Posted By: raymond | Aug 27th, 2007 @ 12:04 PM
page 1 of 2
Comments: 39 | Views: 4600

Fair Tax, Flawed Tax
Does adding 30% to the price of every house sold sound like a good idea to you?

BY BRUCE BARTLETT

"...For those who never heard about it, the FairTax is a national retail sales tax that would replace the entire current federal tax system. It was originally devised by the Church of Scientology in the early 1990s as a way to get rid of the Internal Revenue Service, with which the church was then at war (at the time the IRS refused to recognize it as a legitimate religion). The Scientologists' idea was that since almost all states have sales taxes, replacing federal taxes with the same sort of tax would allow them to collect the federal government's revenue and thereby get rid of their hated enemy, the IRS.

Rep. John Linder (R., Ga.) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.) have introduced legislation (H.R. 25/S. 1025) to implement the FairTax. They assert that a rate of 23% would be sufficient to replace federal individual and corporate income taxes as well as payroll and estate taxes. Mr. Linder's Web site claims that U.S. gross domestic product will rise 10.5% the first year after enactment, exports will grow by 26%, and real investment spending will increase an astonishing 76%.

In reality, the FairTax rate is not 23%. Messrs. Linder and Chambliss get this figure by calculating the tax as if it were already incorporated into the price of goods and services. (This is known as the tax-inclusive rate.) Calculating it the conventional way that every other (This is called the tax-exclusive rate.)

The distinction is confusing, but think of it this way. If a product costs $1 at retail, the FairTax adds 30%, for a total of $1.30. Since the 30-cent tax is 23% of $1.30, FairTax supporters say the rate is 23% rather than 30%. ..."


http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010523




FAIRTAX, FLAWED TAX? 
By  Nealz Boortz

"...This assertion – that the FairTax was developed by the Church of Scientology – is flat-out false. I suspect that Bartlett allowed someone else to do his research for him on this issue; someone with an agenda. Perhaps he blindly accepted some information from a Washington insider, perhaps a K Street denizen who fears the loss of power and income should the FairTax become law.

What Bartlett did was very simple, and astonishingly careless. He mistook a group called Citizens for an Alternative Tax System (CATS) for the people who developed the FairTax.

Now CATS did have a plan for a national retail sales tax, but it was in no way connected with Americans for Fair Taxation (AFFT) and the FairTax. I was familiar with the CATS program. I had them on my radio repeatedly. As I've told you, I've been interested in this idea of replacing the income tax with the sales tax for some time.

The CATS idea was simply to do away with income taxes and replace them with a 17% sales tax. Payroll taxes would stay with you, as would many other federal tax levies. As you can see, this is substantially different from the program offered by the FairTax.

I'm going to lead you to several articles here. The first link will take you a document detailing the history of CATS. If you read this carefully you will see absolutely no reference to the FairTax. There is no reference to Congressman John Linder or H.R. 25, the FairTax Act. All of the references are to CATS and their own idea of a national retail sales tax.

Moving right along here, next you have a list of articles detailing the connection between CATS and Scientology. That's right. It was CATS, not Americans for Fair Taxation with the strong connection to Scientology. In fact, here's another link setting for Scientology front groups. Scroll down the list a bit and you'll see CATS! You will not see AFFT or the FairTax mentioned.

The people responsible for creating AFFT and the Fair Tax are Houston Businessmen Leo Linbek and Robert McNair. Neither one of these people are Scientologists. These men and their associates raised over $20 million for a study on finding an alternative to the federal income tax. That research was conducted by a coalition of market and academic experts from places such as MIT and Harvard, none of whom were associated in any way with Scientology. From that research came the FairTax.

Just an interesting historical note: When the research for a new tax system was commissioned with the $20 million raised by Linbeck, McNair and their associates, they made a commitment to accept whatever findings the research developed, strongly suspecting that their efforts were going to lead to the endorsement of some sort of a flat tax. The market and academic researchers came forth with an idea for a national retail sales tax instead, and the FairTax was born.

Bruce Bartlett owes Leo Linbeck, Robert McNair and the hundreds of thousands of FairTax volunteers across an America an apology. I suspect that apology will be forthcoming before too many days pass. ..." 


"...There were many other inaccuracies in Bartlett's column. As you know Congressman Linder and I, with the help of a brilliant analyst named Rob Woodall, are busy writing another FairTax book that will address virtually every meaningful criticism you may have heard or read. In Reader's Digest form, here are some quick response to other charges by Bartlett:

Bartlett jumps right into the middle of this nonsense over what the real tax rate is; 23 percent or 30 percent. He correctly points out that we don't quote the FairTax rate the way conventional sales taxes are quoted. The reason is simple; the FairTax will replace the embedded taxes and already exist in every item or service we purchase; and secondly, the FairTax will replace the income tax. Both the embedded taxes in the prices of what we buy now and the income taxes we pay now are inclusive taxes. We're replacing inclusive taxes with inclusive taxes.

