skills?
Adherents to the Fair Tax obviously lack critical thinking skills.
Yeah, Rug, when I spend 5 minutes outlining why the FT is so damaging to the state and county to a pol, they ALWAYS come back with “We have to do SOMETHING.”
My response generally is to ask them when they get a migrane would they hop a plane to the ME for a beheading, for the sake of HAVING TO DO SOMETHING?
Migraine…see this is taxing me already.
Yes Indy, but is it taxing you inclusively or exclusively?
It’s taxing me too, so it is quite non-exclusive.
My recommended changes with the Bill are as follows:
1. The FT needs to apply to imports. No exceptions.
2. Stuff the prebate. It gives ANOTHER welfare check to dead people getting SS.
3. Eliminate the blanket exemption of business so that the FT exempts only resales.
4. Eliminate the education and nonprofit exemptions. They are a cornucopia of loopholes.
5. Don’t allow a ‘business’ to register as a ‘business’ unless it has some minimum volume of existing sales. Otherwise EVERYONE becomes a ‘business.’
6. Make it CLEAR that this is a TAX SYSTEM which has an unpopular but necessary function which REQUIRES audits and enforcement.
7. Existing liabilities for deferred income taxes survive passage and must be paid within 7 years.
8. Tax used goods and extend the FT to every exchange of value, to be assessed through the banking system. This will lower the rate to high single digits.
9. Make it mandatory to cut spending to meet FT revenues.
10. Exempt state and local government purchases.
11. Draconian penalties for tax evasion.
12. Make it clear (H.R. says this, but it is convoluted) that service businesses that give away taxable services are the end consumers liable for the tax, i.e. broadcast radio. (This is the rule that the FT clearly applies to government services, but Boortz probably doesn’t realize that the FT applies to HIS SALARY.)
IndyI,
I think #5 helps with #4. I do think non-profits should be exempt… maybe put a max percentage on “administrative cost.”
proposed additions (or at least add to 12):
Due to a point you had made earlier… make the business “responsible” to collect and not the consumer to pay… this would get rid of a lot of auditing, need to keep receipts and get the IRS out of our personal lives.
to go along with 9:
A simple majority to lower rate and super majority to raise it.
I actually agree with Indy on a few things. Imagine that.
10, and 12.
I support his thoughts on 1, (the devil is in the details on 3), 5, 6, 7, ( I will have to think on number
I am a fan of the constitutional amendment approach. If we don’t have it as a PERMENET change of the way government collects income, it will just be another tax. I am OK with keeping income from parking tickets, and other criminal restitutions. They need limits, otherwise, we could be faced with $200 for every mile and hour we are over the speed limit.
I like the idea of the prebate, but I’m OK with imposing jail time on people who get the check that don’t deserve it. Illegals won’t get a check, but go to jail if they do. (I’m OK with some form of deportation and seizing all of the property they have amassed while being here illegally.)
I also agree with Daniel N. Adams of his thoughts on 12.
Heres one…just don’t pass it.
If it were to pass, in 10 years it would be 10,000pages long.
Nothing is wrong with the current tax code. Marginal rates need changed, ATM needs reformed, more tax brackets should be created and a few taxes need to be raised and other lowered.
All in all, we could probably do away with half of the tax code just by repealing former acts of congress.
When a person says “there is nothing wrong with the current tax code” (and then provides a list of changes to be made to the current tax code) that person’s credibility is shot to hell. Nothing wrong with the tax code? There is nothing right about our current tax code.
Chris, that is my usual line….
Migraines run in the family, but generally exclusive of me.
Beheadings have not been inclusive so far, but if I keep blogging….
I agree that the focus should be on the bill. I fully support the architecture ( the concepts in the book), but the implementation (the bill) needs some work.
I do believe a national retail sales tax and abolition of the federal income tax, inextricably coupled with a reduction in what the federal government does and the requisite spending, will make for long term economic growth and stability. I also believe the transition from the current tax-borrow-and-spend system to the above will be briefly uncomfortable for some, and if not planned and adapted to properly, can be very hard on a lot of people. But once the “shakedown cruise” is done, America and our descendants are the better for it.
