Senator Gravel's Fair Tax
Libertarian Presidential Candidate Senator Mike Gravel is for real tax reform.
The Plan:
- Abolish the Income Tax and the IRS
- Set up a Progressive Sales Tax
It’s called a FAIR TAX.
The way in which a government raises revenue is a critical indication of how fair it will be to its citizens. The U.S. Income Tax system is unfair to its citizens and crippling to the economy. Both the Income Tax and the Sales Tax systems are generically progressive:
- With income tax, you’re taxed on what you earn.
- With sales tax, you’re taxed on what you spend.
The following applies to both Income and Sales tax systems:
- To be fair, a tax system must have total transparency––each taxpayer must know what s/he is paying and what everyone else is paying.
- To be fair, a tax system cannot have any exceptions. One exception opens the door to those who can afford to game the system.
- To be fair, a tax system must be simple. The more complex it is, the easier it is to game the system.
Our income tax code is riddled with exceptions and incentives that the 30,000 lobbyists in Washington have secured and continue to secure for their clients. Little wonder the code is incomprehensible and has a compliance cost to the private sector of $270 billion a year.
After serving eight years on the Senate Finance Committee, my choice to meet the fairness criteria is to junk the income tax with all its exceptions, close the IRS, and establish a sales tax––without exceptions.
Much demagoguery swirls around issues of taxation:
- “Soak the rich” is one approach, but it never happens regardless of whether the liberals or conservatives hold political power. The wealthy have the money to game the system.
- “Tax the corporations” is another approach, but corporate taxes are built into the cost of products or services, so consumers are actually paying those taxes, too. It’s a hidden sales tax.
I subscribe to a sales tax system, most of which is included in what is called the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax meets the fairness criteria: simplicity, transparency and no exceptions.
What sales tax rate will be applied to all new products and services?
The goal is to keep tax reform revenue-neutral. It is not a tax-cut program. Whatever the tax rate on new goods and services that will produce the same amount of money currently raised by the income tax is the sales tax rate. Best estimates indicate that the rate would be somewhere between 20 and 25%. Also, best estimates indicate that it would take a year to transition from one system to the other.
The Prebate
One of the most exciting features of the Fair Tax is the monthly payments to individuals and/or families to reimburse them for the tax they pay on the essentials of life (food, shelter, clothing, medicine). The amount of the prebate is calculated by multiplying the cost of essentials by the tax rate. The resulting tax is divided into 12 equal payments and sent on the first of each month to consumers who have registered annually for the program. The progressiveness of the Fair Tax can be determined by adjusting the amounts selected for the prices paid for essentials, which should not be taxed in the first place. However, giving these essentials an exception from the sales tax opens the door for wealth to game the system and we are back with the problems we have in the income tax system.
The Congress will never enact such a radical reform because it dilutes their power to control and focus the economy to accomplish social goals and ,of course, limits their ability of Congress to reward their special-interest friends who donate money to their political campaigns. In my judgment, Americans will have to vote to enact the National Initiative, becoming legislators like their elected lawmakers, in order to make the Fair Tax the law of the land.
Fair Tax Facts
- Taxes you on what you spend––not on what you earn So American consumers with low or moderate incomes will automatically pay less in taxes.
- Government revenues from individuals are presently funded by payroll deductions from 110 million workers and from corporate taxes. Under the Fair Tax government revenues will be funded by more than 300 million consumers, including visiting tourists, and tax cheats who previously reported little or nothing to the IRS.
- Eliminates federal deductions on your paycheck for income taxes, Social Security and Medicare.
- Social Security and Medicare will be fully funded by the Fair Tax
- Restores individual privacy. The government no longer needs to know where you work, what you earn, or what you do with your earnings.
- Saves up to $270 billion per year that federal tax compliance currently costs our economy.
- Dramatically reduces the price of new products and services, estimated at 20-25%, because corporations no longer need to hide these costs in the retail prices that are now passed on to consumers. This reduction equals the present income taxes being paid.
- Creates jobs and economic growth in the U.S. by reducing operating costs to companies.
- Encourages international investment in the American economy.
- Businesses, and state and local governments collecting the sales tax will keep a small percentage to reimburse themselves for the cost of collecting and forwarding the funds to the U.S. Treasury.
- Encourages the re-use products and the purchase of tax-free, pre-owned products.
- Changes our consumption-based economy to a savings-based economy, warding off the oncoming fiscal crisis over commercial and private debt.
- Saves about 300,000 trees each year that are currently needed to produce all the paperwork for IRS compliance and tax forms
- Makes U.S. goods more competitive overseas and more affordable at home, thereby increasing job creation while reducing our balance of payments deficit.
- Eliminates corporate taxes and the costs of compliance. These costs are currently hidden in the price consumers pay for the company’s product or services
- Changes the American economy – the largest economic entity in the world – into the largest tax haven in the world, enticing international investments in the American economy. Also creates a level of growth (estimated at 10%) and prosperity that will permit the nation to lower government debt and balance the budget, better finance education, health care, transportation, and the rebuilding of our national infrastructure.
Comments
Another problem of "Fair tax" for the poor and the rural
Submitted on February 1st, 2008 by ruralpotterA sales tax is rated on the cost of an item. For instance if you buy a car that is $20,000 compared to a $10,000 car then you will pay more in sales tax than the person who bought the cheaper car. In the description of this plan it was suggested that people would be more inclined to buy cheaper and less wasteful items. That is all well and good , but can you tell me where I can buy a cheaper gallon of milk? or bread? How 'bout toilet tissue, shampoo, medicine, etc.? Don't people know that rural people and poor urban people have less access to goods and services? And that they pay more for them? I just paid $20.00 more for a car battery than if I could have made it to the Wal-mart 40 miles away. I pay more for gas, groceries and other goods when I buy them in the closest town, 12 miles away. With the so called fair tax, not only will I pay more for a gallon of milk, I will pay more taxes on it than urban well-off middle class folks. How is this fair?
Fair tax not fair for poor country folk.
Submitted on February 1st, 2008 by ruralpotterI am a poor, southern, country, divorced mother who is also educated. I have a BA in unemployment....oops, I mean Psychology. I cannot get a job in anything near my field without driving 60 miles and that job only pays $8.00 hr.! My closest town that has any jobs is 40 miles away and those are fastfood and Wal-mart jobs! Because of this situation, I have gone back to school to become an RN. Nursing jobs are the only jobs that will actually pay enough to get to them! Because I am very poor, I qualified for a pell grant to pay my tuition, however I can't afford books and I can't get a student loan because my small college doesn't participate in the federal student loan program. OK now that I have explained that, let me add that I may have to drop out of school because I cannot afford the gas to get there! I already am so poor that I don't owe income taxes. You guys want to tell me how paying more for gas and everything else is going to help me? I know that there is the supposed monthly refund, but I doubt that the alloted amount would be close to what I really have to pay. I have to spend more than is bugeted by govt. agencies that fund other programs, such as financial aid.
