HAHAHA...Stupid Fair Tax

[wgadget]

Huck gets a lot of voters for the FairTax.

There's some expert on saying that it's really a 30% tax, not 23%.

Something else RP probably understands better than anyone else. Bring it on, Ron.

[adwads]

f*ck the fair tax

[Ron LOL]

Um, yes, nominally it would be a 30% tax...state sales tax is typically 7%.

Edit: also, I really have no problem with the Fair Tax at all. If you're going to have an income tax, a high sales tax is the way to do it. Solves a lot of the collection/underreporting/dishonesty issues. Also, my biggest problem with the income tax personally is that I feel it inhibits saving. The Fair Tax doesn't have this problem. Honestly, you should welcome the Fair Tax with open arms.

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

I would like the fair tax if it was 10%.

One thing I don't understand about the "prebate" though, is how the government is supposed to know who is "low income" and who is not. Seems like you would need another IRS to figure that out.

[Alabama Supporter]

Many RP supporters I know also support the fair tax.

I wouldn't trash it too much.

[wgadget]

I don't think they were even adding on state sales tax. It was more like for a $100 item, you pay $130, because 23% taken away from $130 is $100. Something about working it backwards. I dunno...it boggles my brain. But you can bet Ron understands it.

They were also saying that it wouldn't be good for houses, either, but I didn't really get why.

[dante]

a 30% sales tax would encourage black market sales just as much as the income tax encourages underreporting. Best method is a flat tax of 0%

[wgadget]

a 30% sales tax would encourage black market sales just as much as the income tax encourages underreporting. Best method is a flat tax of 0%

Agreed.

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

a 30% sales tax would encourage black market sales just as much as the income tax encourages underreporting. Best method is a flat tax of 0%

Right. Once you over 10 or 15%, it wil create a huge black market, and then you need a jackbooted police state to enforce the tax.

[Flirple]

Don't believe all the misinformation people are toughing against the FairTax. If it were to be implimented as the bill is written it would be an awesome improvement.

Critics always say the rate is 30% instead of 23% to scare people. Both figures are technically correct and the only difference is that the 23% figure is if you calculate the tax "inclusively" (after the purchase) and the 30% figure is if you calculate the tax "exclusively" (before the purchase). If people are going to cry foul about using the "inclusive" method of calsulation then you have to be fair and use that same logic on out current income tax, because it is currently calculated "inclusively". That is specifically why the are using the same method for the FairTax.

Listen, we can't whine and complain around here about the way the media misleads the public on Ron's positions and then do the same thing on other candidates postions. Especially on a pretty good proposal like the FairTax. http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=1541&page=NewsArticle&id=8248

Of course someone like Huckabee should not be trusted to guide the FairTax into law. But those critizisms should rest on the flaws of Huckabee not the flaws of the FairTax.

[Ranger29860]

I dont like the fair tax i end up paying more tax that way lets ee 2000 dollar tv 600 tax and thats on one purchase i made this year i only paid like 1500 in taxes last year this year i paid none though :D

[wgadget]

I still think that RP's 0% flat tax is far superior. It relies on CUTTING SPENDING, which is what we really need.

[Shellshock1918]

I would like the fair tax if it was 10%.


ditto.

[Edu]

No tax is a fair tax. (no direct tax)

[Ron LOL]

Agreed.

This is such a fallacy.

Fair Tax actually works beautifully here, without any additional effort! No reputable merchant would risk not collecting the sales tax. Second hand sales SHOULDN'T be taxed -- the tax has already been paid. And by moving the tax upstream to the producer (I think this is how VAT works), you can really eliminate just about all fraud.

There wouldn't be a black market because there can't be a black market.

[integrity]

the fair tax would insure that the spending would continue with no chance of real reform. Huckabee has never criticized the Fed either (to my knowledge) We will never get out of the hole without ending the (fraud) interest on the national debt.

[Flirple]

The other thing that drives me crazy about all the disingenuous FairTax trashing is when people fail to grasp that you will no longer have federal taxes taken from your paycheck. Not to mention no more capital gains taxes, alternative minimum taxes, death taxes, and corporate taxes. In other words you will have a lot more money to spend (or save) in the first place.

Whats important to understand is that with no corporate taxes driving up the cost of merchandise the price of goods and services will first drop (about 20%) before the new sales tax (23% inclusively figured) is added. An increase in price by only a few % points. So in the end, you have a lot more spending cash from the removal of all current federal taxes and then you will be paying a few % points more at the register with the new sales tax.

[wgadget]

And I can just imagine the prices of used stuff going through the roof.

[CopperheadNC]

Any new taxation system that is income neutral does not solve the underlying issue of over-funding the government. This government needs to be choked financially, so that it is forced to shrink.

[wgadget]

And what makes you so sure that corporations wouldn't try to pad their prices? How would we know what their actual cost is?

