Fairtax.org Pauls Answer?

[iiguns]

Any one know if Ron is going to give them an answer on this?



http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_presScorecard

[rich34]

I suppose he could give them an answer, but honestly his plan of NO taxes is much better than the "fair" tax. I'll take a NO tax over a fair tax any day! :)

[ButchHowdy]

Fairtax doesn't put the brakes on Big Brother's spending spree

[tiznow]

The FairTax:

* Abolishes the IRS
* Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
* Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
* Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
* Allows American products to compete fairly
* Reimburses the tax on purchases of basic necessities
* Enables retirees to keep their entire pension
* Enables workers to keep their entire paycheck

I think there are some sticky things in there that he would say no to

He's better off just staying N/A honestly as i'm guessing his response generally would be something on par with its a good start but its not enough. He votes no to everything so chances are NO would be his answer. :) Fairtax people will be out in full force at the ames straw poll.

[aravoth]

If you abolished the Federal Reserve, and brought the military home, then cut whats left of the budget by 1/3rd, Why in the hell would anyone need the fair-tax? You just wanna give you money away or something?

[bobmurph]

Mises - Fair Tax Fraud (http://www.mises.org/story/1814)

[Shellshock1918]

I suppose he could give them an answer, but honestly his plan of NO taxes is much better than the "fair" tax. I'll take a NO tax over a fair tax any day! :)

He's said he'd vote for it if it ever came up to a vote.

[Wyurm]

Mises - Fair Tax Fraud (http://www.mises.org/story/1814)

I did already know it was 23%, but after that much closer look at the actuall bill, there is no way I can support the Fair Tax. It's a nice idea, but riddled with very bad things.

Edit: I must also admit the horror I feel by agreeing with Giuliani on something.

[aravoth]

Cutting back spending, abolishing The fed, the dept of education, closing uneeded overseas military installations, pulling out of iraq, and a few various odds and ends here and there.......

* makes it possible to abolish the IRS

* Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation

* Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding since they were never funded by the income tax anyway.

* Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy

* Allows American products to compete fairly

* Reimburses the tax on purchases of basic necessities

* Enables retirees to keep their entire pension

* Enables workers to keep their entire paycheck

* No need for the fair tax becuase we'd have spending under control

[iiguns]

Makes sense. I read this article on there site, and as you can see right in the beginning of the article,
He distinguishes Ron Paul from the other 534 members of congress. Most likely because he would get rid of Tax period.


http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/Honk_if_you_Oppose_a_Fairer_Tax_11-2-06.pdf

[Wyurm]

Oh!!!, look at the comment for Sam Brownback. The version they are talking about was presented by Iowans for Tax Relief. Lol, that would explain why RP is the only one with N/A in both columns. Also, it seems from the Brownback comment, that they have no interest in getting rid of taxes, they just want to have a national sales tax.

[angrydragon]

They know Ron's answer, I'm sure of it.

[Sematary]

After reading the mises page, I would have to say no to the fairtax as well -based on one thing - it would co-exist with the income tax still in place. I would have to say that for this to be correctly put together, it could not take place until the 16th amendment were repealed.

[bobmurph]

After reading the mises page, I would have to say no to the fairtax as well -based on one thing - it would co-exist with the income tax still in place. I would have to say that for this to be correctly put together, it could not take place until the 16th amendment were repealed.

The Fairtax does eliminate the federal income tax...the two would not coexist (a repeal of the 16th Amendment would certainly be favorable to protect us from a new income tax being enacted sometime in the future) . State income taxes would probably follow suit if the Fairtax were enacted (I believe Texas and Florida already have no state income tax) even w/o a Constitutional amendment repealing the 16th.

I do think the Fairtax would be better than the current system for several reasons. Possibly the most appealing argument for the Fairtax is that it would create a "tax haven" in this country because it calls for the elimination of corporate tax. Without any corporate tax, companies would have huge incentives to set up shop in the USA, resulting in job creation and possibly double-digit economic growth.

However, the bottom line is that the Fairtax is REVENUE NEUTRAL. The $3 TRILLION federal budget is the bigger problem.

[LibertyBelle]

After reading the mises page, I would have to say no to the fairtax as well -based on one thing - it would co-exist with the income tax still in place. I would have to say that for this to be correctly put together, it could not take place until the 16th amendment were repealed.

Correctly put together.....uh no. Listen to Aravoth, he is completely right. The federal income tax is incompatible with the founding of our country and so is the so-called 'fair' tax. They are trying to sell it by saying ooooh lookey, no more IRS and filing. Isn't that just dandy, you should be jumping up and down because at least it is a little better? The founders revolted over this type of taxing and control. People pushing this say they want to get rid of the income tax....to just replace it with the 'fair' tax, and at 23%! It is fraud. SSDD.

When RP was asked recently what he would replace the income tax with, he said nothing. Of course, he means sticking with depending on things such as import tariffs, excise taxes, etc instead. Cut back on all of the ridiculous agencies, programs, illegal wars, etc. Don't let these charlatans take you for a ride. That so called libertarian guy that wrote the book and started the site is probably a gatekeeper and backed by nefarious people. 'Fair' Tax, 'Patriot' Act, 'Federal Reserve', hee hee hee hee hee....they are clever indeed.