It's so very simple: When you see a lamp on the shelf marked $100, you will pay $100 for that lamp when you get to the checkout. You will receive a receipt which shows that $23 of the $100 you have paid represents the FairTax. You do the math for yourself, but every time I work it out it comes to 23%

Bartlett also joins other critics in another blatant falsehood about the FairTax. Here's a sentence from his column: "If a product costs $1 at retail, the FairTax adds 30%, for a total of $1.30. Since the 30-cent tax is 23% of $1.30, FairTax supporters say the rate is 23% rather than 30%." In another paragraph Bartlett also says "Imagine paying 30 percent to the federal government on top of the purchase price of your next house."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. If a product costs $1 at retail .... It costs $1, with the FairTax already included. This is so easy to understand, you almost get the idea that people are intentionally trying to confuse the facts here. That $1 item Bartlett is referring to costs $1 at retail today! But instead of including the FairTax in that price, all of the embedded taxes from every business and individual involved in bringing that item to the marketplace are included. You remove one, you add the other. And that bit about 30 percent to the federal government on top of the purchase price of your new home? Another lie. The embedded taxes are so high on the price of a new home today that when they are removed and the FairTax added, that home could be a percent or two cheaper! Come on, Bruce. This really isn't that hard. Let's try to spell this out plainly for everyone:

The 23 percent FairTax is not added to the price of everything you buy ... it is already included in the price of everything you will buy, just as the embedded taxes are included today. You remove one, you add the other. ..."

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=198361

Fair Tax - for our future!  Smiley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di2em2S25qM&mode=related&search=

John Stossel speaks to the Fair Tax Rally 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJRN-Lei0ow


Fair Tax.org

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

Fair Tax Foundation

http://www.fairtax.net/aboutus.htm

FairTax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

Is a 'Fair' Tax in America's Future?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/taxes/a/aafairtax.htm


More FairTax Advocates Have Their Say

http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/more_fairtax.htm


Fair Tax Rally

http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=197414


So, when is the Fair Tax Redmond Rally?

Dare to be fair!


Cool

Lloyd_Humph
Lloyd_Humph
If Blackberrys are addictive cellphones, Channel9 is the ultimate addictive website.
Fight fire with fire?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RysMdmi7-c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc-BzY09vTU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcJF5QOO_tw


edit: i didnt actually watch any of them, so they may be rude/etc. It's just stupid stuff.
ZippyV wrote:
http://blogspot.com
http://blogger.com
http://myspace.com
http://typepad.com

Try posting stuff like this to your own blog plzkthxbye


Can anyone post anything on this forum without you whining about it?
W3bbo
W3bbo
The Master of Baiters
typemismatch wrote:

ZippyV wrote:http://blogspot.com
http://blogger.com
http://myspace.com
http://typepad.com

Try posting stuff like this to your own blog plzkthxbye


Can anyone post anything on this forum without you whining about it?


ZippyV only really goes after Raymond. If you frequent on these forums long enough you'll begin to sympathise.
evildictaitor
evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }
typemismatch wrote:

ZippyV wrote:http://blogspot.com
http://blogger.com
http://myspace.com
http://typepad.com

Try posting stuff like this to your own blog plzkthxbye


Can anyone post anything on this forum without you whining about it?


In fairness, Raymond should start participating in the forums rather than just copy&pasting into them.

His posts rarely have anything to do with technology and tend to be opinions that he has found on the internet that he vaguely agrees with, and uses this to assert his position as the "correct" one.

I wouldn't mind if he posted a link to current events and wrote what he thought about it in the interests of discussion, but he doesn't. He throws text at you, expects you to agree with him and how clever he is, and then leaves.
Lloyd_Humph
Lloyd_Humph
If Blackberrys are addictive cellphones, Channel9 is the ultimate addictive website.
I don't think you could be more right.

It's stupid. I wonder if he even reads all the way through stuff before he posts?

Please stop raymond. It's really annoying.
evildictaitor
evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }
raymond wrote:


 He mistook a group called Citizens for an Alternative Tax System (CATS) for the people who developed the FairTax.



Did someone say CATS?


evildictaitor wrote:

raymond wrote: 

 He mistook a group called Citizens for an Alternative Tax System (CATS) for the people who developed the FairTax.



Did someone say CATS?




