The FairTax - Familiar With It? Never Heard Of It?

The FairTax - Familiar With It? Never Heard Of It?

This is a discussion on The FairTax - Familiar With It? Never Heard Of It? within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; I am an activist volunteer for FairTax.org . The FairTax is a bill, authored by Rep. John Linder and introduced by him in the House ...

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 66

Thread: The FairTax - Familiar With It? Never Heard Of It?

  1. #1
    Member Array BluesStringer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Out Here, USA
    Posts
    100

    The FairTax - Familiar With It? Never Heard Of It?

    I am an activist volunteer for FairTax.org. The FairTax is a bill, authored by Rep. John Linder and introduced by him in the House and by Saxby Chambliss in the Senate, both from Georgia. Thumbnail sketch:

    1. Eliminates all payroll taxes from the federal level and replaces them with a national sales tax.
    2. Eliminates the death tax, the alternative minimum tax and all corporate taxes.
    3. Relieves the poor of 100% of the federal tax burden by instituting a "prebate" system that sends every household a check each month, based on the number in that household, not based on income, in anticipation of the bare minimum of spending on life's essentials. The annual payout is based on the US government's poverty level numbers as published from year-to-year, and as such, is adjustable for inflation and/or other cost of living considerations.
    4. Disbands and abolishes the IRS. 70,000+ pages of impossible-to-understand-or-fully-comply-with Tax Code is replaced by 150 or so pages of the most transparent and easy-to-understand tax system ever devised.
    5. Lays the groundwork for the repeal of the 16th Amendment, which authorizes the fed to collect taxes based on income.
    6. Creates the largest tax haven for business the world has ever seen. Will not only bring homegrown businesses that have fled overseas due in large part to confiscatory taxation back home, but attracts foreign investment as well. All research, and it is extensive, points to a 10% growth rate in the economy in the first full year after implementation.
    7. Virtually eliminates the underground economy from evading taxes. Illegal aliens, drug dealers, prostitutes, organized crime will all pay federal taxes every time they buy goods and services.
    8. Vastly reduces the ability of politicians and special interests (read: lobbyists) to intrude on the lives of Americans through manipulation of the Tax Code.


    There's lots more. I am very well-versed on the intricacies of the plan and can answer most questions and/or concerns. What I can't answer, I know how and where to find the answers.

    There is a lot of misinformation out there about The FairTax, some just simple ignorance of the facts, and some intentional smearing of a plan that takes more power from politicians and special interests and returns it into the hands of The People than any other piece of legislation in American history. So if you've heard things like, "The FairTax will add 30% to cost of everything you buy," please keep an open mind. It's not true, and if given an open-minded chance, I can show you that the overwhelming majority of criticism against the plan is based on assumptions, mistakes and outright lies that either must change the terms of The FairTax to make any sense, or that are wholly misrepresentations to begin with.

    This is not Forbes' or Shelby's flat-tax plan. There are some good things about both of them, but neither gets rid of payroll taxes, the IRS or the Tax Code, nor does either plan give you, the individual, the ability to pay taxes voluntarily over and above what it takes to get by.

    So let's talk about it. The worst that can happen is that we all learn something about a piece of legislation that is currently working its way through Congress. Oh, which reminds me, if you want to look up the text of the bill(s), they are H.R. 25 in the House and S. 1025 in the Senate.

    Blues

    __________________________________________________ ________________________________________
    Everyone agrees. The current Federal income tax system is broken. Patching up the existing code is pointless. It's time for a fresh approach, a fair approach.
    It's time for the FairTax.
    Sign Up For E-Updates
    FairTax Forums - Hear, Be Heard & Learn!
    "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington


  2. #2
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    13,153
    BluesStringer:

    What is the rate of tax?
    Is it graduated?
    What are the major exemptions, if any?
    How does it differ from the Canadian GST?
    How does it differ from the typical European VAT?
    What is the phase-in period?

    While I am generally a proponent of consumption based taxes, I have a philosophical disagreement with the transition from an income tax to a consumption tax.