Oh, and just as a little trivia, did you know that in the state of Georgia you can't get food stamps if you are a student even if you qualify in every other way?
Fair Tax is For Realzzz, Yo!!!
Submitted on August 27th, 2007 by scsong2The substance of the FairTax proposal is sound. No matter what it is better than the current system once quoted as an economic "ship" being held down by a "anchor". I have gone to FairTax.org and read and evaluated the material. I would advise you to do the same and come to your own informed conclusion. Its a little dry in some parts but always relatable and understandable - thereby relevant to almost anyone.
I first got interested in the tax debate when I was charged several thousands of dollars in taxes on the US Army Student Loan repayments I had. Due to inefficiences in the Army system (I'll take some credit as well, since I could have always pushed harder), I was paid one lump sum of $20,000 instead of over the course of many years. Well, I had to pay taxes on it. Sure I can't complain, I got my loan paid off, but I was penalized for paying it off in one year placing me in many tax brackets higher. Now I am currently paying off those taxes with penalties. Seems really riduculuous to me. Misses the intent of the program and penalizes me for paying back quickly or joining the US Army. Kind of like how some banks clear checks before adding deposits, just to cash in on overdraft fees.
Anyhow, that's my story, well, I researched Forbes Flat Tax idea, it seemed better than the current system but it was alot alike just simpler (its a flatter tax not a flat tax), so alot of the same flaws as now. Then I came across FairTax, my interest was picqued. It is very sound and as far as my humble mind can assess (BA Washington University, working on a Masters, Lieutenant/Officer US Army, IQ supposedly 130-150, yada, yada, yada). I think you sound check it out.
You don't have to like a candidate to like his idea. The opposite hold true too, you can love a candidate and shouldn't love his ideas (e.g. Adolf Hitler in post WWI Germany). Any how the campaign is grassroots and bi partisan. I consider myself a Libertarian, with some Democratic leanings and Republican leanings too. Basically, I am socially liberal but fiscally conservative. To me, the Dems usually have good hearts but less brains. The Republicans have more brains but less heart. Libertarians (check them out too if you can) are the best of both worlds, however, they cannot get a foothold in the current bipartisan government no matter how good their ideas are. Anyhow, don't take it from me, but GO LEARN and DECIDE for yourselves.
Good Luck and Let's all Make a Better Future, all anybody can ask for
FairTax Fraud
Submitted on August 26th, 2007 by FairTaxFraudStill Serious Corporate Loopholes in Proposal, however...
Submitted on August 22nd, 2007 by Lee HendersonI think that for the middle class and lower income, the fair tax probably represents the best possible solution. The lower income, and the disenfranchised segment of the middle class are not willing to take advantage of every tax benefit. Often those who need the progressive tax benefits the most, just don't file, because from their perspective, it's not worth their frustration and labored efforts.
But by eliminating 'corporate' taxes simultaneously, you open up a huge loophole, whereby people will simply only take the smallest possible personal income home that they have to. And the corporations they sit on the boards of, will simply provide all their "luxury" goods and services as their director's compensation. I admit, that publically held corporations have regulatory and civil tort pressure to prevent this. BUT, there is no such pressure on a private corporation, excepting the fact that they must currently report executive perks as compensation, and pay FICA, etc. But with no income tax, or payroll taxes, there would be no law or regulation preventing that abuse, that loophole.
Again, only those with the power or money to game the system will do so. However, these issues presented with corporate director compenstation might be easier to enforce with appropriate laws to protect such abuse, than is the case with our current IRS code and system.
The other problem with eliminating the corporate taxes, are that windfall profits are also not reigned in and taxed, so market forces cannot prevent price gouging in some internationally controlled cartel situations. The incentive would be huge for large international industry cartels, if they had no domestic windfall profits tax. There is some sensible middle ground here to be had in corporate taxes. It deserves an honest and open debate on the merits and implementation.
Therefore, it is not as simple as proposed, but may I suggest that you find a state willing to try a sensible proposal over a 4 year term, and see what happens. It can prove itself in our economy, before subjecting the entire country to an upheaval without results to analyze and refine the law upon.
"Fair Tax" Flaws
Submitted on August 21st, 2007 by scubafoxMike Gravel is further to the economic "right" than generally perceived. The "Fair Tax" is a massive sales tax. Perhaps the extent to which this is an economic policy of the extreme "right" is not appreciated? It would require a 56% sales tax to be revenue neutral. Even with a universal cash grant it would be regressive and promote economic inequality. It would create a very active black market. It's class warfare with the primary goal of eliminating taxes on dividends and capital gains. See details at The 'Fair Tax'.
"Acceptable ideas are competent no more, but competent ideas are not yet acceptable. This is a dilemma of our time." Stafford Beer
sales tax
Submitted on August 18th, 2007 by goodrichgoodrich
Is there any Constitutional authority to impose a sales tax? If not, how would a Fair Tax be imposed legally? I keep hearing these questions, and also if we do away with the IRS, why would we need to replace it with any other taxation? Goodness knows, there are dozens and dozens of taxes already being collected on just about everything we do...
A Better Tax - The Transaction Tax
Submitted on August 16th, 2007 by jxc137The flat tax excludes taxes on business, which can send profits to investors worldwide. There is no way to recoup a tax on the value added in this transaction. There are also numerous exclusions, such as the prebate. The proposal will be gamed as would any system with exclusions, such as on labor or investment. Over time, special interests would increase exemptions in Congress. The best part of the concept is that of "no exclusions."
I believe a superior plan enshrining this priciple is to electronically tax all one way transactions. To make it work, everyone would need a bank account tied to their social security number or tax ID number (or equivalent for non-US nationals). All transactions into your account(s) would be AUTOMATICALLY taxed at a PROGRESSIVE RATE. Cash transactions above $1.00 would be banned. Only coins would be in circulation. An electronically verified refund would recoup the tax back into your account. Transfers of funds from one's differing accounts (not a transaction) would be coded exempt. Transactions between entities and/or individuals of different nationality would require reciprocal agreements with the other nation. This way there would be no tax havens and no deals for corporations.
The system would be PROGRESSIVE simply by programming the deduction. For instance, once $50,000 was transferred to an individual or entity in any combination of bank accounts tied to it, the level of tax would be increased from perhaps 10% to 15%, and on up in progressive increments.
wow!!!!
Submitted on August 8th, 2007 by mstraneyFairTax is neutral - NOT regressive
Submitted on August 8th, 2007 by MisesgravelYou have it right when you say “IMO”. The FairTax is neutral. Under the FairTax, one’s income is irrelevant to the government and everyone else, as it should be. Each individual determines what they will pay in taxes by their personal consumption.