I just don’t trust Rockefeller Republican’ts (i.e “neo-Whigs”) and Democrats to not screw this up.
Love the way everyone (except Kellie on her “LOL”) is defying the new format and posting one after another w/o paying heed to the “REPLY”.
That’s telling The Man what he can do with his authoritarian blog formats!
I’ll get right on it…
I forget if my last comment was in favor of the new format or against it. Dang that Rugby.
You are against it.
Which reminds me, this new site is gorgeous.
Now.
The reason why the Fair Tax blows chunks is because of this simple fact:
Older, retired Americans get effed up the rear-end with this. It is a NEW tax on their retirement income by forcing them to pay taxes AGAIN.
Seems quite similar to me as Obama’s healthcare proposal: That is, Americans 55 and older are screwed via age-discrimination in the national healthcare system. “Need a hip replacement? That’ll be 5 years wait, Sir. Here, take some cod liver oil every day until then. Eff you and your complaints about being in ‘pain.’ “
Uh…it seems to me you missed the part where under Obama’s plan you don’t have to switch to a government run system.
don’t have to switch? Oh, that’s good.
I don’t mean this to be offensive, but I’m amazed that every time he’s discussed healthcare he’s said something like “if you like your plan keep it”, and yet people still think everyone will be forced to change.
It is the provisions that sink private health care that they are referring to. It does not matter if you can chose another plan, if his plan forces destroys the private insurance alternative.
The assumption is that the government’s plan will inevitably make private plans catering to the masses unprofitable. No profit means no private plan to keep.
KWW,
Rugby also failed to mention other benefits, including not having to live, recieve treatment or have access to expensive medicines and treatments. Also, not having to wait on long waiting lists for treatment, particularly in the case where you chose to not have to live.
“If you like it, keep it” but we’ll tax it and regulate it until it is no longer affordable. Lucky for you though there will be “free” government heathcare. It will only cost you your life.
Rugby,
The purpose of the “government-run healthcare” system is to kill the private health insurance industry so that the ONLY choice the majority of the people will really have is to go with government-run healthcare.
So, I didn’t”miss” anything. You have missed what the ulterior motive is for government-run anything. It is to overload and make it difficult to compete in the marketplace, and kill private enterprise.
You really are paranoid Bill.
Wow, alot of paranoia and kool aid drinking on this one.
Who says that private insurance will be regulated and taxed? That is not in the bill, but it was a plan that McCain proposed.
Profit is not necessary for health insurance companies to survive. They should be non-profit, tax exempt organizations. Plain and simple.
Also, they should not be allowed to rescind insurance policies just because you get diagnosed with cancer or some terminal illness.
Bill S.
Exactly. That is my one sentence summation of why it won’t pass.
The FT puts a 30% tax on Grandma’s nursing home care and her previously-taxed life savings while giving Exxon a $10 billion gift, so under what definition is this a “FAIR” tax?
The time I debated this on talk radio, seniors got really fired up when they heard the truth.
30%. No no no. 68%.
Also…I do not want my purchase of stock taxed before it has the chance to make itself worth anything.
A few years ago a U.S. Senator said “if you think health is expensive now just wait until it’s free.”
I wonder how long it will be before people will want government car insurance. After all, everyone needs it but no one wants to pay for it.
AND, a BTW for Rugby and people like him (people who apparently have never actually run a business themselves and have spent their days working for someone else in a non-management role):
Whatever the business (EVEN if it is government-run business), there are 3 elements that you have, and only one or two can be the most optimal, while the third must suffer:
- Price of what you offer
- Quality of what you offer
- Delivery time of what you offer
If the government wants to offer the lowest price on healthcare (that is their stated goal), either the quality or the delivery time or both will suffer for the recipient of the healthcare.
There is NO WAY government-run healthcare will be able to deliver quality or speed to the marketplace when they charge the lowest price.
The best doctors will opt for early retirement if they cannot earn a profit on their enterprise. That will leave us with the bottom 20% of the medical school class for doctors. Quality takes a dive.
If government run entities are so great, why doesn’t anyone suggest the government operate restaurants on a trial basis to prove what kind of service they can offer.