Remember, before 1913 and the Wilsonian era, we didn't have the federal income tax or 'spreading democracy'/policing the world. Don't want or need either. Back to the basics my pretties.....follow the small federal gov't road.

[LibertyBelle]

Comments from people tearing apart the 'Fair' Tax:

"If there was even an attempt at "Fairness" it would have to include anything purchased, including annuities, and stock, etc so only the money stowed under a mattress would be thus exempt. But of course that is not the plan. their plan is to tax anything needed for living but not anything that would be an "investment". Being that nearly everything a rich person buys is an "investment" they would escape any tax while those of leser means paid the full tax on every penny they earned. The whole "Fair" tax scheme is a fraud"

Interesting, the fair tax isn't transparent like they say it is either:

The Fair Tax rate, if figured the same way all states compute sales taxes, would actually be 30 percent. Let’s walk through an exercise on our way to the explanation.

If you crave an ice cream cone that costs $1, how much money would you have to make if:

a) there was a 23% flat tax on income and no sales tax?

b) there was a 23 percent "Fair Tax" and no income tax?

Under tax plan (a), if you make $1, the government will take 23 cents in taxes, leaving you with only 77 cents. You cannot afford the ice cream cone. What if you made $1.23? That won't be enough because 23% of $1.23 is 28 cents. You would have only 95 cents left to buy the $1 ice cream cone. As it turns out, you would have to make $1.30 to buy the ice cream cone.

Under tax plan (b), if you make $1 and try to buy the ice cream cone, you won't have enough either. Most people would think you have to make $1.23 -- one dollar for the ice cream and 23 cents to pay the tax. Wrong again. You would have to have $1.30.

A 23 percent income tax and a 23% "Fair Tax" is the same tax rate. The "Fair Tax" is not like any state sales tax, the kind of sales tax with which most people are familiar. State sales taxes are applied only to the cost of the product. The Fair Tax rate is different.

[UCFGavin]

Dr. Paul said he would support the Fair Tax but he felt it could be done better.

[beermotor]

Fair Tax is pretty shamtastic. however, it'd be better than the income tax code we have now. Maybe. I've read some crap that suggests it would fuck the poor even harder than they already are being fucked. Which is sad.

You know, they call us libertarian anti-Fed folks "loonies" and "selfish" but when it comes down to it, we're the only ones who really understand and sympathize with the poor, who are continually destroyed by the establishment. It's sad. We really need a revolution in this country.

[LibertyOrDie]

He's said he'd vote for it if it ever came up to a vote.


Dr. Paul said he would support the Fair Tax but he felt it could be done better.

A link to anything? I hadn't heard of this...

[Brandybuck]

Yes, I heard it to. I can't remember where.

But this is really a side issue. It doesn't matter if it's an income tax, consumption tax, head tax or whatever. It's still a tax. All things being equal, the FairTax is better than the IRS income tax. The fact that it makes taxation open and visible may actually wake people. But you're still replacing one massive tax with another massive tax.

The real problem is the spending. It needs to be slashed drastically. Ron Paul is the only candidate talking about cutting spending.

[wizardwatson]

Henry George already solved the question of how to implement a single tax that is fair.

This is 140 year old knowledge.

[LibertyOrDie]

A link to anything? I hadn't heard of this...

I found it, in case anyone else wanted to see it, here it is:
http://ronpaul.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/06/ron_paul_and_th_1.html

[SamAdams]

Go read the bill. It is a disaster. It works out to a welfare payment to the poorest, but taxes them anyway initially. This is accomplished with a 'pre-bate' which the govt will mail you each month to cover your expected sales tax liability. The only problem is if you want the pre-bate, you have to 'register' everyone in your household with the feds. nice.

It also taxes the spending of state and local governments. So 23% of your tax dollars which now go to local needs will now be siphoned off to dirty old man Uncle Sam.

And just where will the money for the pre-bate come from? You guessed it, the 'rich.' (read middle class)

How about we just abolish the IRS, repeal the 16th and title 26 and be done with it? Seems a lot easier to me. We also should require no deficit spending. Then they'll have to cut all the nonsense out.

[LibertyEagle]

Dr. Paul is asked at the beginning of this video whether he will vote for the Fair Tax. He says yes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewghSVp-GIk&mode=related&search=

[Gee]

The welfare thing was originally proposed by Milton Friedman, who called it the negative income tax. The idea was to shift all forms of socialized welfare to actual cash-payout welfare. Friedman didn't like welfare, but felt it was currently politically necissary and wasn't going away. From an economic standpoint, cash charity is far better than socialism (since it preserves consumer preference), so he thought it would be a step in the right direction.

Its a good idea IF other forms of welfare are removed in the process.

[TheEvilDetector]

If US has a NORMAL govt then you wouldnt need fair or any other tax of its kind ie. no consumption tax of any kind ever and it goes without saying no income tax.