[mxktm185]

Especially on a pretty good proposal like the FairTax. http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=1541&page=NewsArticle&id=8248


I'm currently still on the fence about the Fair Tax. But for perspective, here's what FactCheck.org had to say about the Fair Tax proposal: http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

Doesn't sound too good from that evaluation, but I'll reserve my final judgement for after I've learned a little more about the arguments coming from each side.

Of course, I agree with Dr. Paul - a truly Fair Tax would be 0%.

[Danny Molina]

I hate the idea of the fair tax. I'm more of a fan of the flat tax.

[CareerTech1]

if it were 10% national sales / consumption tax (no more than a tithe) then fine -

i prefer Ron Paul's plan of no more fed income tax and not replacing it with anything.

[paulgeek]

If it were to be implimented as the bill is written it would be an awesome improvement.


Ah yes, the beauty of the legislative process. Most bills are perfect until they are modified beyond recognition or have amendments that flip the purpose of the bill around. The fairtax fans (and I used to be one) are more idealistic than any Ron Paul supporter. If you ask them if any part of the fairtax plan were to be changed they would just say that it wouldn't be the fairtax anymore. Well, one thing they say isn't taxed is educational services. Why does that get an exemption? Why not renewable energy? Do they really not think that lawmakers wouldn't modify the law in future years? That's what happens with our current tax code. Credits, deductions, exemptions all get added in. Same thing will happen with the fairtax. Given the choice between the fairtax or the original income tax we had in this country, I'll take the original income tax. The maximum rate was a whopping 1%. It quickly went up to 77%. Don't think that any sales tax won't be immune to a rate change, maybe more easily than an income tax rate change. The solution is to address spending, and Huckabee won't do a thing to reduce it.

[jhabers]

I would like the fair tax if it was 10%.

One thing I don't understand about the "prebate" though, is how the government is supposed to know who is "low income" and who is not. Seems like you would need another IRS to figure that out.

everyone gets the prebate. its the amount of tax that you would spend up the the poverty level. So if the poverty level is 20K (pulling numbers out my ass) then everyone would get a check for the tax on 20K

[Agent CSL]

This is how I understand it. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

The Fairtax charges all purchases at a very high rate. So if you are a low-income family, your grocery bill could shoot up to $130 from $100 (maybe $140 with local taxes). That would really hurt families. Also, even church items are taxable - so much for separation of church and state. What I see is the FairTax hurting a lot of low-income families, seniors, churches and non-profits. Big Business will not be effected whatsoever.

[stevenstremciuc]

One thing I don't understand about the "prebate" though, is how the government is supposed to know who is "low income" and who is not. Seems like you would need another IRS to figure that out.

EVERY CITIZEN gets a prebate. Don't know who told you otherwise, but they lied to you, and you are spreading the misinformation.

I support the Fair Tax, and Ron Paul himself has said he would sign the bill into law if he was President.

[stevenstremciuc]

So if you are a low-income family, your grocery bill could shoot up to $130 from $100 (maybe $140 with local taxes).

You get a prebate every month that covers this tax. Every citizen gets it, the same amount, regardless of income. The prebate is calculated from what a family of your size would spend on national sales tax every month up to the poverty line. You get that money in a check every month.

[Flirple]

a 30% sales tax would encourage black market sales just as much as the income tax encourages underreporting. Wrong. First of all you will only be paying less than 5% more for goods than you currently do now while having a lot more sending cash due to not paying all the federal taxes you do know (see posts #10 and #17).

Second, we currently have a huge black market that we are not taxing right now with the income tax. Under the FairTax we would for the first time be taxing money from the drug trade, prostitution, and illegal immigrants who are not paying income tax.


Best method is a flat tax of 0%Of course!!!!! But it is disingenous to compare this fact to the FairTax. The FairTax is not being advertised as a cut in spending. It is simply a much more efficient way to collect taxes. By making in less costly to collect the taxes (meaning government spends less money while stealing our money) everyone would end up having less of a tax burden than they currently do. The FairTax is meant to be something that people of all political persuasions (liberal, neocon, libertarian, green, etc.) can find common ground on. Of course we would all be disappointed to have Ron Paul be promoting the FairTax (although he says he would vote for it if it came up) because Ron Paul actually "gets it".

But for all the other current economic flunkies running for office (who I know will never be able to grasp the gold standard let alone promote it) the FairTax would be a great thing for them to pass.

[integrity]

i will fight the fair tax because it is nothing more than a band-aid on the infection, and then when we want real reform, the powers that be will say: what? you want MORE GRUEL???

[Steele]

For those who don't understand the FairTax, go to fairtax.org and read up. It's true that many RP supporters also support the Fairtax as a SECOND option. Eliminating the IRS outright would be a FIRST option.

When Huckabee drops out, RP supporters are going to want to attract the supporters of Huckabee who are going with him STRICTLY for his support of the Fairtax. Go to Fairtax.org and you'll understand how to bring them into the fold.

[MJfromCT]

The fair tax may be the easiest way to work our way down from the large spending at the federal level. Set the federal rate at let's just say 16% in 2009 then 13% in 2010 and 10% in2011. We wean ourselves off of unnecessary programs and create new jobs in the private sector (to replace the large number of govt. jobs) with the benefit of more money in individuals pockets stimulating true growth and investment.
Not set on this idea but it seems reasonable. Of course give me 0% eventually on the federal level and I will be ecstatic.