    As a 50+ age income tax payor for the last 40 years now looking forward to a retirement income stream that will not be significantly burdened by income tax......as are many Americans, will I now be required to pay a national sales tax on the dollars I spend, which are, BTW, predominantly accumulated with after tax dollars? That is, what transition rule would prevent me from effectively being taxed twice? Once on the income as I earned it, and then as I spend it?

    I think the phase-in and transition rules can make or break this! A 20+ year transition period is what was originally estimated by either the GAO or Treasury when similar ideas were previously studied.

    As a CPA, sure, it skewers one of my livelihoods, but since I mainly do State and Local tax work, it really wouldn't be a too-big a deal - just a transition mess, so to speak..........

    Anyway, love to hear more about the details. Rather than pull up the bill, and read it, I'm just lazy and posting my questions. I've read more proposed legislation in my life than I either care to admit or remember......


    The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins. ― The Journals of Kierkegaard

  3. #3
    Member Array LastManOut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Emmaus, PA
    Posts
    420

    http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Taxes

    Taxes

    The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States."

    In Article I, Section 9, the original document made clear that "no Capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." It is moreover established that "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

    Since 1913, our Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property have been abridged and diminished by the imposition on each of us of Federal income, payroll, and estate taxes. This is an unconstitutional Federal assumption of direct taxing authority.

    The Internal Revenue Service is the enforcement arm of the Federal government's present unjust tax system. Citizens, both in groups and as individuals, have repeatedly sought responses from the IRS bureaucracy as to the basis for the agency's tax policies and procedures. No answers have been forthcoming although a responsible government must be answerable to the people and has a duty to those it is supposed to serve.

    We propose legislation to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, and will veto any authorization, appropriation, or continuing resolution which contains any funding whatsoever for that illicit and unconstitutional agency. We are opposed to the flat-rate tax, national sales tax, and value added tax proposals that are being promoted as an improvement to the current tax system. The Sixteenth Amendment does not provide authority for an un-apportioned direct tax.

    Moreover, it is our intention to replace, with a tariff based revenue system supplemented by excise taxes, the current tax system of the U.S. government (including income taxes, payroll taxes, and estate taxes.)

    To the degree that tariffs on foreign products, and excises, are insufficient to cover the legitimate Constitutional costs of the federal government, we will offer an apportioned "state-rate tax" in which the responsibility for covering the cost of unmet obligations will be divided among the several states in accordance with their proportion of the total population of the United States, excluding the District of Columbia. Thus, if a state contains 10 percent of the nation's citizens, it will be responsible for assuming payment of 10 percent of the annual deficit.

    The effect of this "state-rate tax" will be to encourage politicians to argue for less, rather than more, federal spending, and less state spending as well.

    To the extent permitted by the Constitution, we believe that the taxation of corporations is an appropriate source of government revenue. The Supreme Court has defined "income" as a "gain or increase arising from corporate activity or privilege." People are not corporations, and corporations need not be treated as "people" for the purposes of taxation.

    There is substantial evidence that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified. When elected, we will act to cease collection of direct Federal personal income taxes. We also support ratification of the Liberty Amendment which would repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, and provide that "Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts."

    We support the use of motor fuel excise taxes, at rates not in excess of those currently imposed, to be used exclusively for the erection, maintenance, and administration of Federal highways. These taxes should never be used for "demonstration projects", mass transit, or for other non-highway purposes.

    We support the use of excise taxes to curb the use of tax dollars for media advertising, and to provide so-called "tax abatements," "tax incentives," and "economic development grants," which are pretexts to raid the public treasury and rob the workingman for the benefit of wealthy interests favored by the politicians.

  4. #4
    Distinguished Member Array P7fanatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Texan in NWFlorida
    Posts
    1,588

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    BluesStringer:

    What is the rate of tax?
    Is it graduated?
    What are the major exemptions, if any?
    How does it differ from the Canadian GST?
    How does it differ from the typical European VAT?
    What is the phase-in period?