Your argument seems to be that it is unfair and regressive because somebody makes more money than someone else. You also seem to have a problem with people who work to make a lot of money. It is apparent in the terminology that you employ; “middle class guy” vs. “really rich jerk”. For the most part YOU determine your own income. If you want more then work more or change careers.
In an economy; currency, moneys, or GNPs are NOT limited resources. That is basic economics but irrelevant to the discussion.
you are wrong my friend I
Submitted on August 9th, 2007 by mstraneyQuestion...
Submitted on August 1st, 2007 by ATDavis80FairTax will bring companies back to America
Submitted on August 6th, 2007 by Lovies LeatherMany businesses, big and small, already bank offshore. The reason they do so is to avoid paying American corporate taxes. If there are no more corporate taxes, there is no reason to have your business in the Caymen Islands. The manufacturing base would return to America due to the fact that there is not taxes being added to every step of production, meaning that producers can easily export without any value-added tax being applied. As far as a black market economy goes, there is a big one now, and there will be a big one even if FairTax is in place. The only difference is that when a drugdealer who pays no income taxes under our current system walks into a store to buy food with his illegal money, he will pay taxes on that food.
If you ask me, the FairTax is a solution to many of the problems America faces (my definition of problem might differ from yours since I am a so-called "conservative"). Many businesses use illegal labor so they can avoid paying with-holding. Without social security and medicare being funded by an income tax, there will be fewer issues with home grown labor versus imported (and to get your prebate, you have to be a legal resident). The FairTax also takes away incentive from abortion without making it illegal. The bigger the family, the bigger the prebate. This could also be a deterant to felonious crime if this were applied: Anyone convicted of a felony forfeits his or her prebate for the next 5 years. The FairTax is more than a tax-issue solution, it could very well be a solution to several major issues concerning America.
Since the government is
Submitted on July 31st, 2007 by DaFatalGigabyteSince the government is created by the people, the people pay for the government and its services. I've found that you don't need a socialist government, like socialized education and this call for socialized health care. Under almost completely free capitalism, a half and half of socialist regulation of businesses and laissez faire, you would get rid of monopolies and end up with nation-wide education and health coverage. Of course you need to ban conspiracies, or trusts, as well as make mandates to remove dangerous products, as well as dangerous business. But other than that get rid of licenses(the vehicle of monopolies), including licenses for IDEAS, and subsidies(another vehicle for monopolies), and you have consumer pleasure(because businesses have to please), way way way less national government and slightly more local government(where the power should be), but all in all less government.
So you have businesses and you have to pay for government, whether it be a fully socialist society or a capitalist society, or something in the middle. Either way there is government and there is business, the vehicle of trade. This trading would be the best way of taxation. All in all consumers pay the taxes, even when it looks like corporations are the ones being taxed. So not only are corporations polluting, some candidates are saying they will tax pollution, thus taking more money from the poisoned population. Real nice.
The flat national sales tax, which could be apportioned to states and local governments, could tax any selling. The buyer only pays the price of the product plus the tax, which is a percentage of the subtotal. Tax makes the total. Nothing else. No state tax, remember it's all apportioned(and national government takes less money overall because it's smaller). This puts the payment to the government in the hands of the seller, a plus for the buyer. All selling is taxed, although private can't be enforced so I don't know about private trade. But business trade, all trade is taxed, including essentials. We have called milk an essential. We should make calcium an essential. Oh wait calcium is in limestone. So we won't tax limestone. Let's not make petty exceptions. Everything is equal under God, Lords, same thing. Note: Lords not bad, lack of responsibility that's equal to power is bad. Now the thing on reselling, yes taxed. Why? Because a reseller buys from someone so the seller pays tax. Why is the reseller exempt? He is selling too. I guess he could get a tax break because price may have to be increased to make up for the tax. Actually that isn't true unless expenses are excessive, but whatever reselling means retaxing, means higher prices on something that is supposed to be less. We can only see what happens. That's the point of legislation, to form the outer shape of the code of law that's still limited by the core, the core being the constitution, to suit the needs of the modern era.
All in all the flat sales tax is an excellent tax that will increase investment and won't hurt consuming(because all other tax is taken away), and it's EQUAL and SIMPLE.
30% or 23% sales tax?
Submitted on July 29th, 2007 by Rejemy1017Ok, so the Fair Tax is a 20-25% (average 23%, so we'll use that figure) inclusive sales tax, but many critics of the Fair Tax will say that the tax will actually be 30% of the price of what you're buying. So, the question is, who is right?
Well, I'm going to answer my own question for you all. They are in fact, both right. The Fair Tax is both a 23% tax and a 30% tax at the same time... depending on how you look at it anyway. Observe:
The price of an mp3 player after Fair Tax: $100
The price of the same mp3 player before Fair Tax (assuming no embedded taxes): $77
The amount of tax you pay: $23
$77 + $23 = $100. So, we're clear on this. Now observe:
$23 = 23% of $100. $23 = 30% of $77. So, it all depends on whether you're looking at the tax as either exclusive or inclusive. State sales taxes are exclusive, so the percent (7% where I live) is a percent of the original price. The Fair Tax is inclusive, so it is a percent of the final price. I just thought I'd clear up that bit of confusion that may or may not come up.
Embedded Taxes
Submitted on July 28th, 2007 by Rejemy1017It seems to me that many people are ignoring all the embedded taxes that we pay on our goods today. I wish I had my copy of the Fair Tax book with me so I could quote directly, but one study showed that the estimated embedded tax on our goods is approximately 20-25% of the price. The proposed tax rate is 23%, and so falls right in the middle of that estimate.
Also, one good example of the embedded tax is with the airline industry. Again, I can't quote the facts like I'd like, so I may be a little off, but sometime in the early 90's one of the taxes on the airline industry was still being debated when it expired, so for a brief time, there was a drop in the taxes on the airline industry. The airlines tried to hold prices constant, to raise their profits, but as a competitive marketplace will do, someone decided to lower their prices to get more ticket buyers, and thus raise their profits above their competitors. This resulted in a lowering of prices in the airline industry, because the airlines didn't have to pay the particular tax which had expired. So, that's why, if it were just taxes the corporations were paying, that it wouldn't matter whether the corporations get taxed or whether we get taxed at the end of the line, because we still essentially pay the same amount. However, the real trick is that corporations pay so much in order to prepare their taxes. They invest a great deal of time and effort on the subject of taxes (which, incidentally was why the Fair Tax was developed in the first place). So, if we take away the tax on the corporation, that lowers prices in the goods they provide. If we take away the costs the corporations pay, both monetary and time, that lowers the prices in the goods they provide. And then, if we throw on the Fair Tax (because the government does need to function, not that it does anyway, but that's another story) and that raises prices about the same amount that taking away the taxes lowered them. So, overall, we've reduced the waste involved with preparing taxes for the federal government.
