Fair Tax Talk here

[1timepu]

This is a win win situation both for the employee which is me and the Company, now wouldnt we want our whole paycheck, and wouldnt we want UPS to make more money and produce more jobs? goto www.fairtax.org you can now go there and they have a calculator where you put in yuor numbers and it tells you how much you will save under the Fairtax check it out www.fairtax.org

 

[Braveheart]

I agree. NATIONAL SALES TAX ON ALL PURCHACES!!!!!!! It catches the hookers, drug dealers, illegal gamblers, people who lie on their tax returns, people who work under the table, illegal immigrants, foreign tourists, etc etc etc !!!!!!

If you buy a $10,000 car, then you pay $12,200 = 7% state and 15% national.

If you buy a $50,000 car, then you pay $61,000= 7% state and 15% national.

You are not taxed for how much you make, just how much you spend.

You buy a house for $150,000 and sell it 10 years later for $350,000, you keep all $200,000 profit! The buyer pays taxes on $350,000 just like you paid taxes on $150,000.

You buy stock at $50 a share plus taxes so it is really $61 each. You then sell them later for $111 per share and pocket the $50 per share profit. The buyer pays taxes on the $111 per share price.

Making a profit works for all, rich, poor, and the middle class.

Businesses also purchase things and will also pay taxes on their purchases and not penalized for making a profit off of them!

 

[1timepu]

I agree. NATIONAL SALES TAX ON ALL PURCHACES!!!!!!! It catches the hookers, drug dealers, illegal gamblers, people who lie on their tax returns, people who work under the table, illegal immigrants, foreign tourists, etc etc etc !!!!!!

If you buy a $10,000 car, then you pay $12,200 = 7% state and 15% national.

If you buy a $50,000 car, then you pay $61,000= 7% state and 15% national.

You are not taxed for how much you make, just how much you spend.

You buy a house for $150,000 and sell it 10 years later for $350,000, you keep all $200,000 profit! The buyer pays taxes on $350,000 just like you paid taxes on $150,000.

You buy stock at $50 a share plus taxes so it is really $61 each. You then sell them later for $111 per share and pocket the $50 per share profit. The buyer pays taxes on the $111 per share price.

Making a profit works for all, rich, poor, and the middle class.

Businesses also purchase things and will also pay taxes on their purchases and not penalized for making a profit off of them!

Braveheart at least we agree on something

 

[1989]

I agree. NATIONAL SALES TAX ON ALL PURCHACES!!!!!!! It catches the hookers, drug dealers, illegal gamblers, people who lie on their tax returns, people who work under the table, illegal immigrants, foreign tourists, etc etc etc !!!!!!

If you buy a $10,000 car, then you pay $12,200 = 7% state and 15% national.

If you buy a $50,000 car, then you pay $61,000= 7% state and 15% national.

You are not taxed for how much you make, just how much you spend.

You buy a house for $150,000 and sell it 10 years later for $350,000, you keep all $200,000 profit! The buyer pays taxes on $350,000 just like you paid taxes on $150,000.

You buy stock at $50 a share plus taxes so it is really $61 each. You then sell them later for $111 per share and pocket the $50 per share profit. The buyer pays taxes on the $111 per share price.

Making a profit works for all, rich, poor, and the middle class.

Businesses also purchase things and will also pay taxes on their purchases and not penalized for making a profit off of them!

It's still an unfair tax for families...Because a family with lets say 4 kids, has to buy more clothes. Four pairs of shoes, school supplies, beds, sheets, etc. Families pay more taxes on necessities than a single person. Less money for a car or a house.

 

[satellitedriver]

23% is a unfair tax amount. Our tax rate is a sliding scale. The less you make the less percentage you pay.
12.4% tax is roughly the amount of federal income tax I will pay in 2008.