    Anyway, love to hear more about the details. Rather than pull up the bill, and read it, I'm just lazy and posting my questions. I've read more proposed legislation in my life than I either care to admit or remember......
    http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServ...ame=about_main
    "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson

    "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." -Michael Savage

    GOOD Gun Control is being able to hit your target! -Myself

  5. #5
    Member Array sdr7871's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Orlando
    Posts
    42
    Nice plan. However I do not see how you can implement such a plan immediately after assuming office. I believe you underestimate the "behemoth" size of our federal government. Such a plan would surely have to be "graduated" in to the system to allow for down sizing and cuts. Now, take the "Fair Tax" plan for example. No such delay would be necessary.Any revenue the federal system needs would be provided for without delay. Perhaps you did not read Mr. Boortz's book yet. I would highly recommend you do that before condemning the Fair Tax.....

  6. #6
    Senior Member Array jeephipwr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Triangle, NC
    Posts
    612

    I'll pay my share

    I'll pay taxes by whatever is fair to all, but I am with Rock and Glock as I get older, dont change the rules now.

    Another way to get the most "bang" for our tax dollars is to get control of government spending on crazy items like $200 hammers and $400 haircuts. Get rid of the paperwork buracracy as well.

  7. #7
    VIP Member
    Array goawayfarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fork Union, Virginia
    Posts
    2,701
    From Go Away Farms' dictionary..........

    Fair Tax\, noun
    -The only way to charge a truly equal tax to all citizens.
    (example- ALL tax payers in the USA would be charged the exact same fee. NOT graduated based on income! .......Just to use a round number, everyone would pay $2000/yr. NO MATTER HOW MUCH INCOME YOU HAVE! Anything else is NOT FAIR, it is SOCIALISM!)

    All tax payers have access to the same services as every other taxpayer, so why should one person have to pay MORE, just because they have a higher income......I say again, THAT'S NOT FAIR, IT'S SOCIALISM!

    Anybody remember Karl Marx?
    From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.-Karl Marx
    That is SOCIALISM!

    The government has no business making one taxpayer pay for the services of another. That is theft! When you take money from my pocket & give it to someone else WHO HAS NOT EARNED IT, THAT IS THEFT!

    A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.-George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

    A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.-Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler (1742-1813), Scottish jurist and historian, Collection of Lectures at Edinburgh University (1801)
    If that is what you mean by 'Fair Tax', I'm all for it!
    Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.-Seneca

    "If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. If I have a gun, what do I have to be paranoid about?" -Clint Smith

    "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array SammyIamToday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    As a 50+ age income tax payor for the last 40 years now looking forward to a retirement income stream that will not be significantly burdened by income tax......as are many Americans, will I now be required to pay a national sales tax on the dollars I spend, which are, BTW, predominantly accumulated with after tax dollars? That is, what transition rule would prevent me from effectively being taxed twice? Once on the income as I earned it, and then as I spend it?
    Well, it works out since my generation will have to pay for all of the Baby Boomers Medicare until it bankrupts the country.

    I think the Fair Tax Act is great. I hate graduated taxation. You shouldn't be punished for being successful. I also like the idea of paying taxes when I decided and not being forced to.
    ...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller

  9. #9
    Member Array BluesStringer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Out Here, USA
    Posts
    100
    Good, thoughtful questions Richard. I'll do my best...

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    BluesStringer:

    What is the rate of tax?
    23% calculated as inclusive. What I mean by "inclusive" is that the tax will be included in the price-tag of the goods and services you buy. That is counter-intuitive, I know, because most (if not all) states' sales tax is calculated exclusive of the price-tag, meaning that the tax is added on top of the marked price. The reason though, that the authors made it tax-inclusive is that the tax it replaces, the income tax, is calculated the same way. If you make $100,000, your tax burden is included in that figure. Same with The FairTax, the price marked is the price you pay including your national sales tax burden.

    Now, this detail is the source of a lot of confusion about whether the tax is 23% or actually 30%. The truth is, it's both. Here's how I can say that without any legitimate accusation of trying to obfuscate and "cook" the numbers....

    If I spend $100 under the FT, the formula is as follows:

    $100 - 23% = $77 actually spent on the item, with $23 going to Uncle Sam.

    The confusion comes when you calculate in tax exclusive terms, ie:

    $77 spent + 29.871% (or 30% for simplicity's sake) = $100.