So, even though the embedded tax and the Fair Tax are about the same percentage of the price of the goods, you're taking away all the waste that comes from the current tax code.
TAX MEAT!
Submitted on July 25th, 2007 by vrhodeshttp://taxmeat.com/index.asp
We are spending billions on our nations "health care" (it should be called disease care) and yet, we are still not healthy. I say we tax meat, just like cigarettes and alcohol since it's not good for us. Ccontrary to what the meat/dairy industry would like us to believe meat and dairy products are the primary cause of disease along with processed foods and fast foods. Health insurance is nice to have for accidents, but I don't have much use for it otherwise. All of the major killers in the U.S., heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc, (with the exception of medical mistakes, which I believe is the number three killer) can be reversed with a healty diet and lifestyle. It sure would save our nation a lot of money (and suffering) if our leaders would recognize this and stop being bought by big businesses like the meat/dairy indsustry and the pharmaceutical cartel.
Taxing Meat is a Restriction of Liberty
Submitted on July 28th, 2007 by Rejemy1017Sales tax
Submitted on July 19th, 2007 by jeffinhburgCrime Tax? Pollution Tax?
Submitted on July 19th, 2007 by Lucian<>Crime should not pay. Criminals should always pay the highest taxes. Role models should always pay the lowest taxes. We need to tax criminals, because they destroy society and force model citizens with no criminal records, to pay higher taxes!
Enron, got away with scamming people out of their life savings, shouldnt the Enron criminals pay higher taxes after being convicted? Sex offenders should pay higher taxes than the rest of us, and bank robbers, and thieves.
<><>
<>Corporations that pollute should pay higher taxes, and corporations that don't pollute should pay lower taxes. Corporations convicted of criminal behavior should pay higher taxes. We need to use a computer to figure out what behaviors are most destructive to society, and it's quite obvious that crime is the major problem. How to solve it? Tax criminal behavior.
<> <><><>A child molestor who is convicted, should for the rest of their lives pay higher taxes than everyone else, to pay back society for the damage they cause. An teacher on the other hand who has no criminal record, no violent offenses, etc, should pay almost no taxes at all, and in fact this person should be REWARDED for good/honorable and ethical behavior!
<>
<><><><>A corporation that is working to solve climate change, or to fight crime, should pay no taxes at all, a tax holiday, and individuals who work to fight crime or climate change should pay no taxes at all, until a time where crime is so low that it's not a problem anymore, and the climate crisis stablized.
<><><><><>I welcome anyone to comment on these ideas, on taxing the "criminals" and "pollutors", based on the harm they cause. I truly believe that taxes have a place, but I do not support the income tax, I think the income tax, and the sales tax are regressive snd prevent good people from becoming wealthy, while helping criminals who don't want to pay taxes in the first place. However, criminals usually get arrested, and once they do, they owe us for the damage they have caused to our society, or the damage they cause to children, and it would be better if criminals paid for the massive federal government that exists to fight crime. The people child molestors of the world, should be paying for the schools indirectly through higher taxes on sex offenders. It's time to create a more intelligent and smart tax policy that taxes the bad behaviors while also rewarding good behavior with grants, lower taxes, or the negative income tax, so that a person who never commits a crime can be guarenteed enough money for food, shelter, a proper education, the basics.
<><><><><>Why should a person who is genuinely good, who never commits a crime, who is ethical and honorable, who works hard, be forced to pay high taxes just so some criminal can live in prison, or pay for more cops, or to pay for all sorts of security intiatives? Why not reward these people for being law abiding? Even if it means a negative income tax where they recieve government money for all the basic expenses, they should be protected.
<><>The criminals on the otherhand should fend for themselves if they waive the right of that protection by commiting lots of crimes. Each crime should cost points, until the criminal can't afford to commit another crime, or their behavior dooms them into poverty inside or outside of prison.
a problem
Submitted on August 9th, 2007 by mstraneyThere are two problems and a solution with your idea
Submitted on July 21st, 2007 by FreeDemThe first is knowing someone is guilty. Many are imprisoned who are not And even among the guilty it is not simple. There is the rape case being fought where the boy was 16 and the girl was 15 and the consensual instigator, to the other extreme of the Republican insider and war profiteer supposedly making torture videos of toddlers. The first is fighting a sentence of twenty years and the second is in Betty Ford type rehab. Not much to tax in the first case and not likely to happen in the second. That every other case would be less extreme doesn't change the underlying problem.
The second problem is knowing someone is innocent. There are vanishingly few fortunes made without what was a crime or should have been one, and once made are often sustained by crimes as bad or worse, though again often legalized by other crimes that amount to bribery.
Beyond that there is a RICO law that (among other things)essentially confiscates any profit gained by criminal enterprise. Honest enforcement of that would solve the national debt, but there you go again. Even the profits from the Enron debacle went to Key Lay's family because they dragged the proceedings out till he died (if he died).
A good part of you idea is to have a "Commons tax" where you pay more for the use of the commons, times the size of your footprint. Own a radio station , pay a tax. Own ten radio stations, pay ten times as much per radio station, because you are blocking 9 other people from owning radio stations. This levels the playing field, offsetting the power of scale, and making those with the biggest footprint in the Commons pay their share, and encourage them to share the commons more as well.
That concept could be widely applied in every case where a little is not objectionable but some folk get excessive. Indeed the FDR income tax was intended to do that very thing.
am i wrong?
Submitted on July 11th, 2007 by watcher357Let's say a national sales tax is established and places a tax of 17.5% on everything we buy. Let's even say that "essentials" (y'know, food and water) are exempt. Let's even throw in utilities (water, electricity, and natural gas) are considered necessities as well. Everything else is taxed.
Scenario 1: Paris Hilton goes to the Mac store in New York and buys a new iphone. I go to a Mac store in my town and buy a new iphone. Both of us pays $499 plus tax which means we both pay $586.33
Scenario 2: Paris Hilton goes to the Mac store in New York and buys a new iphone. I decide to stay home and put up with my LG phone. She's out $586.33 and has a really cool piece of electronic equipment which will be out of date in six months. I still have $586.33 in my pocket. How in the heck is that not fair?
Aside from the fact that a National Sales Tax would place the responsibility of our spending habits right where they need to be: in our own laps. As a business owner, if a National Sales Tax would keep me from having to pay taxes and fees on every danged thing that comes in and out my front door, I'd happily collect it...and pay it.
Those of you who think that "writing things off" is the golden chalice of owning your own business...you've never owned your own business. You have to be able to afford the things you write off. If you can't afford it, it doesn't matter if there's tax relief, you still can't afford it and buying it puts your business...and all your blind-to-reality-employees...at risk.