[Flirple]

And I can just imagine the prices of used stuff going through the roof.

Wrong. The FairTax is only on new products, never on used product. This way, everything is taxed only once. Unlike now were stuff is taxed at every stage (when we profit from reselling a product, while earning the money, while investing the money, while inheriting the money, while manufacturing a product, while running a business which makes product which in turn makes the products more expensive, etc.)

[literatim]

If you get a 'fair tax', you will just end up with both an income and sales tax.

[Flirple]

the fair tax would insure that the spending would continue with no chance of real reform. Huckabee has never criticized the Fed either (to my knowledge) We will never get out of the hole without ending the (fraud) interest on the national debt.

This is the sort of criticism that is actually worthy of debate. As opposed to all the other misinformation and ignorance of the details of a very good plan.

[wgadget]

Wrong. The FairTax is only on new products, never on used product. This way, everything is taxed only once. Unlike now were stuff is taxed at every stage (when we profit from reselling a product, while earning the money, while investing the money, while inheriting the money, while manufacturing a product, while running a business which makes product which in turn makes the products more expensive, etc.)

You don't think that used car salesmen wouldn't jack up the cost of a used car just because they'd be able to get more? The buyer would be saving the "sales tax" on the purchase, so what the heck...Jack up the price for whatever the market will accept.

[stevenstremciuc]

Given the choice between the fairtax or the original income tax we had in this country, I'll take the original income tax. The maximum rate was a whopping 1%. It quickly went up to 77%. Don't think that any sales tax won't be immune to a rate change, maybe more easily than an income tax rate change. The solution is to address spending, and Huckabee won't do a thing to reduce it.

The largest problem with an income tax is withholding. People don't even realize the money is disappearing from their paychecks before they cash the check. People will be much more aware and outraged on any increase in sales tax, on any items. While a politician could game a national sales tax, it'd still be much more transparent/difficult than gaming the current system. Ideally we'd have 0% income tax, but the Fair Tax is a vast improvement over any income tax.

[Flirple]

And what makes you so sure that corporations wouldn't try to pad their prices? How would we know what their actual cost is?

This comment is particularly disappointing to find on a Ron Paul message board because if you should immediately understand that corporations don't set the prices. The market does. It's not that they wouldn't want to pad their prices, its that the laws of economics makes it impossible. Have we learned nothing about economics from Ron Paul?

[adwads]

What's bad about the fair tax is that they are going to have tax rebates that go out to EVERYBODY in the country...this will function as the single greatest entitlement program EVER in America...people will be DEPENDENT on their government rebate check.

I know I know, it's not an entitlement program because its your money being returned to you...but it will still function as an entitlement program and make people dependent.

[wgadget]

The transparency just isn't there when we don't know what cost is...sorry.

[stevenstremciuc]

You don't think that used car salesmen wouldn't jack up the cost of a used car just because they'd be able to get more? The buyer would be saving the "sales tax" on the purchase, so what the heck...Jack up the price for whatever the market will accept.

You're right. There is only 1 used car salesman in the country, and he doesn't have to compete with anyone else when he sells his cars, so he can just jack the price up to whatever he wants. Oh wait... that's not how it works at all.

[jglapski]

This is such a fallacy.

Fair Tax actually works beautifully here, without any additional effort! No reputable merchant would risk not collecting the sales tax. Second hand sales SHOULDN'T be taxed -- the tax has already been paid. And by moving the tax upstream to the producer (I think this is how VAT works), you can really eliminate just about all fraud.

There wouldn't be a black market because there can't be a black market.

There can't be a black market? Give me a break.

I ask my customer for my money. I'll charge you $1000, or $850 cash. I win because I get to keep $850 rather than $770. The customer wins because he spends $850 rather than $1000.

Perhaps I've maybe done this with a 6% sales tax, quite possibly. It sure as hell would be done with a 30% sales tax.

[wgadget]

Sure as hell.

[Flirple]

Ah yes, the beauty of the legislative process. Most bills are perfect until they are modified beyond recognition or have amendments that flip the purpose of the bill around. The fairtax fans (and I used to be one) are more idealistic than any Ron Paul supporter. If you ask them if any part of the fairtax plan were to be changed they would just say that it wouldn't be the fairtax anymore. Well, one thing they say isn't taxed is educational services. Why does that get an exemption? Why not renewable energy? Do they really not think that lawmakers wouldn't modify the law in future years? That's what happens with our current tax code. Credits, deductions, exemptions all get added in. Same thing will happen with the fairtax. Given the choice between the fairtax or the original income tax we had in this country, I'll take the original income tax. The maximum rate was a whopping 1%. It quickly went up to 77%. Don't think that any sales tax won't be immune to a rate change, maybe more easily than an income tax rate change. The solution is to address spending, and Huckabee won't do a thing to reduce it.