    So 23% can indeed be the same as 30%, depending on which formula one uses, and I really don't care which formula we use in discussing it as long as it's understood that the FairTax bill mandates that the tax be collected inclusively, and as well, that your receipt for every transaction that is taxable have your item or service cost and the FT itemized.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    Is it graduated?
    No, 23% inclusive across the board. It is, however, much more progressive than the current system. Everyone, including the "evil rich", gets the prebate I spoke of, effectively relieving the poor of any national tax burden whatsoever up to poverty-level spending. But if they're poor, that's all they have the potential to spend anyway, meaning that people earning above the poverty level contribute more in taxes, progressively increasing the more they make, presuming that the more they make, the more they spend.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    What are the major exemptions, if any?
    Zero exemptions on all sales of new items, and all end-user services. Nothing used has the FT imposed on it, and no materials are taxed business-to-business. A good example is real estate. It takes a bunch of contractors and vendors to get a house built. The General Contractor pays no taxes on supplies or services to get that home built being as he is not the end-user. The FT is only imposed at the sale of the new home. All used items, including homes, are not taxed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    How does it differ from the Canadian GST?
    I am not familiar with the acronym. I'll assume that the "ST" part of it describes a Sales Tax of some sort. If Canada also has an income tax, that would be the main difference. Other than that, I can't say, and really, I'm not very interested in delving deep into another country's tax system as a way to compare The FairTax. I prefer to compare the FT to the US's income tax.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    How does it differ from the typical European VAT?
    Pretty much the same answer as above, except I am a little familiar with the "Value Added Tax," which, as I understand it, typically (and as far as I know, universally) VATs are imposed in addition to income taxes and a pleathora of other federally-imposed taxes. Throughout your evaluation process of the FT you must keep in mind that all other federally-imposed taxes are abolished. As far as I know, no consumption tax in the world stands alone as the funding source for its country's government. This one will, which makes it pretty hard to fairly compare to VATs or other systems that don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    What is the phase-in period?

    While I am generally a proponent of consumption based taxes, I have a philosophical disagreement with the transition from an income tax to a consumption tax.
    It would be immediate. The IRS would only stay active for as long as it took to wrap up court cases and collections on past due personal and corporate taxes. Everyone not involved in a case like that would go from one day being at the mercy of what I strongly believe is an unconstitutional bureaucracy that can and does impose fines and take private property without due process, to knowing exactly what their tax burden will be based entirely on what they spend, not what they make. The federal government's ubiquitous presence disappears from everyone's paycheck-stub overnight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    As a 50+ age income tax payor for the last 40 years now looking forward to a retirement income stream that will not be significantly burdened by income tax......as are many Americans, will I now be required to pay a national sales tax on the dollars I spend, which are, BTW, predominantly accumulated with after tax dollars? That is, what transition rule would prevent me from effectively being taxed twice? Once on the income as I earned it, and then as I spend it?
    I am 52, so I am acutely aware of the problem of which you speak. This is probably the most complicated to understand benefit of the FT, so bear with me for a moment.

    The short answer is "yes," you will be taxed twice on any savings or retirement accounts that were funded with after-tax dollars. BUT, you have to consider that you will be taxed many times more than twice under the current system. Remember, all corporate taxes are wiped out. All the costs associated with compliance with the current system are wiped out. All matching taxes for Workman's Comp and Unemployment benefits are wiped out. Even though these taxes are not imposed directly on consumers, they represent billions, maybe even trillions, of dollars that are passed on to us at the cash register nonetheless. In short, they are taxes, they're just hidden, or more accurately-stated, embedded in the price of everything we buy right now.

    The $20 million+ dollars and 20 years of research devoted to this specific plan shows that, on average, 22% of the price of everything we buy represents the cost to consumers for the above-mentioned embedded corporate taxes. Any company that tries to reap a windfall profit by continuing to charge for costs that they no longer incur will go under before the ink dries on the FT bill that the President signs into law. For what it's worth, WalMart has already committed to accept the research and lower their prices accordingly the same day that The FairTax goes into effect. Other major companies have as well. So imagine that Target says nah, we're keeping our prices the same and adding the FT to everything we sell. Think Target will last more than a week doing that while other retailers pass on the new average 22% savings in the cost of doing business to the consumer?