And, oh yeah, if you think the IRS is bad...Wait till you're investigated by your local Sales Tax Revenue department. Believe me, a day in the gulag is a stroll in the park next to those guys.
Only criminals and pollutors should pay taxes.
Submitted on July 19th, 2007 by LucianIf we tax crime and pollution, and nothing else, then the majority of us decent citizens can have either very low, or no taxes at all. An added benefit is, crime would go way down, and our air, water, and environment will be cleaner.
<> Finally we should reward people who don't have criminal records, and who are "role model" citizens. Even if this individual is jobless, and uneducated, if they don't commit crimes (they respect the law), and they don't pollute (they respect our collective environment), in my opinion they should be rewarded and should recieve either a negative income tax benefit, or simply recieve government grants to pay for all of their esssentials, such as universal healthcare, universal education, shelter, food, water, etc.
<><>And people who have all of these basics but who continue to be model citizens, who get an education and who have good behavior, if they work for a police/security organization, or an organization tackling issues like climate change or human rights, they should be tax free as well.
<>Tax people based on how much harm they do, and suddenly the world will become a lot safer, cleaner, and more efficient. It's not about rich and poor, it's about crime and pollution. As soon as Democrats and Republicans realize that the people who should pay the higher taxes are the people who do the most damage, or corporations that do the most damage, the sooner we will all be able to actually solve climate change, and lower crime.
<>If a person is poor, they should not be punished for being poor if they are a good person. If a person is rich, they should not be punished for being rich if they are a good person.
<><>However if they are a criminal, someones got to pay for all this security and for cleaning up this mess. And I don't think people who don't pollute and who never commited a crime in their life, should be forced to pay for other irresponsible type people who commit crimes all their lives and who pollute all the time.
So start with corporations, a corporation that pollutes should pay a pollution tax.
An individual working for a polluting corporation should pay higher taxes too.
A corporation that commits crimes on the level of Enron should pay a Crime tax, and that money, which would likely be in the hundreds of billions, could be used to fund watchdog and police organizations to fight crime.
<><>
Agreement
Submitted on July 13th, 2007 by mbergdaleI couldn't agree more. I own my own business, and it is frustrating to see how these major corps get tax write off after tax write off and yet because I cannot afford major purchases to begin with, I do not have any tax write offs. Take a look at the following article and tell me our current tax system isn't broken:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/business/13tax.html?hp
To Antiscam
Submitted on July 10th, 2007 by mbergdaleRaise sales tax ? Remember the "yacht tax" and it's effects?
Submitted on July 6th, 2007 by antiscam10Starting in 1991, Washington levied a 10 percent tax on boats above $100,000.
Just 10%, and ONLY on the amount OVER $100.000.
Result: Boat builders estimated LAYOFFS at 25,000 due to drastically lower sales.
And the lower sales resulted in LOWER TOTAL tax revenue on these boat sales.
After two years of watching the results of this sales tax, with BIPARTISAN support, the tax was repealed in 1993.
It is simply NOT true that people will continue to spend as before if taxes are raised. Projections of tax revenue based on the assumption that they will are wrong.
Loopholes
Submitted on July 10th, 2007 by mbergdaleThere were numerous loopholes in this that allowed people to make purchases overseas and bring the boats to America (gee it's a $100K+ boat, how hard would it be to sail it to America??, Washington does not think things through), buy one of the used boats on the market since there was an overabundance, build their own boat (building materials would be taxed under Fair Tax even if the person does not buy the boat). That does not even address the issue that the economy was in the middle of a recession during this period as well, and luxury goods sales across the board were plummeting. Here is a snippet on how our existing system actually saves people money by buying expensive boats:
Borrow money to buy a boat. Stuff a mattress into the bow, and drop in a camp stove, a port-a-potty and a sink.
Do all that, and in the eyes of the government, you've got a second home -- and a sizable tax deduction.
The second-home deduction for interest paid on boat loans is the biggest tax deduction in American recreational boating. It is used on runabouts that have tiny cuddy cabins and multimillion-dollar yachts. Boat manufacturers nowadays have the tax deduction in mind when they install the proper amenities in small boats.
The Internal Revenue Service rarely bats an eye at questionable cases, nor does it keep track of the lost revenues.
Approximately 500,000 pleasure boats in the United States are large enough to qualify, about 3 percent of all recreational boats in the country, according to Jim Petru, research director at the National Marine Manufacturers Association.
Only about 100,000 people actually live full time on boats, recreational vehicles and vans, according to the 2000 Census.
Living on a boat isn't required, though. All that's needed is a sleeping platform, toilet and cooking facilities, and some indication that the owner stays overnight on the boat at least 14 days a year, according to Internal Revenue Service regulations
"I don't know if anyone ever checks on it," said Mike Shannon, 44, whose second home sits most days on a trailer in his driveway in the apple-growing community of Orondo, north of Wenatchee.
He quickly added that he and his wife stay on the boat more than two weeks a year. He probably need not worry about proving it.
Rob Nichols, assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury for public affairs, cautions, "Taxpayers aware of the 14-day requirement who ignore the requirement are committing tax fraud and face substantial civil, and perhaps criminal, penalties for doing so."
But studies have shown the Internal Revenue Service is buried in a backlog of uninvestigated cases in which people have outright failed to pay taxes, or sheltered income in offshore accounts. The Bush administration has called for staff increases at the IRS. But the administration has not provided enough money to cover pay raises and other required staff expenses, said Nancy Killefer, chairwoman of the IRS Oversight Board, in testimony last March to Congress.
The second-home deduction is too fuzzy for the IRS to crack down, said Keith Ashdown, vice president for Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group.
"If when you create those kind of rules, they are not that strong, then the IRS is not going to enforce them," Ashdown said. "Move 14 days to maybe 60 to 90 days, where it is not just a second home symbolically but something you are using for a significant minority of your time."
One of the nice things (if you're wealthy)
Submitted on July 6th, 2007 by antiscam10According to FairTax.org, no tax is charged on purchases for business purchases.
So, if I'm wealthy, I form a business to which my income goes and the company buys everything for me . My car ("it's for business"). My newly built house ("the company provides housing"). Of course, I can build more rooms onto my house (material will be tax-free as the company owns the house) and re-sell it at a good profit with no taxes, because it's now a "used" house. And with no corporate income tax, I can pay nearly no tax at all.
This is great!
Business Pays
Submitted on July 10th, 2007 by mbergdaleInvestments
Submitted on July 4th, 2007 by cinea1Accounted For
Submitted on July 10th, 2007 by mbergdaleThere would actually be a dramatic increase in investment if the Fair Tax was implemented. As a result, you would see a huge boost to our economy from the increase in both foreign and domestic investment. This would increase wages and lower our unemployment rate to levels we have probably never seen. The spending habits are accounted for in the Fair Tax plan.