Just need a few modest constitutional excises, tariffs on items in international trade (brings to mind customs duties and the like) to fund the greedy fed and the council land (police+fire protection essentially) tax/water delivery/sewage maintenance/garbage removal rates, vehicle registrations to fund road maintenance, public hospital/library/school etc fees to fund the local and state govts.

Thats all. Quite legal, quite affordable

It would really be helpful if a citizen could be presented with an quarterly local/state fee statement, detailing exactly how much is required and where it all goes.

If a citizen cannot pay, he or she would have to present cause, like low income, disability, emergencies or whatever, and have a special local community tribunal (not a court) come to a voluntary agreement on time to pay arrangements or if financial circumstances prove severe refer the citizen to local charities where the citizen could go through programs that would provide limited financial help and expose the citizen to some work programs for people in his position which the citizen would be free to decide on taking up.

If a citizen was obstinate and did not have valid cause not to pay their fees, the tribunal could then consider lodging a civil suit against the citizen on behalf of the local community, and the matter would then and only then go to court and would be limited only to finances, not jail time. So the money would be recovered that way.

If a citizen committed fraud about disclosing finances to prevent recovery of money, then the matter would escalate to criminal charges, however the punishment would not be jail, it would be a mark against the record as a non-tax payer, which would mean, the citizen could not use any public services to which tax paying citizens are entitled in the particular state where the offence was committed.

This is far more effective than a jail punishment in my opinion, for when you cannot obtain services in public hospitals, schools, libraries or when the police of fire dept arent obligated to protect you, or when you cannot board public transport or when the local council is not obliged to provide you with water or sewage or rubbish removal or whatnot it has far more effect on an individual than locking someone up for a limited period of time. Far more effective education than staring at the same walls for extended period of time.

[Bruehound]

* Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation

Here's a fun little game for self-amusment. Whenever you hear a politician giving a speech and blathering on and on about plugging 'loopholes', in your mind simply substitute the phrase 'freedom leak(s)' whenever you hear loophole(s).

Example: Imagine Sen Ernest Hollings on the Senate floor saying the following in his best southern drawl(think Foghorn Leghorn)

"welllll looky here......we gotta do something bout pluggin up em dare freedom leaks in the tax code"

Again, this is stupid but self-amusement comes easy for me.:D

[TheEvilDetector]

From:

http://www.mises.org/story/1814

"The real problem with the FairTax is threefold. In " An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American People Concerning Reform of the Federal Tax Code," which is posted on the FairTax website along with the endorsement of seventy-five "professional and university economists," we can see the trouble with the FairTax immediately:

We are not calling for elimination of federal taxation, which would be irresponsible and undesirable. Nor does our endorsement call for reduced federal spending. The tax reform plan we endorse is revenue neutral, collecting as much federal tax revenue as the current income tax code, including payroll withholding taxes.

There is only one word to describe the fact that the federal government now spends almost $3 trillion a year: obscene. At least 90 percent of what the federal government spends is unconstitutional, wasteful, or against the limited-government principles of the Founders. The only thing the FairTax does is change the way the state confiscates the wealth of its citizens. As Congressman Ron Paul says: "The real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform."

Because the FairTax is a consumption tax, Murray Rothbard's conclusion about consumption taxes is apropos:

The consumption tax, on the other hand, can only be regarded as a payment for permission-to-live. It implies that a man will not be allowed to advance or even sustain his own life, unless he pays, off the top, a fee to the State for permission to do so. The consumption tax does not strike me, in its philosophical implications, as one whit more noble, or less presumptuous, than the income tax.

The FairTax does nothing to tame the federal leviathan. The solution is nothing less than a drastic reduction or wholesale elimination of its revenue source. What is fair about allowing the government to confiscate 23 percent of the value of every new good and service? FairTax proponents may call it necessary legislation, but I call it highway robbery."

For lack of a better term, FAIR TAX SUCKS!!!!!!

[LibertyBelle]

Dr. Paul is asked at the beginning of this video whether he will vote for the Fair Tax. He says yes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewghSVp-GIk&mode=related&search=

Ya, but just recently when asked on video (at the beginning) what he would replace the income tax with, he said he didn't want to replace it with anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGGOiv7sA4w&mode=user&search=

The Fair Tax is not fair, is fraud, once again benefits the wealthy, still needs a gov't agency to organize/collect/distribute, the burden would still be on the middle class, still an invasion of privacy. We didn't have any of this shit before 1913, let's reduce the size of gov't, repeal the 16th, get rid of the Feds, and get back to original business. Would take time, yes, but let's not replace one evil with another which would still give incentive for big gov't.

I don't know why he originally said yes :eek: , but he very recently said nothing would replace the federal income tax.

[LibertyEagle]

I could be wrong, but I see this as 2 separate issues. If he was elected President and had the power, he would abolish the IRS and replace it with nothing. If he was NOT and the Fair Tax came up for a vote, he has said he would vote in favor of it, because it is better than what we have now.

Anyway, that's how I interpreted his responses.