    So, the fact is that while it's true that you will be taxed twice under The FairTax in some limited circumstances, you will be taxed much more than that for every good and service you pay for under the current system.

    Like I said, this is hard to understand, and even those who understand the concept(s) behind it will have some trouble having confidence in the numbers. Here's a link to a Harvard study which impeccably details how the elimination of corporate embedded taxes will lower the price of goods and services commensurate with the 23% FT.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    I think the phase-in and transition rules can make or break this! A 20+ year transition period is what was originally estimated by either the GAO or Treasury when similar ideas were previously studied.
    Well, we, FairTax proponents, believe that cold-turkey is the best way to go. I appreciate that you've asked such thoughtful and significant questions of me, and that you've given me a chance to convince you. That said, it is incumbent upon you to poke around FairTax.org and/or The FairTax Forums and see if you can't find legitimate reasons for the cold-turkey approach. If you can't find it after really looking, then you've at least identified a legitimate criticism of the plan based in knowledge and thoughtful consideration. I cannot begrudge anybody that. But I also can't pretend that I'll have every answer to quell every single concern that anyone might have, and this is one of those issues. I personally wouldn't support an extended phase-in period because I don't trust the government to phase out the IRS and all the taxes aforementioned if given half a chance to screw around with the bill. Also, if the bill isn't implemented immediately, there's no urgency to repeal the 16th Amendment, which, as hard as getting The FairTax passed is going to be, repealing the 16th is going to be many times more difficult. But you make your own evaluation on that particular score. I'd be interested to know how your thoughts evolve on the subject, if at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    As a CPA, sure, it skewers one of my livelihoods, but since I mainly do State and Local tax work, it really wouldn't be a too-big a deal - just a transition mess, so to speak..........
    Yeah, generally speaking, accounting is the second-most likely profession to encounter significant hits to their businesses. The good news is though, that the biggest hit will go against lobbyists, truly the pariahs of our political system. I would have a lot of sympathy for someone like you who worked hard within the system to make a living that gets yanked out from under you unexpectedly, but I would cheer from the mountaintops if lobbyists, whose job it is to convince politicians to manipulate the tax code so that their clients benefit at the expense of the rest of us "normal" Americans, became a bad and distant memory for us, and a laughable artifact of the past for our heirs. But I have to be honest and admit that, as strongly as I support The FairTax, it is not painless for everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    Anyway, love to hear more about the details. Rather than pull up the bill, and read it, I'm just lazy and posting my questions. I've read more proposed legislation in my life than I either care to admit or remember......
    Well, you don't have to read the dry, boring legalese contained within the actual bill to get a handle on the plan. As this overly-verbose post should confirm, I don't mind talking or writing about it in an effort to honestly and thoroughly answer anyone's questions, but there's been reams and reams of paper (cyber and pulp-based) written by some very colorful folks. The nationally-syndicated radio talk-show host, Neal Boortz, co-authored the definitive work on The FairTax with its author, John Linder, called The FairTax Book, which is an easy and entertaining read, as well as being highly informative. There are numerous YouTube videos with Boortz, Sean Hannity, John Stossel, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and a gaggle of other luminaries speaking in favor of the FT. Just do a search on "FairTax" and they'll pop up on a lot of different servers.

    Hope I didn't bore you (or anyone else). If you have more questions, ask away, I'm happy to do what I can. Take Care,

    Blues

    __________________________________________________ ________________________________________
    Everyone agrees. The current Federal income tax system is broken. Patching up the existing code is pointless. It's time for a fresh approach, a fair approach.
    [http://www.fairtax.org/index.html]It's time for the FairTax. [/url]
    [http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServ...ws_update]Sign Up For E-Updates.[/url]
    [http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServ...forums]FairTax Forums - Hear, Be Heard & Learn![/url]
    "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,368
    Uh yeah...a few small problems still linger here...
    A) you're still advocating taxation which quite frankly, is Robbery (yes robbery, not theft...two distinct beasts).

    B) the IRS employs what...tens of thousands? Good luck disbanding them. Every socialist ninny and their brother will be screaming bloody murder.