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/TheImpactOfTheFairTaxOnInvestment.pdf
The only fair tax!
Submitted on June 30th, 2007 by Alex EmersonI could hardly believe my eyes when I saw that Gravel was supporting the abolishment of the IRS. I have to admit, I am a bit late in keeping up with the presidential candidates. However, I have felt for a long time now that things have gotten so corrupt that the people really have lost the power to influence. With president Bush being introduced into the picture and stripping Americans' of their rights beyond any degree that any other has dared to do, I had lost hope. This country truly has become a company run by the greedy dominant to support the greedy dominant. But, I saw a debate with the candidates last night on channel 9 PBS and I heard Gravel speak about doing away with the IRS.
The IRS is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated by the American government on the American people. The income tax on the working class american is 100% unconstitutional. Though, through the mounds of pages and headaches brought forth within the IRS code, who would know? The simple fact of the matter is that amendment 16 permits taxing of any income from any source. The word income was defined by the supreme court as "profit or gain from corporate activity", not wages or labor made or done by people. That means, that the government can only apply the income tax to the corporations on the profit they make. They didn't start taxing individuals until the federal reserve system was set up and they saw that they were going to be swallowed in debt...and they did it through unconstitutional fancy swipes of the pen. More than eight people, that I have heard of, have been taken to court by the IRS for not paying their income taxes and argued the unconstitutionality of the Income Tax and actually won their case.
Gravel really gave me hope that he was one of us...he seems to be one of the people. I really hope that it isn't a front...he seems to stern and real to turn his back on his word if he gets elected. Vote for Gravel everyone....he may be our last hope before our nation turns totalitarian. God help us if anymore crooks get in the white house to exploit the American people.
If anyone is interested to learn more about the information that I was speaking of about the IRS, check out www.freedomtofascism.com . Aaron Russo did a documentary titled "America: Freedom to Fascism" where he actually goes to washington and meets up with head executives of the IRS to discuss the crime on camera, the results are truly amazing. He also interviews a juror that was involved in one of the cases which ruled in favor of a man who fought the unconstitutional taxation. Also, there are a number of former IRS agents interviewed in the documentary who have resigned from the IRS because they claim their moral standards wouldn't allow them to continue working for such a corporation. One of them actually makes the claim, on film, that 100% of our income tax is absorbed solely by the federal debt. Anyway, if anyone is interested it really is at least worth hearing their side of the argument, it's pretty persuasive.
NOTE
Submitted on June 23rd, 2007 by blueyes20Unless I'm missing
Submitted on June 20th, 2007 by ArterionUnless I'm missing something, this will shove the tax burden to the poor and middle class. I used the spreadsheet above, and guess what? My taxes were the same. I changed my salary to 300 grand, and they went DOWN (from 93k to 67k)!
Here is the problem, folks. Poor people spend -all- their money. That's right, they MUST spend it all on goods and services, just to get by. On the other hand, the wealthy don't NEED to spend all their money.
Consider an "average" standard of living costs $35,000 a year. This standard of living is all taxed by sales tax! Food, rent, car, etc.
If you make $35,000 a year, then you have had 100% of your income taxed via sales tax at an average standard of living.
If you make $100,000 a year, then you've only had 35% of your income taxed via sales tax for an average standard of living! Outrageous!
Sure, the wealthy probably want a higher standard of living, but that don't -HAVE- to spend 100% of their income on necessities. They can do what they want with part of it -- save it, give it to charities, invest it. Investments which make MORE money for them to spend, which they can re-invest, and NEVER be taxed on, because they've never "spent" the money.
Then there's the idea of prebates. The problem is that we don't know how much each person would be paying in taxes, under a sales-tax system. Therefore, we can't know how much to give them back. We could come up with some tables, based on your income, but they wouldn't necessarily be accurate. For example, everything up to $10,000/yr is refunded fully, everything up to $20,000/yr is refunded at 60%, or something like that.
There ARE some benefits to this sytem, though. Currently untaxed money would be taxed. Under the table wages, drug sales money, gift money, and some other things.
The bottom line, though is that this model assumes that everyone will spend all or most of their money, when in fact, only the poor people actually spend all their money. It's the rich folks that have "extra" money after they pay all their bills to invest and use in ways that don't involve purchases.
It would be possible, through heavy use of prebates, and a very high tax rate, to fairly tax everyone, but I doubt this would be the case, and it's certainly no better at accomplishing a fair tax than using income taxes. If anything, it's more difficult for the average person to see how much they're being taxed, which makes it a lot easier to shift the tax burden around unfairly.
Why tax rich and poor? why not tax good and bad?
Submitted on July 19th, 2007 by LucianWe can all agree, certain crimes are bad and very damaging to society. Tax the criminals.
We can all agree that pollution is bad for society. Tax the pollutors.
<> And tax corporations that pollute and commit crimes for a living.Poor People Do Not Pay
Submitted on July 10th, 2007 by mbergdaleAs part of the Fair Tax proposal, the pre-bate is the equivalent of the amount of taxes that would be spent per individual in a household at the poverty level, meaning that anyone below the poverty level would pay $0 in taxes. They would have no forms to fill out or papers to file. They just get a check that is the equivalent to what they are paying in taxes. There is also no pre-qualification for this because everyone gets a pre-bate check up to the poverty level based on the number people in a household. You do not start paying taxes until you have spent more than what would be spent by someone at the poverty level. Poor people would not inherit the burden of taxation on this. Education would be tax free. Right now we pay taxes on education because it is post-tax income. Education is the biggest expense facing middle income Americans. So if people are able to buy basic goods up to the poverty level with no tax and get their education with no tax, and they do not have to pay to have someone else to figure out their taxes, then you have begun to make only the wealthiest of Americans, who consume the most, pay the most. While the wealthiest Americans are going to be more apt to save their money, they are also the biggest consumers in our economy. Through the various tax loopholes, most investment money avoids taxation right now. It is more likely that the money will be taxed at some point because it will be spent at some point. I encourage you to do more research on Fair Tax as it is truly the best tax system out there.
Why
Submitted on July 19th, 2007 by LucianTell me why taxes must always = class warfare?
You have good people in all classes, who all pay too many taxes, and you have criminals in all classes who don't pay taxes at all.
Re: Unless I'm missing
Submitted on July 3rd, 2007 by Flugendorf*laughs* Comment removed. I was right about Gravel's previous writings about a Citizen's Wage, but wrong in thinking that this was the same thing...
OK U MISSED IT!
Submitted on June 23rd, 2007 by blueyes20Mr. Gravel, the FairTax is NOT fair!
Submitted on June 16th, 2007 by ReillyMy lord, I cannot believe what I am reading. The FairTax is a scheme set up by Republicans and libertarians to shift the tax burden onto the middle class. It may have little effect on the amount of taxes the poor pay, as they pay very little already, but it would have disastrous effects on the middle class, as would any national sales tax. Basically, the rich would pay less taxes, and the middle class would pay more (see this graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NRST-percentile.png ).