Like I said earlier, I don't disagree. And therefore all criticisms of Huckabee promoting the fairtax should rest with that line of reasoning and not with lying about the particulars of the bill as it is written. If you want to dismiss the FairTax than you should focus on the legitimate concerns such as "how can I be sure that a shlub like Huckabee or the ones in office right now will implement this plan as advertise and not give us 2 systems etc. "

I just dislike all the disinformation. There are plenty of reasons to be hesitant about putting politician in charge of a major tax overhaul. Especially when their fiscal records (thinking of Huckabee here) are horrible.

[PimpBlimp]

I think it would kill the economy. People would be less inclined to go out and spend because of the huge sales tax.

[wgadget]

You're right. There is only 1 used car salesman in the country, and he doesn't have to compete with anyone else when he sells his cars, so he can just jack the price up to whatever he wants. Oh wait... that's not how it works at all.

I just meant used stuff in general...I was just trying to give an example.

[stevenstremciuc]

I think it would kill the economy. People would be less inclined to go out and spend because of the huge sales tax.

Considering that you no longer have to pay income tax, death tax, capital gains tax etc, what do you think the entire work force is going to do with their substantially larger incomes? Stuff it under their mattresses?

[jglapski]

Critics always say the rate is 30% instead of 23% to scare people.

Bullshit.

Honest people calculate the percentage based on the original base.

How much money do you get if you deposit $100 at 23% for one year?

[integrity]

the illegals would love it!

[amonasro]

If there's a fairtax I'm buying everything on ebay.

[DDMX]

From what I understand, stuff would be the same price or CHEAPER.

Because it ELIMINATES like 20 or 25 percent of Embedded tax, from the factory, materials the factory buys, import taxes, or whatever etc..

[Flirple]

Bullshit.

Honest people calculate the percentage based on the original base.

How much money do you get if you deposit $100 at 23% for one year?

I repeat, the current income tax is calculated in the same way as the FairTaxe's inclusive rate.

[Flirple]

From what I understand, stuff would be the same price or CHEAPER.

Because it ELIMINATES like 20 or 25 percent of Embedded tax, from the factory, materials the factory buys, import taxes, or whatever etc..

Right, well probably not cheaper, but probably less than 5% more expensive. Remember, you have more money to spend or save in the first place from the removal of the income tax.

[homah]

If there's a fairtax I'm buying everything on ebay.

so, so true. :D

[devil21]

If there's a fairtax I'm buying everything on ebay.

How long do you think it would take for the Feds to mandate regulating the internet to require all online purchases be charged the FairTax sales tax? I actually find this proposal as a way to regulate online business and get deeper gov't access to the internet. Instead of paying Paypal with no sales tax, you would pay the feds (or Paypal that now has inhouse feds) who then take their 23/30% and pass the rest on to the seller. I honestly worry more about this as being a way for the gov't to get its hands into regulating the internet and internet commerce. No one can deny that the net is taking a big chunk out of retail storefront business.

[Flirple]

the illegals would love it!

What are you talking about? Right now illegal immigrants are not paying income tax. Under the a national sales tax we would be taxing, illegals, prostitutes, drug dealers, etc. which eases the tax burden that is placed on the rest of us currently. See my post #29

[integrity]

What are you talking about? Right now illegal immigrants are not paying income tax. Under the a national sales tax we would be taxing, illegals, prostitutes, drug dealers, etc. which eases the tax burden that is placed on the rest of us currently. See my post #29

ok, so maybe not illegals, but organized crime would form huge black markets...

prohibition doesn't work!

[Manganese]

Every sales tax I've ever heard of is measured exclusively. The only one that gets measured inclusively is the FairTax, and it's just to make the truth more palatable.

The reality is that we're probably going to find ourselves with the FairTax.. on top of the income tax. States have both already, so why not the federal government? They'll implement FairTax on a limited basis with the reasoning that it will be "ramped up" while income tax will be "phased out." Then it's simply a matter of doing the former and not the latter.

[Lordsteven]

The reason the fair tax has to be so high(23%, 30%, or some even say higher) is because its all inclusive, it replaces all taxes(income, payroll, corporate, estate....ect.) Some of the major benefits include the dropping of the corporate tax, the US currently has I think the second highest corporate tax in the world. Getting rid of it would do a lot to stop all of the large corporations from leaving the US and probably get quite a few to return. Another benefit is a vast simplification of the tax code, saving everyone money all around. And a third benefit being actually getting money from the black markets, illegal immigrants, and drug dealers for the fact they have to spend that money they are getting on "goods" at some point, all the current money they make goes unseen so therefore untaxed.

Now the Cons and there are some big ones. First the current plan puts a tax on all new goods that includes cars and homes, can you imagine paying 23% on top of the cost of a new car or home. Although people will eventually adjust to the price increase the first 5-10 years would be absolutely devastating to the construction and auto industries(probably all industies though especially retail). Although I think there are some transition programs, there surely would be a inevitable recession type backlash because of it. Another problem I have is it makes it easier from the government to change what to rakes in, the congress could slowly jack up the tax rate at any time if they run short on funds. And lastly my main beef with it is the fact that the prebate program would effectively put everyone on a welfare program.