How many people would even want to go to a restaurant run by the government? Does anyone think the service will be fast, efficient and friendly? Does anyone think the quality of the food will by high and that the menu selections would be decent?
The can very likely have low menu prices, with major subsidy in the form of taxes, but that is not a true measure of cost.
Is there any government provided service that run smoothly and that people are happy to be involved with?
Why does any rational person think this is a good plan for heath care which involves matters of life and death?
If the gov wanted to be in the restaurant business you can bet all others would be pushed out of business.
Who cares. Free cheese!
I’ve tasted that free cheese, and it wasn’t all that bad either.
KELLIE! You violated the picket line against The Man! Turn in your union card immediately.
Yes, Kellie, what has me scared is the growing % of the workforce in government jobs or under a government contract.
The rest of us are to have the lifeblood sucked out of us.
Welcome to the USSA.
“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” – Lenin
The FT does both at the same time.
I hear BO has a National Sales tax plan and it’s even better.
Bill – I’m back in line now thanks to your goons.
1.) The book is fiction.
2.) The book was written by an entertainer
3.) Read anything by Michale Graetz, Bryan Jones or Walter Williams.
the Fair Tax is dead and I do not know why this topic keeps coming up. It will only increase the deficit (like all neo-con tax policies) and will do nothing to grow the economy (like all neo-con tax policies).
Step back and look at history for a minute. There are no silver bullets. No single tax policy has ever been the fulcrum of a change in economic direction. Economic changes are the result of several policies and world events.
Tax policies do have direct results on two things: revenue and deficits.
Since 1980, no tax reduction has resulted in a lower deficit. Even with a GOP (conservative) congress and presidency from 2002-2006. The deficit exploded, tax revenue fell and in the end we have been handed a recession. Several factors went into this though…the GOP and conservatives site numerous causes, other than changes in the tax code, as the reason why the bottom fell out. So why do tax reductions, that happen to coincide (not correlate) get all the credit?
I hope that after I die you people suffer from your delusions. I do not want to see this nation torn apart or be rated as #2 because of your poisoned minds.
When topics regarding economics, taxation and the political economy come up…read books by people that know what they are talking about. People with multiple PhDs and llms in these fields. Boortz and Coulter are not credible sources for any subject (perhaps with the exception of political trickery). So why even listen to their two cents. They never provide credible information to back their claims. Heck, Boortz had to deal with public humilitation when it came out that he improperly paraphrased two sources for the sole purpose of trying to support the fair tax.
Who did we (America) turn to when tobacco studies were being conducted? Doctors or lobbyists? Why should we treat taxation or the political economy any differently? Because bootz or reagan said so?
This is not just the case with taxes, but a whole range of issues and their positions for both the left and the right. Policy studies are boring. When they are packaged as entertainment it is almost always because the proposal is not a study…it is b/s.
Gosh. I was wrong about GC. He is a visionary of truth and light? Why aren’t we smart enough to understand that?
His posts remind me of something else…. Oh Yeah! They are like reading the speeches of the president!!
Rugby,
You really are paranoid Bill.
Maybe, maybe not. But, one thing IS for sure is that you are damn fool to believe government-supplied services will workout well for everyone.
These are cooperative services.
That is what is being taken out of context here. The government is not going to run any thing…they are merely going to commission a public-private partnership.
Sure, Obama brought a full scale federal company to the negotiating table. That is how you negotiate.
Wow. There is nothing conservative about this post. Is the nom de plume ‘Goldwater Conservative’ some kind of device to fool us all?
Goldwater is no Conservative.
Pisswater Collectivist. The sooner you learn his real name, the easier you will ignore his insane rambling.
So tell me Doug, is he filthy rich?
He is, so he has access to knowledge that us poorbies just cannot possible understand because we are not rich, like he is.
I knew he was better than the rest of us.
He is soooo knowledgeable. Money does that, you know.
It’s knowledge you just can’t buy, except with money.
No you are but it isn’t hard to think of a great deal of government-supplied services that work out quite well.