I dunno... none of your cats look like Scientologists.
evildictaitor
evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }
raymond wrote:
Watch out you are playing the religious card!


Scientology isn't a religion. It's a cross between a really expensive science fiction novel and the flying spaghetti monster.

If you think I am being unkind, remember what they actually believe.
DoomBringer
DoomBringer
Doom!

Boortz's logic is pretty sketchy.  A product that costs $1 before taxes (aka "retail price") will end up with however many cents of tax.  The idea that retail price magically includes taxes is weird.  In his example, he says that the $1 cost includes the tax of $.23, so using math (which he can't):

1 - .23 = .77

.77 * .3 = .231

Retail price is therefore $.77.  It is a 30% tax no matter how you try to jump through the hoops.  (Of course, he could be trying to change defintions on us.  A common fallacy as well.)

Also, I love the loaded terms: "fair" tax.  Fair for whom?  What is fair?  Is it fair for those of lesser means to pay more relative to others?

evildictaitor
evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }
DoomBringer wrote:


Boortz's logic is pretty sketchy.  A product that costs $1 before taxes (aka "retail price") will end up with however many cents of tax.  The idea that retail price magically includes taxes is weird.  In his example, he says that the $1 cost includes the tax of $.23, so using math (which he can't):

1 - .23 = .77

.77 * .3 = .231

Retail price is therefore $.77.  It is a 30% tax no matter how you try to jump through the hoops.  (Of course, he could be trying to change defintions on us.  A common fallacy as well.)

Also, I love the loaded terms: "fair" tax.  Fair for whom?  What is fair?  Is it fair for those of lesser means to pay more relative to others?



You've got it in one.

On my $1, 23% of it is tax, but that is a 30% increase on what I would be paying.
DoomBringer wrote:
Boortz's logic is pretty sketchy.  A product that costs $1 before taxes (aka "retail price") will end up with however many cents of tax.  The idea that retail price magically includes taxes is weird.  In his example, he says that the $1 cost includes the tax of $.23, so using math (which he can't):

1 - .23 = .77

.77 * .3 = .231

Retail price is therefore $.77.  It is a 30% tax no matter how you try to jump through the hoops.  (Of course, he could be trying to change defintions on us.  A common fallacy as well.)



You are talking about two different ways of calculating the rate... inclusive vs exclusive... given the FairTax is designed to replace (amongst other things) the federal income tax (which is calculated inclusively), the FairTax too is calculated and quoted inclusively.

DoomBringer wrote:
Also, I love the loaded terms: "fair" tax.  Fair for whom?  What is fair?  Is it fair for those of lesser means to pay more relative to others?


The more money one has the more they tend to spend it and when not burdened by the existing tax system spend  and invest they will even more... as for those of ‘lesser means’… have you forgotten that they will take home larger pay checks because of the FairTax (ie have more money in their pockets) AND also receive the same prebate check that all other heads of households will receive... meaning even more money in their pockets... and when also not burdened by the current tax system they would be encouraged to save and invest with some of the extra money they now have.

evildictaitor wrote:
On my $1, 23% of it is tax, but that is a 30% increase on what I would be paying.


Incorrect, if today the price today is $1.00, under the FairTax tomorrow you'd still pay $1.00... the only difference is that under the current system you are not aware of the hidden embedded taxes that already exist (on average ~22%)... remove them and suddenly you see prices drop (as businesses want to remain competitive) and after you add the FairTax back in prices remain relatively unchanged.
evildictaitor
evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }
dahat wrote:

DoomBringer wrote:Boortz's logic is pretty sketchy.  A product that costs $1 before taxes (aka "retail price") will end up with however many cents of tax.  The idea that retail price magically includes taxes is weird.  In his example, he says that the $1 cost includes the tax of $.23, so using math (which he can't):

1 - .23 = .77

.77 * .3 = .231

Retail price is therefore $.77.  It is a 30% tax no matter how you try to jump through the hoops.  (Of course, he could be trying to change defintions on us.  A common fallacy as well.)



You are talking about two different ways of calculating the rate... inclusive vs exclusive... given the FairTax is designed to replace (amongst other things) the federal income tax (which is calculated inclusively), the FairTax too is calculated and quoted inclusively.



Although mathematically speaking both the inclusive and the exclusive rate are often quoted, when increases in something are quoted (which always includes taxes) it is always the exclusive quantity that is the one that is used.

The point is that the tax doesn't exist now, so if it were introduced tommorrow, the tax would mean you are paying 30% more tommorrow than you are today.