Now as much as I'd like to see the income tax repealed it's a pipe dream, it would take probably 10-15 years of a paul-like presidency and congress that agreed. What I do think is possible though is a mixture of the current system and the flat tax. Drop the Capital gains, Payroll, and income tax Period! You keep the Corporate tax but knock 10-15% off to lower it between 5%(small businesses) and 20%(large businesses). Keep the Death tax but change it to 25%-35% of all estates worth over 5-10 million. Raise the age of Social Security programs by almost 10 years, 67 to 75(The original 1933 program almost makes sense, you didn't get the money until 65 but the average life span was around 58) And finally instate a national sales tax of around 6%-8% and put a lock on the percentage that it can't be raised. Do that along with some government spending cuts and you might have an actually workable tax plan.

[EvoPro]

I am extremely against the fair tax, the pre-bate would enlarge the welfare state mentality. However I am for a low rate consumption tax that does not tax food, health care and other necessities.

[Bossobass]

Please, you're killing me.

Tax=BAD.

There are taxes from AtoZ in this country. My state legislature has empowered the state to tax an 'infinite' number of things.

Discussing the percentage as if it will be a fixed number forever is a chuckle. I've been in business for 32 years and I've never known a tax that hasn't gone up, up, up, up...

Corporate tax, estate tax, trusts tax, gift tax, insurance premium tax, partnerships tax, privilege license tax, property tax, unauthorized substance tax, septic permit tax, marriage license tax, building permit tax, battery disposal tax, RV road use tax, 911 telephone tax, gasoline tax, well permit tax, dog license tax, tire disposal tax, water craft registration tax, hunting license tax, tunnel toll tax, toll road tax, school tax, parks access tax, zoning tax, fishing license tax, fence permit tax...

I could run out of virtual ink describing the number of taxes local, state and federal gov'ts have allowed themselves to levy against us. Every fee any government requires is a tax. As all governments grow, so must the taxes to pay for them. They are infinite and they never go down.

Even the Bush tax cuts are a farce. They give you back a pittance, overspend, allow the Fed to print the difference and the inflation steals 10 times from your net worth over what the tax rebate amount was.

I like the fact that the income tax is voluntary, by their own code. If you ever let those bastards rename it 'the fair tax', or whatever, they'll make damn sure it's mandatory and open ended to be raised at will.

Tax=BAD. Say NO to any tax, I don't give a shit what it's called.

Bosso

[madRazor]

I find it amusing that people who argue against the Fair Tax are essentially defending the current system. I think we can all agree that replacing the income tax with nothing is better than the Fair Tax, so what is the argument here? Semantics I guess?

Ron Paul's position >>> Fair Tax >>> Current system

[Knightskye]

Seems like we got some Huckabee supporters posting in this thread. We have to borrow billions of dollars every day from foreign countries with our current system. Huckabee said the "Fair" Tax would be "revenue-neutral", during one of the debates. That means we'd still be increasing the defecit, because Huckabite wants to continue the warmongering nanny state.

It'd be 30% here in New Jersey, because our sales tax is 7%, and the "Fair" Tax would add 23 to it. Everybody's complaining about the high costs at the supermarket. The "Fair" Tax would drive them nuts.

[therealjjj77]

If you get a 'fair tax', you will just end up with both an income and sales tax.

I believe you are absolutely right on this. They'll blame it on the fair tax not bringing in enough since people are then able to save their own money.

The whole notion that China is doing better because it has a flat tax is ludicrous.

First, their flat tax is a flat income tax.

Second, the reason they are doing so well is because the jobs follow the dollars and that's where our dollars are going: to China.

Third, they don't have a world empire to maintain. Compare their military costs with ours.

Fourth, they have allowed way more financial liberty then what is being allowed in the U.S. Their tax ratio compared to ours:

U.S. 50-70% of the fruits of your labor
China 33% of the fruits of their labor

It's a lot more complicated then just, "Well China has a flat tax and look at how well they're doing!"

[therealjjj77]

Seems like we got some Huckabee supporters posting in this thread. We have to borrow billions of dollars every day from foreign countries with our current system. Huckabee said the "Fair" Tax would be "revenue-neutral", during one of the debates. That means we'd still be increasing the defecit, because Huckabite wants to continue the warmongering nanny state.

It'd be 30% here in New Jersey, because our sales tax is 7%, and the "Fair" Tax would add 23 to it. Everybody's complaining about the high costs at the supermarket. The "Fair" Tax would drive them nuts.

Anytime a politician says a number like 23%, they are lying. It will typically be 2 times or more the amount they say.

[Duckman]

Ron Paul's position >>> Fair Tax >>> Current system

The fair tax is not necessarily better than the current system. For one, I fear greatly that it could open the door to both a federal sales (VAT) tax as well as an income tax, unless its passage was tied to a constitutional amendment to explicitly ban an income tax (I don't think repealing the 16th amendment is sufficient, since with no wording they will find a loophole!)