If taxable income is over-- But not over-- The tax is:
$0 $15,650 10% of the amount over $0
$15,650 $63,700 $1,565.00 plus 15% of the amount over 15,650
$63,700 $128,500 $8,772.50 plus 25% of the amount over 63,700
$128,500 $195,850 $24,972.50 plus 28% of the amount over 128,500
$195,850 $349,700 $43,830.50 plus 33% of the amount over 195,850
$349,700 no limit $94,601.00 plus 35% of the amount over 349,700


My 2007 estimated federal income tax liability will be approximately $14,223.
My average tax rate is 12.4% and my marginal tax rate is 25.0%.


Estimated Tax Analysis
Gross income
$115,000.

- Qualified plan contributions (401k)
$12,000.

= Adjusted gross income
$103,000

- Standard/Itemized deductions
$10,700

- Personal exemptions
$6,800

= Taxable income
$85,500

Tax liability before credits
$14,223

- Child tax credits
$0

= Estimated tax liability
$14,223

This is by filing on a simple 1040 form.
If I file under the long form (which I will) my taxable income will be less.
12.4% versus 23% tax, sounds fair to me.
So, please explain to me why I (and you) must pay a higher tax rate to be fair?
PAX

 

[Dump and Run]

It's still an unfair tax for families...Because a family with lets say 4 kids, has to buy more clothes. Four pairs of shoes, school supplies, beds, sheets, etc. Families pay more taxes on necessities than a single person. Less money for a car or a house.

1989, did you go to the fair tax web site (www.fairtax.org) and come up with your "unfair tax" quote? I went there and crunched my numbers several ways and with 2 kids and married I always came out on top.

 

[1timepu]

1989, did you go to the fair tax web site (www.fairtax.org) and come up with your "unfair tax" quote? I went there and crunched my numbers several ways and with 2 kids and married I always came out on top.

They updated their website...they are getting agressive, looking for support to call your Rep. Congress and Senate are talking now about the TAX system let them hear ya

 

[wkmac]

I'm not pro or con the FairTax because at the end of the day I'm for ending the 16th amendment period and terminating all direct taxation of income by the Federal gov't. However, reality sez that ain't gonna happen so what we really need IMO is for this country to have a completely open and honest dialogue about taxation, it's various forms and means and just what we want to achieve with it. This would of course include the FairTax as well as the various other means of Flat taxes and it would also include the current income tax as well as other forms of progressive taxation. Put everything on the table and give us all the facts and details to go with it.

Every form of taxation is going to have it's good points/bad points and no matter which means you go with someone will find themselves sitting in a bad spot and a lot of that is of no fault of their own. Taxation in this country has been as much about granting the gov't the fiscal means to pay for it's actions as well as using it's power to direct and formulate public policy and public business markets otherwise known as corporate welfare. In many of these situations, a good case IMO could be made that the gov't in effect created false markets to advance a public policy cause or in some cases to drive in further more tax revenues. At some point a good historical discussion on that point is needed here but my guess is few if any are interested so there you go!

It is of the belief of many FairTax and even Flat Tax advocates that under the current tax policies, that the ability to control the taxing power and thus the spending power of the federal gov't has been lost and that is fairly true IMO. Many believe that under this FairTax that is also suggested as being revenue neutral (this may or may not be the case, I'm open to both arguments) will place the power back in the hands of the people as they can control Congress and that over time spending will be cut and thus the % of the tax will be reduced. I'm not that rosey on that prospect but the FairTax IMO does one good thing that gets lost in the current system of income taxation. IMO a solid case can be made that all end users of any product or service that is taxed will always pay all the taxes. In other words, a corporation or business takes their tax liability and they embed this cost into the product or service they sell so that the final consumer of the product does pay all the taxes. In some cases they even double dip as for example UPS matches our SS and medicare taxes on Friday which they in turn pass that labor cost onto the consumer of our shipping services but come April 15th, they are able to write that matching excise tax cost off their income taxes so in some cases you could argue that the bsuiness world profits from the current business model as it relates to taxation.