For instance, I am about to use the government to deliver written communication from my house to rural Massachusetts. I know it will get there in 2-3 days, cost less than 50 cents, won’t be harmed etc. (As an aside, do you really think that UPS, or any other mail service would be able or willing to deliver a letter that they personally collect from my house to say, American Samoa, in no more than 4 days, for less than 50 cents?)
Every week the City of Atlanta, at the same time give or take a few minutes, comes and hauls away pounds of solid waste with no special arrangement other than placing my refuse in a specified receptacle.
These are but two quick examples. Its not to say the government does everything well, or that it could do everything well, but it does somethings very well.
The question is: How much does the postal service cost you when you aren’t using it?
(In other words, you’re welcome for the $0.44 deliveries. As someone who doesn’t mail a whole lot of letters, just—you’re welcome is all.
)
As a governmental corporation it receives no money from the government if that is what you are asking.
I know people who worked at the post office for 10 years as a part time employee while working full time hours. The work conditions were so great there for a while it was just a question of when an employee would “go postal” and start shooting.
I have had first class mail go through the north fulton facility and take three weeks to go through.
However, I do agree that the postal service is something the governemnt does best. The military is good at killing people and breaking things. They should not be used as a police force.
I’m not sure what all this has to do with the FT.
Yeah…I’m supposed to believe someone who states in a book he wrote that he will “stand with the Muslim world” against anyone else?
Indy,
I agree with you on #’s 4, 6, 7, 12.
I somewhat agree on #11. For those who deliberately evade taxes, they should be punished severely. But if someone makes an honest mistake, punishment (if any at all) should be light.
Sean Hannity just reported that Nathan Deal has switched and will vote FOR the bill. Call his office right now. what the hell is he thinking.
The FT bill? He is a co-sponsor, I do not recall him ever being against it.
Deal is voting NO on the Cap and Trade.
The reason that there is the necessity to audit individuals for sales and use tax or a FT is this – one can buy materials from a retailer and duly pay the tax thereupon, then apply labor to it to form a fabricated unit of greater value, which results in a tax liability on the fair market value of the item so produced. The individual who sells such an item owes tax on the sale/exchange price or FMV, with credit for the taxes previously paid. The individual who buys is liable for the full unpaid tax.
The need to audit individuals is greater with the taxation of services.
The need for audits may be mitigated, but not eliminated.
The auditor can assess on or both. If both, normally the seller pays the tax and gives the buyer proof of the assessment payment, whereupon the buyer’s liability is extinguished.
I hear BO has a National Sales tax plan and it’s even better.
Yes, it is the VAT.
It is coming, for the idjits have to have some way to seize the savings of the frugal and that is a good one.
I knew that. I was just being a smart @$$. LOL
Speaking of taxes, is anyone else still waiting on their income tax refund from the state? I heard that there’s not that much money to refund.
California and Kansas were talking about doing the I.O.U. thing. I’m not really fond of that idea.
Although, if they wanted to repeal the state income tax so that this B.S. doesn’t happen in the future, I’m open-minded to the idea.
Here’s a video related to something.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7pig0eiuQ8
ChrisF says: I was tempted to bump this with a Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett/Ed McMahon Open thread
Roseanne and Kevin Costner are next! Check it out!
SWEETIE, THE REASON I’m calling you is because you’re a friend.”
That’s how Anthony Pellicano, private eye to the stars, explains why he’s returning my call. Pellicano–whose clients have included Michael Jackson, Roseanne, Kevin Costner, Farrah Fawcett, and even Ed McMahon–is in trouble with the law.
Esquire, March 1993
http://www.mywire.com/a/Esquire/twenty-years-Anthony-Pellicano-was/139803?extID=10051
Coincidence? I think not.
1993=2003
Grrr.
Remember that “You Get 100% of Your Paycheck” Promise?
Not if your employer pays health insurance premiums and decides that is the limit of his contribution.
From the AFFT site ,…..Under the FairTax plan, purchases of health care services made directly by an individual are subject to sales tax just as they generally must be paid from after-tax dollars today. Health insurance premiums are subject to tax.11
In the footnotes #11 – 11 This is equally true of health insurance policies purchased by an employer on behalf of an employee.
How many think that employers would continue to pay premiums AND a 30% tax?