Plus, it's all guesswork as to what this tax would need to be set at in order for the government to get the insane revenues it needs. Remember, this plan is about switching the revenues to come from sales, not necessarily reducing those revenues.

It will definitely lead to internet taxation, since there is no way they will let a 23-30% loophole through the system.

And I think it's unfair to people who paid an income tax and saved up money all their life, only to find they have to pay a 23-30% sales tax using that money after they retire.

I feel that attempts by fair tax supporters like Bootz to explain away these problems have been unconvincing.

[ButchHowdy]

I have two MAJOR issues with the alleged fairtax:

1.) The 'prebate' is nothing more than a scheme to "Number the people" or a fancy way to finally slip in the "National ID" unawares.


2.) Revenue neutrality is a goal of whom? I'm not interested in keeping the same flow of money to the government. THEY need a Weaning as We The People have had to endure!

[Grandson of Liberty]

23 becomes 24. . .25. . .26. . .etc, etc. . .

Even at 23 I think it's a bad plan.


"How much for this car?"

"$20,000"

"Hmmm, not bad. How much after tax, license and registration?"

"$30,000"

"Uh, no thanks."

That's the sound of an economy grinding to a halt.

[dsentell]

I recently heard an expert talk on the "fair tax". The tax they are currently talking about is a 30% tax. You simply apply a 30% tax on items, just the way we always calculate taxes. So, under the fair tax, an item priced at 1.00 will be 1.30 with the fair tax added (not adding any other taxes for simplicity).

But for this fair tax, the politicians have developed a new calculating method to con the people in believing that the tax is only 23%. Your 1.00 item will still be 1.30, but they point out that the extra 30 cents is 23% of 1.30. So, your tax increase is 23%.

I know, its hard to believe the government is trying to pull a fast one on us, but check it out . . .

[Xyrus2]

The other thing that drives me crazy about all the disingenuous FairTax trashing is when people fail to grasp that you will no longer have federal taxes taken from your paycheck. Not to mention no more capital gains taxes, alternative minimum taxes, death taxes, and corporate taxes. In other words you will have a lot more money to spend (or save) in the first place.

Whats important to understand is that with no corporate taxes driving up the cost of merchandise the price of goods and services will first drop (about 20%) before the new sales tax (23% inclusively figured) is added. An increase in price by only a few % points. So in the end, you have a lot more spending cash from the removal of all current federal taxes and then you will be paying a few % points more at the register with the new sales tax.

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

I'll have to side with factcheck and the universities who studied this. Huckabee's version would be a disaster for the middle class, as their tax burden's would rise noticeably compared to others. In addition, his projection of what the rate would be to reach a "zero-sum" game is, as they put it "an accounting trick". A fair tax looks good on paper, but one has to be extremely careful how it is implemented. Some of the reasoning used is all to familiar sounding to "trickle-down economics". In short, it takes someone who truly knows about the economy and financial logistics to implement a real working fair tax, and Huckabee's plan is not the way you would implement it.

What's REALLY important to understand though is that our government SPENDS TOO MUCH. Until the government is cut, it doesn't matter what scheme you use for taxation. The idea here is to DROP the taxation rate, not figure out how to shift the burden around.

~X~

[danberkeley]

23% National + 8.75% where i live = 31.75% for me! YAAAYY!!

[Goldwater Conservative]

The level of misinformation being propagated in this thread is amazing considering how often the media does it to our candidate.

Listen, advertising the rate as 23% is fair considering the FairTax is being proposed as a replacement to the income tax, corporate tax, and payroll taxes, all of which are also listed in tax-inclusive terms.

And while it would increase prices by 30%, abolishing all the taxes it replaces would likewise drop prices and/or increase incomes, which means the net effect could be relatively little. Basically, it makes the taxes we already pay visible rather than embedded.

Anyway, I oppose it because the prebate program would expand the welfare state, but without the prebates it would appear regressive enough that the people would throw it out. Also, we could get saddled with it and an income tax if we weren't careful.

If we could cut spending by at least half, didn't include the prebates, linked its passage to repeal of the 16th Amendment, and passed a constitutional amendment capping federal tax rates, I'd support it.

[Flirple]

I find it amusing that people who argue against the Fair Tax are essentially defending the current system. I think we can all agree that replacing the income tax with nothing is better than the Fair Tax, so what is the argument here? Semantics I guess?

Ron Paul's position >>> Fair Tax >>> Current system

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!

[Flirple]

The level of misinformation being propagated in this thread is amazing considering how often the media does it to our candidate.

Listen, advertising the rate as 23% is fair considering the FairTax is being proposed as a replacement to the income tax, corporate tax, and payroll taxes, all of which are also listed in tax-inclusive terms.

And while it would increase prices by 30%, abolishing all the taxes it replaces would likewise drop prices and/or increase incomes, which means the net effect could be relatively little. Basically, it makes the taxes we already pay visible rather than embedded.