That doesn't even begin to outline the problems with the FairTax, though. One of the biggest problems is that it would not be revenue-neutral at the proposed rate, as economist William Gale found in his study published in Tax Notes. You simply don't get to tax people less and maintain all the social programs we currently have in place! Tax evasion will persist, just in a new way, with an underground economy (i.e. black market) developing.
And with the abolishment of the IRS, a whole new tax agency would need to be established. The FairTax isn't simple and would still require tax collectors, the difference being that they deal primarily with businesses instead of individuals.
I could go on and on, but I'll just point people to these this article by Pat Reigner ( http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/pf/taxes/consumptiontax_0510/ ) and the Gale study I mentioned earlier ( http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb31.htm ). They both explain the problems quite well.
Strong Democratic Supporter of Fair Tax
Submitted on July 10th, 2007 by mbergdaleThe graph that you have supplied has nothing to do with the Fair Tax. The graph supplied provides a break down of what income earners would pay in taxes if the Income Tax were replaced with a National Retail Sales Tax. The Fair Tax specifically provides a tax pre-bate to help citizens below the poverty level avoid paying any income toward federal taxes. This pre-bate could be managed by the state tax collection authorities that already exist in every state in the country.
The black market economy idea has also been debunked numerous times. Sales are easier to track than income and businesses have to open their books up to the state government already for existing sales tax collection (except in New Hamphsire where there is no sales tax). No new agency would have to be developed because the collection and enforcement of tax laws would be managed by the state tax collection agencies.
Again, with the bottom two links you have provided, do not have anything to do with the Fair Tax as the Fair Tax proposal addresses every issue brought up by the articles you have posted to. Please do your research before you start getting defensive about the amazing income tax system that is oppressing the poor in this country.
WOW
Submitted on June 23rd, 2007 by blueyes20I don't know why people are making this so complicated, It says the representatives will collect the funds to go to the treasurary. How I imagine they would collect from the businesses but this does not put burden on anyone.. It is all about how YOU the individual spends your money.. Lets face it AMERICANS buy stuff alot of stuff, that will never change. But right now we are have income tax, SS tax, medicare tax, SALES TAX..... How many different ways do you want our goverment to tax us? I hope you still need toilet paper cause I sure do, your going to be buying regardless!!!! Rich people will still buy $3 million mansions, don't worry about that. By the way the middle class already carry the tax burden!!
Fair Tax
Submitted on June 5th, 2007 by Vincent BrowneI'm not sure that any tax places a greater burden on the poorest Americans than a national sales tax. This is because the poorest Americans DO NOT pay any taxes. That is because the poorest Americans make less total money then they receive in their standardized deduction and dependant deductions, and with the Earned Income Tax Credit, they receive money back after paying NO taxes. I'm not talking about a tax refund, where say 5000 was deducted from your pay through out the year and then when you file taxes you get a 3000 refund, so that dispute the refund you still lost 2000 to the govt. I'm talking about you paid 0 in the first place and then still get a few thousand dollars back. That's like the IRS paying THEM taxes.
I will use my mother as an example. She makes about 20,000 a year and is a single parent of 2 dependant children, my two younger sisters. She gets a large standard deduction for being a head of household (a single person with dependants). She also receives further deductions for having 3 dependants (herself + her 2 dependant children) these total deductions leave her with no taxable income. This makes her total taxes that she pays 0. after she pays nothing, she can still claim the entire 20,000 toward the Earned Income Tax Credit. On 20,000 that pays about 4,000. So right now she is paying nothing in taxes and the government is paying her 4000.
my mother is not a welfare case. She works full time in a high labor factory. She makes 10 dollars an hour, well above minimum wage, and on top of that she is taking care of 2 children. As you might guess she struggles to do this on 20,000 a year. Under a national sales tax plan she would lose that extra 4000 credit that she receives on top of her pay that she so desperately needs, PLUS she will be forced to pay what would need to be a large sales tax on the things she buys. My mother, and many other poor people struggling to survive, would be financially destroyed by this plan. I urge any person that supports this to reconsider.
By the way, where would these poor people turn. It wont be to charities, you know why? Because the millions charities that do great work would lose a HUGE portion of their donations because they would no longer be useful to the wealthy as tax shelters, so the wealthy would not make the larger donations that keep these charities afloat.
Fair Tax Would Be Better Still
Submitted on July 10th, 2007 by mbergdaleYour mother would get a monthly pre-bate check up to the poverty level for three people. She would get money from the government before she even spends her paycheck. Your mother is paying taxes to the government, though. She does not see her refund until after she files her taxes a year after she has given that money to the IRS. Your mother would get to keep everything she earns with no payroll taxes taken out along with a pre-bate check sent every month to cover any taxes she might spend up to the poverty level. As someone who has made around $20K and gotten a complete tax refund, I can honestly say that having the money in my hand right away would have saved me a lot more in interest, fees, etc. than having to wait a year to get my money back from the Feds.
Please review the following document regarding charitable giving under a Fair Tax system:
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/TheImpactOfTheFairTaxOnCharitableGiving.pdf
Fair Tax
Submitted on June 1st, 2007 by skycordiaAfter reading a lot of your comments and the initial rhetoric about the fair tax itself, I think I still want to learn more. I like the idea of the Fairtax, I don't think it will separate the rich and poor anymore than they already are. In my opinion, a sale tax makes a lot more sense than income based. If a person wants to save their money they should be allowed to. If a person can barely afford to buy the necessary things, they still won't be spending much anyway.
I think if we want to move to a democracy, people for and against the Fairtax need to continue spreading the word, so we can all decide whether we want to change the current tax system or not. Seeing this mostly rational discussion gives me hope for the future. Just keep learning and teaching. :)
May you always fight for what you believe in,
Cathy
"You know what's worse than a solider dying in vain?
More soldiers dying in vain."
Mike Gravel
Fair Tax
Submitted on June 1st, 2007 by Ted NewcomenA fairer tax system is a must but I have serious reservations about eliminating all income tax in favor of solely a sales tax. This is based on my experience living & working overseas where countries like the UK have income tax & a sales tax of 17.5%
Its a complete myth that introducing a sales tax will see prices fall 'because corporations no longer need to hide these costs in the retail prices that are now passed on to consumers'. In practice business NEVER does this and you WILL see prices sky-rocket out of control
A Fair Tax can only work if its based on peoples ability to pay NOT on their ability to consume. Therefore income tax should be abolished for anyone below the median (NOT medium) income level. Sales tax should be highest on luxury goods. Those on above median incomes should continue to pay income tax but at a lower rate. Extremes of wealth & poverty are what fuels discontent & violence around the world and its something we can avoid in the USA if there is the political will
It's all meaningless unless there is a basic minimum LIVING wage for all people
Here is an idea for you to consider.