Bill S. – what’s interesting is that the new format doesn’t show up at all when viewing on the iPhone. FREEEEEEEDOOOMMMMMMM!!!!
It goes in order on the iphone. The problem is you don’t know who or what someone is talking about if they linked to someone else’s comment. pain!
Sometimes this format is also out of order.
!!!tamrof ypparc gniffe siht wercS
Klaatu barada nikto
It’s… It’s a COOKBOOK!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5×0BSgLKnSk
One big glaring problem beyond the monkey math is the size of the transaction at the point of sales. As the size of the % transaction moves up all rational people who have looked at this idea concludes sales will go down via sticker shock and fraud will go up. And this will be devastating to our economy and create even more unemployment via reduction in sales.
That is why a NST cannot work unless it is similar size of a state sales tax range. And even with that when you combine it with local taxes it still will be high.
And the problem is NST at that rate does not generate enough money. That is why the only way I see it working is with a lower flat tax rate with no write offs.
I realize this hurts the argument of getting rid of the IRS but as I pointed out this was a fantasy anyways because of the conflict of interest between the state and federal government over lien rights would make it irrational to have the state collect on the behave of the federal government.
JK,
That is classical GOP theory – By taxing at a high rate, we get less of that being taxed.
Funny how the FTers hijacked so many Republicans with a high tax system anyhow.
The political parties bear no semblance to reality or to theory, so they?
Indy
Very good point!
Bill G,
Priceless and…
it fits…..
Me, you, Konop, Paul Revere and that Blonde…….all the GOPers merrily boarded the ship.
Konop has it correct: As the size of the % transaction moves up all rational people who have looked at this idea concludes sales will go down via sticker shock and fraud will go up
BUT, FTxers have absolutely no clue as to the psychology of price vs. demand.
JK,
Broaden the base, as I recommended above, and the combined state and federal rate would be less than 10%.
The whole topic is nonsensical, because the debt, insane deficits increasing the debt, the debt assumed with the GSE’s, and the future debt in the entitlements require a 140% tax.
Indy
The biggest problem is many Americans want to think they can get something for nothing, and the politicians feed off this to get re-elected.
I told many of my friends when I ran for office I did it to educate people on economic issues. And when I pointed out the issues surrounding the out of control leverage via banks, consumers and government I was told this is not a winning message.
And on this site years after I ran many still point out how I lost by many votes, while if they had listen to me they would be in better finical shape.
The reason people like a Madoff can scam people is that mentality of wanting something for nothing ie the Fair Tax cult.
I hope and pray a new generation of Americans wake up and realize our future is not about what they can pull out of the system. JFK said it best “ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country”
Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You!
. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB6hLg3PRbY
I used to be a Fair Tax supporter. I still believe it is better than the current system (and if it ever got a vote in Congress, I’d encourage a vote in favor); but that’s not saying much.
After giving it a lot more study, I find my self in agreement with Laurence Vance at the Mises Institute: “The only thing the FairTax does is change the way the state confiscates the wealth of its citizens.” As Congressman Ron Paul has said: “the real key to tax reform is dramatically reduced spending by the federal government. Until the government spends far less, taxes (in whatever form) will remain too high. While I certainly support eliminating the income tax, I do not want to see it replaced with a high national sales tax which attempts to collect the same amount of revenue. Spending is the real problem.”
Because the FairTax is a consumption tax, Murray Rothbard’s conclusion about consumption taxes is apropos:
Vance concludes, and I have to agree: “The FairTax does nothing to tame the federal leviathan. The solution is nothing less than a drastic reduction or wholesale elimination of its revenue source. What is fair about allowing the government to confiscate 23 percent of the value of every new good and service? FairTax proponents may call it necessary legislation, but I call it highway robbery.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI5lC4Z_T80
I corresponded with Mr. Vance to express appreciation for his article.
He says the cultists have bombarded him with emails.
I guess I will be too, then. :/
Because the cultists are morons.
Of course, the preferred Constitutional way for the national government to levy taxes would be direct capitation taxation, laid in proportion to the census count (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4). But hey, I can dream.
Comments on this entry are closed.