If the tax were then removed, you'd be paying 23% less, but they aren't talking about removing the tax are they?
DoomBringer
DoomBringer
Doom!
dahat wrote:


DoomBringer wrote: Also, I love the loaded terms: "fair" tax.  Fair for whom?  What is fair?  Is it fair for those of lesser means to pay more relative to others?


The more money one has the more they tend to spend it and when not burdened by the existing tax system spend  and invest they will even more... as for those of ‘lesser means’… have you forgotten that they will take home larger pay checks because of the FairTax (ie have more money in their pockets) AND also receive the same prebate check that all other heads of households will receive... meaning even more money in their pockets... and when also not burdened by the current tax system they would be encouraged to save and invest with some of the extra money they now have.


"Trickle-down" pretty much doesn't work.  Sure, it distributes money, but giving the wealthy more doesn't really help all that many people out.  (There has been some study on the issue, and it pretty much holds to be a fanciful excuse for rich people to get more money)

The people who make less are still going to come out as losers here, if not worse off.  A flat sales tax hurts the poorer more than the wealthy, because the poorer spend a much larger proportion on basic needs like food/clothing.  Increasing sales taxes hurts them the most.  A few states don't have taxes on such staples, so adding a tax wouldn't be so great.  You mention rebates (I think), but calculating those would become a nightmare under the new system: should everyone collect and submit receipts or what?

Also, prove that "fair" tax would increase what people would be earning in relative terms: they're still paying taxes either way, so their relative earnings are at best net-zero.
DoomBringer wrote:
"Trickle-down" pretty much doesn't work.  Sure, it distributes money, but giving the wealthy more doesn't really help all that many people out.


Bull. The fact is that businesses and most wealthy people do not pay much income tax in the first place... instead businesses pass those costs off to their customers through higher prices and wealthier people through tax loopholes that have been hard fought and won as well as their means enabling them other tax shelters that are not worthwhile to the rest of us.

DoomBringer wrote:
(There has been some study on the issue, and it pretty much holds to be a fanciful excuse for rich people to get more money)


And there have been plenty that say the opposite as well.

DoomBringer wrote:
The people who make less are still going to come out as losers here, if not worse off.  A flat sales tax hurts the poorer more than the wealthy, because the poorer spend a much larger proportion on basic needs like food/clothing.


You keep assuming that what the 'people who make less' are paying is only what shows up on their 1040's... you are forgetting about the existing embedded costs that they pay every single time they buy a loaf of bread or a shirt.

DoomBringer wrote:
Increasing sales taxes hurts them the most.  A few states don't have taxes on such staples, so adding a tax wouldn't be so great.


Hence where the prebates come in... NO ONE pays the tax on the necessities of life up until the poverty level.

DoomBringer wrote:
You mention rebates (I think), but calculating those would become a nightmare under the new system: should everyone collect and submit receipts or what?


Prebates... not based on income or the amount one actually spends but based on how much a family of N size would spend up to the poverty level that month on the FairTax... every head of household would get a check (or direct deposit) every month for that amount... which means every family of five be it a 9er’s or that of Bill Gates would get a check for the same amount.

DoomBringer wrote:
Also, prove that "fair" tax would increase what people would be earning in relative terms: they're still paying taxes either way, so their relative earnings are at best net-zero.


[quote user="DoomBringer"]Aside from the fact that compliance costs would virtually disappear (ask your boss some time how much the company spends on doing their taxes every year... then look at the cost of running the IRS just for starters)... perhaps you should take a read of some of the well researched papers on this subject.
ScanIAm
ScanIAm
On a scale of 1 to 10, people are stupid.
dahat wrote:

evildictaitor wrote: On my $1, 23% of it is tax, but that is a 30% increase on what I would be paying.


Incorrect, if today the price today is $1.00, under the FairTax tomorrow you'd still pay $1.00...

Ok, that sounds fair...go on...
dahat wrote:

the only difference is that under the current system you are not aware of the hidden embedded taxes that already exist (on average ~22%)... remove them and suddenly you see prices drop (as businesses want to remain competitive) and after you add the FairTax back in prices remain relatively unchanged.


Wait, I thought you said I'd still pay $1.00??  Now, I'm not going to pay $1.00? 

Which is it?  What savings are going to be passed on to the consumer if the consumer is paying the same rate?

Plus, a $1 item costs me $1.075 due to state and local sales taxes (7.5% sales tax).

Do I pay 7.5% on $1.00 or 7.5% on the unmentioned lesser amount?

I'm a bit confused, though, as to what problems the 'FairTax' solves.  To whom is our current tax system unfair?  The wealthy?  The middle class?  The poor?

How about a straight line equity tax?  If we go to a sales tax approach, are bank transactions taxed?  Do we tax people for the trading of commodities and stocks?  Or are they exempt?