    C) refer to A.

    D) oh yeah...refer to goawayfarm's post.

    edit: definitions:
    Robbery - the felonious taking of the property of another from his or her person or in his or her immediate presence, against his or her will, by violence or intimidation

    Theft - the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
    Last edited by packinnova; October 1st, 2007 at 12:11 AM. Reason: definitions:
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  11. #11
    Member Array BluesStringer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Out Here, USA
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    Uh yeah...a few small problems still linger here...
    A) you're still advocating taxation which quite frankly, is Robbery (yes robbery, not theft...two distinct beasts).
    With all due respect, it is sophistry to equate funding your government with a criminal act. You'd have a point if you limited this assertion to the way the IRS actually collects taxes under the current system, but to suggest that any form of taxation is tantamount to robbery is really out there and not worth the few words in response that I've already devoted to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    B) the IRS employs what...tens of thousands? Good luck disbanding them. Every socialist ninny and their brother will be screaming bloody murder.
    I actually get all warm and fuzzy whenever I can participate in making socialist ninnies and their brothers scream bloody murder. What's your point? I mean, in one breath you assert criminality in funding your government, and in the next you speak of the IRS as some sort of untouchable, sanctified jobs program. The same taxes you claim are the product of robbery are funding the IRS right now. This is very hard to follow.

    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    C) refer to A.
    Wow, you put a lot of thought into this part of your soliloquy, now didn't you?

    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    D) oh yeah...refer to goawayfarm's post.
    Maybe you should refer to that post. From what I can tell, goawayfarm's said he'd be all for The FairTax if it imposes the same percentage tax burden on everyone across the board, which it does. Again, what's your point?

    And to "LastManStanding's" post....I'm sure that The Constitution Party has lots to offer someone like me, and the truth is, I may well join it one day. No sarcasm or dismissiveness should be read into that statement at all, I'm serious. But The FairTax is a non-partisan proposal that has no affiliation with any party or ideology. To copy and paste a party platform that devotes less than one sentence to the subject of this thread, and to consider that a valid reply, is the height of intellectual laziness. If you've got something to say about The FairTax, bring it on, but if all you want is to hijack a thread in order to advocate for an organization that has nothing at all to do with it, I don't think I'm being out of line to respectfully and politely request that you take it somewhere else. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

    Blues
    "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington

  12. #12
    Distinguished Member Array Squawker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Las Vegas NV
    Posts
    1,614
    It's a great idea, as it taxes consumption rather than production. It taxes the underground economy, which hasn't paid taxes before. But, there's one very important thing that needs to happen at the same time, or immediately after the enacting of this tax- we need to repeal the 16th amendment. Why? because that's what gives congress the power to tax income. As long as it remains intact, we're always subject to the whim of congress. Yes, we can get as much income from the fair tax as with the income tax. But the Bush tax cuts increased the amount of income to the federal governemment, and congress just kept spending. They may be willing to stop the income tax now, but down the road, someone will get the bright idea "Hey- why don't we add a 1% tax on income- no one would notice?". As long as the congress has the power to tax income, then we're at risk of ending up with both taxes. The fair tax is a great plan. We just need to limit the congress' power to take our money.

  13. #13
    VIP Member
    Array goawayfarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fork Union, Virginia
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post

    Maybe you should refer to that post. From what I can tell, goawayfarm's said he'd be all for The FairTax if it imposes the same percentage tax burden on everyone across the board, which it does. Again, what's your point?
    I probably didn't explain myself very well...........I'm NOT avocating the same PERCENTAGE tax burden, I'm advocating the exact same taxfor everyone.....YOU PAY THE SAME DOLLAR amount that I & everybody else would pay. What ever that dollar amount would be........If I pay $2000 & make $10,000/yr, you would pay $2000.00/yr if you made $100,000/yr.......everybody pays exactly the same amount....that would be a fair tax.
    Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.-Seneca

    "If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. If I have a gun, what do I have to be paranoid about?" -Clint Smith

    "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper

  14. #14
    Member Array LastManOut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Emmaus, PA
    Posts
    420
    Does anyone not believe, if the National government were to ONLY spend our money on the items that are within it's Constitutional mandate to fund, we would NEED an income, flat, fair, VAT, sales, etc. tax at all.