Submitted on July 19th, 2007 by LucianDrop the income tax, and the sales tax, and instead tax pollution and crime.
How? Criminals should pay higher taxes. Criminal corporations should pay higher taxes. Polluting corporations should pay higher taxes.
<>If a person is a model citizen, and with no criminal record, it shows they have respect for the law. People who respect the law should always pay the least taxes, and people who break the law should always pay the most taxes.
If taxes are set based on how destructive an individual or entity is to society, and the country, we'd basically be taxing the people who deserve to pay for it. So why not have a tax on crime and pollution and allow people who aren't criminals to pay nearly no taxes at all?
<>Rich or poor, if a person is a good person, follows the law, has good/responsible behavior, they should be rewarded by the government, through lower taxes and many other benefits. People should be REWARDED for being role models. People who are role models should pay the least taxes. People who are criminals should pay the most taxes, and this applies to corporations as well.
<><>If you'd like to debate with me on this, go ahead. I'm a libertarian myself, but I'm for the freedom to help others, not the freedom to harm others. I'm for unlimited liberty for those who deserve it, and limited liberty for those who are too irressponsible to avoid abusing it. And I think we need to use our computer technology to individualize the taxes to the behavior patterns we want to discourage.
<> <>If we want to discourage violent crime, how about raising taxes on an individual who commits assault, so that each violent crime they commit their tax score changes. How about all criminals who have been convicted of sex offenses pay higher taxes for the rest of their lives and that money can be used to build schools? And how about criminals who rob banks, or who go to jail for scamming lots of people Enron style, get forced to pay higher taxes for the rest of their lives too?
<><> <><>If you want to stop crime, stop allowing crime to pay, TAX CRIME.
<><><><>
Great idea !
Submitted on June 1st, 2007 by ASHFORDThe FairTax is the best idea ever to expand the economy. The FairTax would set workers free from the anchor of the income tax, and let workers get ahead quicker.
So far, of the people I have talked to about the FairTax , the only people who hate it are career politicians, lobbyists, tax lawyers, tax accountants, the non working rich, IRS agents, and illegal aliens. Only those who have something to lose from the removal of the income tax hate it.
I know some people have trouble understanding the FairTax. And why not, we have been taxed on income forever. ( or since 1913).
I have found that most negative comments are caused by:
1. Thinking the FairTax is on top of and income tax and not realizing the huge economic benefits of the removed tax. Income-taxes= spending VS. Income = spending + taxes
2. Evaluating a consumption tax with income tax rules as in perceived fairness. They fail to see that “spend more pay more” is progressive.
3. Using a static view instead of a dynamic view. The static view compares the current “poor” to the current “rich”. It compares young beginning workers to those who have been working for 20-30 years. The dynamic view “sees” right through the rich vs. poor class warfare.
4. Those who’s jobs, income, or power are threatened by it.
5. Those who just don’t know better than to parrot some party line.
Remember Production - Itaxes = (Labor x Capital) + Itaxes.
Remove income taxes and production increases.
Production = (Labor x Capital)
FairTax reading….
The new Fair Tax Calculator is out now. See what you would pay under the Fair Tax vs. the Income tax. http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTaxCalculator.xls
Frequently Asked Questions about the FairTax http://www.fairtax.org/fairtax/faqs.htm
America's Best Kept Secret FAIRTAX
https://secure2.convio.net/afft/site/Ecommerce?VIEW_PRODUCT=true&product_id=1066&store_id=1161&JServSessionIdr007=qhjzw54ro1.app1b
The Secret Chamber or the Public Square?
https://secure2.convio.net/afft/site/Ecommerce?VIEW_PRODUCT=true&product_id=1067&store_id=1161&JServSessionIdr007=qhjzw54ro1.app1b
This one can be a snore, but hone in on chapters 6 and 8
From both of these other books look in the footnotes and Google the papers.
Opposing congressman will refer to the “JCT and the “CBO”. Read “The Secret Chamber or the Public Square? ” and you will be able to counter them.
A MACROECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE FAIRTAX PROPOSAL February 2006 www.arduinlaffermoore.com ©2006 Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics. All rights reserved.
Taxing Sales under the FairTax – What Rate Works? http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/BHI-LK%20Taxing%20Sales%20under%20the%20FairTax-%20What%20Rate%20Works%209-25-06%20FINAL.pdf by Paul Bachman Director of Research, Beacon Hill Institute, Suffolk University Jonathan Haughton Associate Professor of Economics Senior Economist, Beacon Hill Institute Suffolk University Laurence J. Kotlikoff Professor of Economics, Boston University Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research Alfonso Sanchez-Penalver Economist, Beacon Hill Institute, Suffolk University David G. Tuerck Chairman and Professor of Economics Executive Director, Beacon Hill Institute Suffolk University September 2006
Comparing Average and Marginal Tax Rates under the FairTax and the Current System of Federal Taxation by Laurence J. Kotlikoff Professor of Economics Boston University David Rapson Doctoral Candidate Boston University Revised October, 2006 http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/11831.html
Tax Incidence, Tax Burden, and Tax Shifting: Who Really Pays the Tax? http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/cda04-12.cfm by Stephen J. Entin
The Correct Way to Measure the Revenue Impact of Changes in Tax Rates May 3, 2002 http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1544.cfm by Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D.
The National Sales Tax: Who Bears the Burden? by Gilbert E. Metcalf http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-289.html
Gilbert E. Metcalf is an associate professor of economics at Tufts University and an economist with the National Bureau of Economic Research .
Ashford Schwall aschwall@comcast.net
Laffer Stock?
Submitted on June 8th, 2007 by FreeDemThis is more of the same from the same folks who got us into this mess in the first place!
Being a Psychophant to the very wealthy might be a good personal path to success, but it is hardly more for working people to support than some hoopla told to chickens about what a great feed Col. Saunders puts out. Being of course a bit vague as to the nature of the meal.
Laffer particularly made his bones about some fake curve that 100% taxes got no income and 0% taxes got no income so they needed to be lowered. Without any logic or data as to exactly what those in between numbers might actually be. I did hear him say however that 50% taxes took all the incentive out of being a millionaire, which had me laughing so hard I did not hear the rest of the program.
As both Heritage Foundation and Cato are fronts for the right wing of the Gang Of Pirates, that in itself points to the real agenda better than the fallacious arguments themselves. Even when confronted with the illogic of supporting the power abuse of giant corporations while railing against abuse of power by official government (even for policing such corporate abuse) Cato abandons people for money.
Given the Gang Of Pirates that are promoting it I would be suspicious if they were promoting sliced bread. Given their noted subversion of both, they have no place in a Democracy, much less the Democratic Party.