Anyway, I oppose it because the prebate program would expand the welfare state, but without the prebates it would appear regressive enough that the people would throw it out. Also, we could get saddled with it and an income tax if we weren't careful.

If we could cut spending by at least half, didn't include the prebates, linked its passage to repeal of the 16th Amendment, and passed a constitutional amendment capping federal tax rates, I'd support it.

Man, your posts are down right logical.

[integrity]

I find it amusing that people who argue against the Fair Tax are essentially defending the current system. I think we can all agree that replacing the income tax with nothing is better than the Fair Tax, so what is the argument here? Semantics I guess?

Ron Paul's position >>> Fair Tax >>> Current system


I don't see Fair Tax as a step in the right direction. that's the argument. It's merely a diversion from the real problem, overspending and Federal Reserve Fraud.

Does Huckabee address the FED FRAUD? I asked this before and got no response. Have any of you watched "Fiat Empire" (available on google video)

[jsu718]

I don't support a fair tax at all. Of all things, it isn't fair. Taxing goods makes them more costly, and therefore encourages people to spend less money. A 0% sales tax would encourage people to buy more, thereby helping businesses and driving the economy. An income tax doesn't discourage most people from making money... sometimes it encourages them to not make MORE money due to being at the top of a tax bracket, but rarely in other circumstances. A tax system should always be set up to the point where money gets circulated into the system, not horded by people who have more.

[jglapski]

Seems like we got some Huckabee supporters posting in this thread. We have to borrow billions of dollars every day from foreign countries with our current system. Huckabee said the "Fair" Tax would be "revenue-neutral", during one of the debates. That means we'd still be increasing the defecit, because Huckabite wants to continue the warmongering nanny state.

It'd be 30% here in New Jersey, because our sales tax is 7%, and the "Fair" Tax would add 23 to it. Everybody's complaining about the high costs at the supermarket. The "Fair" Tax would drive them nuts.

No, your tax in NJ would be 37%.

If you buy something worth $100, there would be $37 of tax added. Of course, the unintended consequence of this might be that you buy something for $110 in cash instead. You save money and the vendor saves money.

Don't let the dishonest proponents of this tax succeed in their trickeration.

[jglapski]

The level of misinformation being propagated in this thread is amazing considering how often the media does it to our candidate.

Listen, advertising the rate as 23% is fair considering the FairTax is being proposed as a replacement to the income tax, corporate tax, and payroll taxes, all of which are also listed in tax-inclusive terms.

And while it would increase prices by 30%, abolishing all the taxes it replaces would likewise drop prices and/or increase incomes, which means the net effect could be relatively little. Basically, it makes the taxes we already pay visible rather than embedded.

Anyway, I oppose it because the prebate program would expand the welfare state, but without the prebates it would appear regressive enough that the people would throw it out. Also, we could get saddled with it and an income tax if we weren't careful.

If we could cut spending by at least half, didn't include the prebates, linked its passage to repeal of the 16th Amendment, and passed a constitutional amendment capping federal tax rates, I'd support it.

1. See the post above yours. Every percentage is calculated as a base. Saying 23% is as dishonest as it gets. I'm sure that everyone who is saying it is 23% wouldn't mind their mortgage rates revised to be expressed as "inclusive."

2. Huckabee is a socialist, and this is a means of expanding the welfare state as you note.

3. I'm not sure that it is better than the income tax, for a host of reasons, namely:
a. Its supporters are being dishonest about the actual rate employed.
b. It will furnish a black market, whether its supporters believe it or not.
c. It adds another level of bureaucracy, but this time for retail businesses. That adds costs.

[Fox McCloud]

Maybe we should all move to Alaska; the only State that doesn't have a sales tax or a State income tax....then all you would have to put up with is the income tax (or flat tax if it were to pass). Of course, under Dr. Paul's plan, taxes would be very very little in Alaska.

Anyway, I'm an opponent, in general, of the Fair Tax; I don't like the idea of paying 30% more for an item, even if that is inclusive. Yes, I'm aware that I might be saving a great because I won't be paying income tax...but coming from someone who is very fiscally conservative...I can tell you that I will not be purchasing things nearly as much, or as willing to purchase things if they pass it.

if it were passed at this stage of the game, it could have horrible results to our economy (which I wouldn't mind, I'm just pointing this out), as most of our GDP is based upon Americans' spending.

as I said, a flat tax of 5% nationally, I think would be good; it could generate a modest amount of revenue (but not so much that the government would think "hey! I want more more more!), but it would be enough to make people think twice about purchasing a product (but not so much that it'd greatly hinder sales, as with a 30% inclusive tax).

it's a slight improvement over the income tax now, but it's still a fairly terrible idea.

[Patriot Henry]

Um, yes, nominally it would be a 30% tax...state sales tax is typically 7%.

Edit: also, I really have no problem with the Fair Tax at all. If you're going to have an income tax, a high sales tax is the way to do it. Solves a lot of the collection/underreporting/dishonesty issues. Also, my biggest problem with the income tax personally is that I feel it inhibits saving. The Fair Tax doesn't have this problem. Honestly, you should welcome the Fair Tax with open arms.