Lastly, do we abolish inheritance taxes?  Already, the luck of birth makes you able to work legally above an imaginary line in north america.  Should the further rareness of one's parents give you the ability to avoid serving society?

ScanIAm wrote:
Wait, I thought you said I'd still pay $1.00??  Now, I'm not going to pay $1.00? 

Which is it?  What savings are going to be passed on to the consumer if the consumer is paying the same rate?


Compliance costs amongst other things... but we can get into that later.

ScanIAm wrote:
Plus, a $1 item costs me $1.075 due to state and local sales taxes (7.5% sales tax).

Do I pay 7.5% on $1.00 or 7.5% on the unmentioned lesser amount?


Yes... after state and local sales taxes where you are you'd end up spending 7.5%... before you yell "Nyeh, that means I'm paying tax on money that's already been taxed"... that's exactly how the current system works... only you aren't as aware of it because you never directly paid the tax in the first place, instead it was simply slipped out of your pay check.

Likely though to improve this issue we will see states move towards a FairTax system for their own tax systems, including the sales tax... not unlike how many movie theatres work today.

ScanIAm wrote:
I'm a bit confused, though, as to what problems the 'FairTax' solves.  To whom is our current tax system unfair?  The wealthy?  The middle class?  The poor?


All of the above.

Even if the poor pay nothing when it comes to the income tax they still end up paying all of the existing embedded taxes built into everything they buy be it new or used... under the FairTax they would be able to be more intelligent consumers and save money by buying used if they wanted where ever possible and possibly end up with a negative tax burden when their monthly prebate is factored in.

The current income tax applies to every single dollar you earn... the FairTax only applies when you spend it on new goods or services at the retail level.

As for the rich and the middle class... by the very nature of their wealth, the rich have the ability to shield their assets better than the rest of us, potentially leading to you and I paying more because they either shield theirs overseas or use tax write-offs that may or may not have been intended for them.

Without the FairTax, those dollars would suddenly become visible and more active and play a larger role in the economy. Sure, they might make a few bucks on the deal, but at the same time their spending and investment help to push the economy further creating more jobs and demand.

Aside from paying more, the middle class also gets hosed again when they save or invest themselves... those dollars automatically start off taxed and when they put them in the bank or the market for a few years and remove them... they end up paying the tax again... all for just having a few extra bucks to them.

Without the FairTax every dollar they save would be tax free until the day they spend it on something new at the retail level... which means they start off with more in the first place to invest/save, likely leading to a greater return in the end.

Like the poor, the middle class would benefit through the prebates leading to a few extra bucks in their pockets as well as having more money every 2 weeks when their pay check arrives and doesn’t have lines like 'FICA' and 'Federal Income Tax' on it.

ScanIAm wrote:
How about a straight line equity tax?


Such a system would be nearly as complicated as our current tax system and make it far easier for some to hide their assets so as to avoid paying more than they want.

A consumption tax is far simpler to manage and enforce as it becomes far far harder to cheat the system when you exempt nothing and require record keeping for potential auditing later.

Under the current system it requires only one person to cheat. Under the FairTax it requires at least two and likely far more.

ScanIAm wrote:
If we go to a sales tax approach, are bank transactions taxed?


Depends... is that bank transaction a new good or service at the retail level?

ScanIAm wrote:
Do we tax people for the trading of commodities and stocks?  Or are they exempt?


No... see above note.

ScanIAm wrote:
Lastly, do we abolish inheritance taxes?


Yes, all federal income taxes at the individual and corporate level are abolished including the inheritance tax.

ScanIAm wrote:
Should the further rareness of one's parents give you the ability to avoid serving society?


I wasn't aware they had a duty to 'serve society'... but none the less it'd be hard for them to not pay into the system unless they completely avoid buying things new... and somehow I doubt Bill Gates and/or his kids shop at the 2nd hand store all that much.

Bas
Bas
It finds lightbulbs.
evildictaitor wrote:

raymond wrote: 

 He mistook a group called Citizens for an Alternative Tax System (CATS) for the people who developed the FairTax.



Did someone say CATS?


CATS: Good evening gentlemen. All your base are belong to us. You have no chance to survive make your time.
ScanIAm
ScanIAm
On a scale of 1 to 10, people are stupid.

So, you are saying (correct me if I'm wrong)

1) I can have all of the money I previously paid to federal income taxes.  (roughly 30% of my income).
2) Prices for goods and services won't go up
3) The rich get more of their money
4) The poor and middle class get prebates
5) Public Federal Services won't suffer?


page 1 of 2
Comments: 39 | Views: 4600
Microsoft Communities