The FairTax would at least remove that invisible taxation and alledged profit from the business scenario. It would also for the moment pass any excess monies saved from the former means of taxation directly to the business profits bottomline. The question would then be with this flexibility, would the business world pass back down those savings to the consumer? I happen to think in time that it will but over how long a period I don't know nor could I even guarantee. I'm not satisfied that K Street, who does fear the FairTax (another huge plus for the plan IMO) won't pull in favors from their buddies in Congress to somehow keep those funds with Big Business in order to jack up earning per share which lifts Wall Street and share pries and thus pull in international buyers into our stock market. That is one scenario of many.

I applaud Congressman John Linder and Neal Boortz for their efforts in this debate but Steve Forbes and Dick Armey had a Flat Tax ideas, former Texas Senator Phil Gramm also advocated a type of flat tax, Neal Boortz use to parade the "CATS" tax idea and back in the 80's former Idaho Congressman Hansen fought to expose massive IRS abuses (and paid a huge price for it) and he also advocated a flat tax. As one who has studied the income tax and internal IRS policies, the income tax and the means of taxation are a very complicated subject. I can flatly say the income tax is not what is seems and that is why I say again that an open and honest public dialogue is needed if we ever hope to have as good a means of taxation as we can get. The first step however, and right now this IMO seems impossible, is to have an open and honest gov't willing to do what is right in the best interest of the people rather than what is in the best interest of it's K Street masters!

There is no 2 minute tax plan that will solve all ills and make everyone happy. Karl Marx and Fredrich Engles not withstanding, even a progressive income tax system can be as good a means of taxation as any other, but even the best plan of taxation if given to a corrupt and dishonest gov't at the end of the day will become a corrupt and dishonest system itself, so what have you gained? Demand and vote at the polls for people who may not agree point by point with your beliefs but at the end of the day are about honesty and bringing into the full light of day all things gov't. By having all the facts on the table for everyone to see, we at least have the chance of seeing who has vested interests, what they are and how those mesh with making America great for all, not for only the ones who are politically connected with the ruling party!

JMHO

Take care everyone and keep up the open discussion on this subject. I at the very least hugely applaud the idea of the FairTax as it causes people to open discuss our means of taxation in this country and just where we should be going with this policy.

 

[GuyinBrown]

IMO, nothing will change because aside from the potential benefits to businesses that wkmac described above, the current complicated system of taxation has spawned a multi-billion dollar industry.... income tax returns. Companies like H&R Block will have lobbyists contributing heavily to the campaign funds of any Congressman or Senator needed to sway the necessary votes to keep the status quo....

 

[1timepu]

I'm not pro or con the FairTax because at the end of the day I'm for ending the 16th amendment period and terminating all direct taxation of income by the Federal gov't. However, reality sez that ain't gonna happen so what we really need IMO is for this country to have a completely open and honest dialogue about taxation, it's various forms and means and just what we want to achieve with it. This would of course include the FairTax as well as the various other means of Flat taxes and it would also include the current income tax as well as other forms of progressive taxation. Put everything on the table and give us all the facts and details to go with it.

Every form of taxation is going to have it's good points/bad points and no matter which means you go with someone will find themselves sitting in a bad spot and a lot of that is of no fault of their own. Taxation in this country has been as much about granting the gov't the fiscal means to pay for it's actions as well as using it's power to direct and formulate public policy and public business markets otherwise known as corporate welfare. In many of these situations, a good case IMO could be made that the gov't in effect created false markets to advance a public policy cause or in some cases to drive in further more tax revenues. At some point a good historical discussion on that point is needed here but my guess is few if any are interested so there you go!

It is of the belief of many FairTax and even Flat Tax advocates that under the current tax policies, that the ability to control the taxing power and thus the spending power of the federal gov't has been lost and that is fairly true IMO. Many believe that under this FairTax that is also suggested as being revenue neutral (this may or may not be the case, I'm open to both arguments) will place the power back in the hands of the people as they can control Congress and that over time spending will be cut and thus the % of the tax will be reduced. I'm not that rosey on that prospect but the FairTax IMO does one good thing that gets lost in the current system of income taxation. IMO a solid case can be made that all end users of any product or service that is taxed will always pay all the taxes. In other words, a corporation or business takes their tax liability and they embed this cost into the product or service they sell so that the final consumer of the product does pay all the taxes. In some cases they even double dip as for example UPS matches our SS and medicare taxes on Friday which they in turn pass that labor cost onto the consumer of our shipping services but come April 15th, they are able to write that matching excise tax cost off their income taxes so in some cases you could argue that the bsuiness world profits from the current business model as it relates to taxation.