A high sales tax is a high sales tax, not an income tax. It solves no problems. It also inhibits spending. Spending is how people live. A sales tax, particularly a high sales tax, inhibits spending on life.

You should fight the "Fair Tax" tooth and nail. It will be far worse than a high sales tax. Read the actual bill. It'll make most Americans dependent on a monthly government check to survive. BAD IDEA!!!

[tarabyte]

I still think that RP's 0% flat tax is far superior. It relies on CUTTING SPENDING, which is what we really need.

This is the only fair tax I support.

[billyjoeallen]

I have the book. The fair tax is an improvement over the existing income tax, but it is not nearly as good as eliminating the tax altogether and replacing in with reduced spending as Dr. Paul is proposing.

[Patriot Henry]

Don't believe all the misinformation people are toughing against the FairTax. If it were to be implimented as the bill is written it would be an awesome improvement.

Critics always say the rate is 30% instead of 23% to scare people. Both figures are technically correct and the only difference is that the 23% figure is if you calculate the tax "inclusively" (after the purchase) and the 30% figure is if you calculate the tax "exclusively" (before the purchase). If people are going to cry foul about using the "inclusive" method of calsulation then you have to be fair and use that same logic on out current income tax, because it is currently calculated "inclusively". That is specifically why the are using the same method for the FairTax.

Listen, we can't whine and complain around here about the way the media misleads the public on Ron's positions and then do the same thing on other candidates postions. Especially on a pretty good proposal like the FairTax. http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=1541&page=NewsArticle&id=8248

Of course someone like Huckabee should not be trusted to guide the FairTax into law. But those critizisms should rest on the flaws of Huckabee not the flaws of the FairTax.

The Fair Tax is anything but fair. It is a regressive tax, benefiting the wealthy and screwing the middle class just like the income tax does. It will make the majority of Americans dependent on a government check every month.

Did you actually read the bill? It's a terrible, horrible idea. Fair Tax proponents argue against the income tax because the one line Constitutional Amendment has ballooned to 64,000 pages... so we should replace that one line with more than a hundred pages to start a new monster beaucracy?

Dr. Paul has it right - we don't need to replace the income tax, we need to get rid of it. All of these unconstitutional programs are funded by the income tax, why do you all want to keep spending all of this money to keep funding illegal government programs?

The Fair Tax is like getting shot in the gut - it doesn't sound too bad when you are on fire, but it won't put out the fire and it won't solve your problems.

[Ncturnal]

Fair tax is missing the whole point. The problem is government overspending. Fair tax will do nothing to address that, but Ron's NO TAX would.

[Patriot Henry]

I repeat, the current income tax is calculated in the same way as the FairTaxe's inclusive rate.

And you think that is a convincing argument in favor of the "Fair Tax"???

[Patriot Henry]

everyone gets the prebate. its the amount of tax that you would spend up the the poverty level. So if the poverty level is 20K (pulling numbers out my ass) then everyone would get a check for the tax on 20K

"Prebate" is just a fancy word for "welfare".

[Patriot Henry]

This comment is particularly disappointing to find on a Ron Paul message board because if you should immediately understand that corporations don't set the prices. The market does. It's not that they wouldn't want to pad their prices, its that the laws of economics makes it impossible. Have we learned nothing about economics from Ron Paul?

Um, no often times corporations do set the prices, i.e. record companies fixing the price of CD's.

And if you are in favor of the Fair Tax, I don't think you've learned anything about economics or the nature of government from Paul or anyone else.

[Paulbot_9876]

This is how I understand it. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

The Fairtax charges all purchases at a very high rate. So if you are a low-income family, your grocery bill could shoot up to $130 from $100 (maybe $140 with local taxes). That would really hurt families. Also, even church items are taxable - so much for separation of church and state. What I see is the FairTax hurting a lot of low-income families, seniors, churches and non-profits. Big Business will not be effected whatsoever.

it is illegal to tax clothing food and shelter...........

[Patriot Henry]

Wrong. The FairTax is only on new products, never on used product. This way, everything is taxed only once. Unlike now were stuff is taxed at every stage (when we profit from reselling a product, while earning the money, while investing the money, while inheriting the money, while manufacturing a product, while running a business which makes product which in turn makes the products more expensive, etc.)


Let's see... what do I want... new 30,000 car plus 10,000 tax.. or slightly used car for 28,000 and no tax? Or 20,000 dollar car and no tax?

New 100,000 car and 33,000 in taxes? Or used car for 90,000?

This "FairTax" is another amazing chapter how people can believe anything.

[devil21]

Let's see... what do I want... new 30,000 car plus 10,000 tax.. or slightly used car for 28,000 and no tax? Or 20,000 dollar car and no tax?

New 100,000 car and 33,000 in taxes? Or used car for 90,000?

This "FairTax" is another amazing chapter how people can believe anything.

And most purchases like cars and houses are they are done on credit. So now you are paying interest on TAXES that you weren't paying before.