    It is socialism for the National government to fund health care, public transportation, farm subsidies, education, the arts, museums, city parks, corporate advertising, foreign governments, retirement, etc., etc, etc. (What about an individual's right to a 3000 SF home on an acre of land? Or a brand new, reliable automobile every two years, so I can get to work and not depend on welfare? Maybe high speed internet connections for all?)

    It is the individual states' decision to fund the National government and any "pet" program the politicians wish to request of taxpayers of that state.

    I could support a Fair Taxof some kind IF and only IF the the politicians first get their hand out of my pocket to buy their (or their party's re-election) and funds are still not sufficient 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; ...

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." (Article I Section 8 U.S. Constitution)

    PERIOD!

  15. #15
    Member Array BluesStringer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Out Here, USA
    Posts
    100
    goawayfarm, The FairTax isn't imposed as it relates to income at all. If you look at what it does relate to, spending, then you've got exactly what you're talking about. If I spend $2000, then $460 of that goes to Uncle Sam. If you or anyone else spends $2000, then $460 of that figure goes to Uncle Sam. Total parity no matter what you, I, or anyone else makes in income.

    The whole point of The FairTax is to wean ourselves away from the notion that government has any business whatsoever taking, wholly involuntarily, any percentage of the fruits of our labor, while at the same time recognizing that government must be funded somehow.

    Your idea that everyone pay the exact same dollar-figure in taxes, regardless of wealth or poverty circumstances, is interesting, but I've never heard of or seen any such proposal be drafted so that we, as a nation, could scrutinize it. The FairTax is a real, honest-to-goodness piece of legislation that, while not perfect, will make our tax system much more fair and still fund government. It will stimulate the economy and bring business back home. It will be a jobs-creation machine. If you're not in favor of any of that, but are in favor of something that doesn't even exist, and probably never will, then I guess we've got nothing left to discuss.

    Squawker, you're absolutely right that The FairTax will and can only work if the repeal of the 16th follows closely behind its enactment. The only change to the legislation that proponents have said we will support is some kind of time limit to get that done before the FT would take over. That, too, has its risks, as we could go so far as having the bill pass only to die on the vine before it is ever implemented, but no one pushing for The FairTax wants to give the government another source of income without making sure the previous one is completely unavailable to them. Getting the bill passed is a long-shot, and repealing an amendment is an even longer-shot, but, speaking for myself, the former is incomplete and should not be implemented without accomplishing the latter. I believe strongly that any knowledgeable proponent would say the same thing.

    LastManStanding, even if income taxes could legitimately be called unconstitutional at one time in our history, it cannot be any longer. I'm baffled as to how politicians convinced enough Americans to get the 16th Amendment passed, but even if there is controversy about how it got passed, it's been an amendment as far as the government is concerned for almost 100 years now. You'll get nowhere advocating for repealing the 16th and advocating for the notion that we, as citizens, have no responsibility to fund government. You can choose to fight for something that has a slim chance of getting passed, like The FairTax, or continue to fight for something that has absolutely no chance of even being considered within government. That's up to you, but I would ask again that you take your advocacy for something having absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread someplace else. Please.

    I gotta say, I'm a bit surprised at some of the hostility towards even discussing a tax reform proposal. I guess some folks are either so happy with the current system, or so put-upon by the mere existence of government, that they have no interest in actually addressing the details of reform proposals. I find either case to be quite strange, and frankly, rather scary.

    Blues
    "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Anyone familiar with this gun...
    By imthduke in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: May 22nd, 2010, 01:13 AM
  2. Anyone familiar?
    By Munch in forum Related Gear & Equipment
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 5th, 2010, 07:07 PM
  3. Who's familiar with the .357 SIG?
    By SpringerXD in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: February 11th, 2008, 04:39 PM
  4. Anyone familiar with KKF?
    By Tom357 in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 14th, 2005, 01:50 PM
  5. Okay, some familiar faces from THR etc.
    By tcdrennen in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 15th, 2004, 03:55 AM