The FairTax would at least remove that invisible taxation and alledged profit from the business scenario. It would also for the moment pass any excess monies saved from the former means of taxation directly to the business profits bottomline. The question would then be with this flexibility, would the business world pass back down those savings to the consumer? I happen to think in time that it will but over how long a period I don't know nor could I even guarantee. I'm not satisfied that K Street, who does fear the FairTax (another huge plus for the plan IMO) won't pull in favors from their buddies in Congress to somehow keep those funds with Big Business in order to jack up earning per share which lifts Wall Street and share pries and thus pull in international buyers into our stock market. That is one scenario of many.

I applaud Congressman John Linder and Neal Boortz for their efforts in this debate but Steve Forbes and Dick Armey had a Flat Tax ideas, former Texas Senator Phil Gramm also advocated a type of flat tax, Neal Boortz use to parade the "CATS" tax idea and back in the 80's former Idaho Congressman Hansen fought to expose massive IRS abuses (and paid a huge price for it) and he also advocated a flat tax. As one who has studied the income tax and internal IRS policies, the income tax and the means of taxation are a very complicated subject. I can flatly say the income tax is not what is seems and that is why I say again that an open and honest public dialogue is needed if we ever hope to have as good a means of taxation as we can get. The first step however, and right now this IMO seems impossible, is to have an open and honest gov't willing to do what is right in the best interest of the people rather than what is in the best interest of it's K Street masters!

There is no 2 minute tax plan that will solve all ills and make everyone happy. Karl Marx and Fredrich Engles not withstanding, even a progressive income tax system can be as good a means of taxation as any other, but even the best plan of taxation if given to a corrupt and dishonest gov't at the end of the day will become a corrupt and dishonest system itself, so what have you gained? Demand and vote at the polls for people who may not agree point by point with your beliefs but at the end of the day are about honesty and bringing into the full light of day all things gov't. By having all the facts on the table for everyone to see, we at least have the chance of seeing who has vested interests, what they are and how those mesh with making America great for all, not for only the ones who are politically connected with the ruling party!

JMHO

Take care everyone and keep up the open discussion on this subject. I at the very least hugely applaud the idea of the FairTax as it causes people to open discuss our means of taxation in this country and just where we should be going with this policy.

I am taking here you know a little about the Fair Tax that said, you know that under the Fair Tax corporations and small business's wont pay any taxes period! This alone would save them a ton of money, through record keeping and accounting and time. Also you have to believe if this gets passed that BIG CHANGES are happening within our goverment. A free market which is here would almost force the companies to reduce their products when it passed, also the economy is expected to grow by %10 in the first year.

 

[traveler]

IMO, nothing will change because aside from the potential benefits to businesses that wkmac described above, the current complicated system of taxation has spawned a multi-billion dollar industry.... income tax returns. Companies like H&R Block will have lobbyists contributing heavily to the campaign funds of any Congressman or Senator needed to sway the necessary votes to keep the status quo....

Sadly, I agree that nothing will happen. Aside from the folks you mentioned, what in the world would the Federal Government do with the thousands of IRS workers? You can see the same problem in other government areas such as the US Mint where useless one cent coins are still being produced even though they cost more to produce than their stated value! They also produce $1.00 coins that are just as useless since their sister operation, the Federal Reserve will not stop printing dollar bills. The dollar bills keep plenty of their folks working too, but aren't necessary if sufficient dollar coins circulate. Our neighbor to the north did away with the one and two dollar bills years ago and replaced them with coins. The same is true in Europe where the smallest bill is five euros.

 

[wkmac]

I am taking here you know a little about the Fair Tax that said, you know that under the Fair Tax corporations and small business's wont pay any taxes period! This alone would save them a ton of money, through record keeping and accounting and time. Also you have to believe if this gets passed that BIG CHANGES are happening within our goverment. A free market which is here would almost force the companies to reduce their products when it passed, also the economy is expected to grow by %10 in the first year.

1timepu,

I appreciate what you are saying but my problem is we have one tax system they abuse in Washington so why give them a supposed revenue neutral new system they can abuse just as easily. It's not the specific means of taxation that is the problem, it's the totally corrupt gov't that hides behind it (income tax) and that the public blames (income tax again) for all the ills.

I can't say at this point who I'll vote for as my distaste for all things democrat or republican is so strong but Ron Paul makes a rather interesting point in that if you cut the size of gov't back to it's level that it was in 2000', the monetary savings would be enough that you could completely eliminate the personal income tax off the books. We could end Social Security taxes right now and if we reprioritize federal spending, not one soul recieving or who is scheduled over the coming years to recieve SS would miss a payment. Much of welfare is the same way. The only thing stopping the ending of direct taxation of income is our refusal to change gov't from being the hog trough of the special interests that run Washington via K Street.

For those of you who fashion themselves as "Conservative" on the premise of small gov't, less taxes and fiscal responsibility and yes those are good things that I too agree with, we're talking about taking Ron Paul's idea and eliminating all the gov't growth during the Bush years and going back to the size and footprint of gov't under the so-called big spending liberal of Bill Clinton. My point is that gov't grew many fold under the republicans watch and much of that growth was outside the scope of gov't needs as a result of the events of 9/11 and the war on terror.

Unless you can control that unchecked excessive growth that both parties have equal hands in, no formula, system or other means of taxation will in the end work. The only way I know of to get their attention is to deny them your support and vote and therefore I choose to give my vote to 3rd parties out of pure principle. I don't choose the lesser of 2 evils, I just refuse to support evil at all.

In 2008', don't vote Republican or Democrat, for once Vote on Principle. You get 15% of the voters out there to vote for anything but republican or democrat and then those 2 are left dividing up 85% or less of the American electorate and the prospect of the winner not getting a clear 50% of the total vote cast and you'll see real quickly the political machine in America turn on it's collective heels. Thomas Jefferson, who with all his faults being still one of my heros once said that Revolution every once in a while is healthy and I tend to agree. We are blessed to live in a day and age and a country where we can have political revolutions and never a shot is fired nor a drop of blood will flow. This IMO is a most precious gift from God and it's time we exercise it.

Just something to think about as the election season heats up even more.

Bless wishes to all!

 

[wkmac]

Sadly, I agree that nothing will happen. Aside from the folks you mentioned, what in the world would the Federal Government do with the thousands of IRS workers? You can see the same problem in other government areas such as the US Mint where useless one cent coins are still being produced even though they cost more to produce than their stated value! They also produce $1.00 coins that are just as useless since their sister operation, the Federal Reserve will not stop printing dollar bills. The dollar bills keep plenty of their folks working too, but aren't necessary if sufficient dollar coins circulate. Our neighbor to the north did away with the one and two dollar bills years ago and replaced them with coins. The same is true in Europe where the smallest bill is five euros.

Traveler,

IMO, the gov't has created a false labor market by propping up job numbers with ever growing numbers of people entering the ranks of jobs with the gov't and civil service. Let me ask you and others here a question but let's use Central States to prove the point. Back in the early 80's Central States has 3 plus workers contributing to every retiree drawing a check. Very nice balance for good growth and security for all. However times change to where now we are at a 1 to 1 ratio and it can be argued there is 1 retiree to less than 1 contributing worker. What's happening to the plan? Down in flames so to speak.

Now what does this have to do with the gov't employees? How many private sector workers who generate tax revenues are needed to properly fund the correct level ratio of gov't workers? If you keep adding gov't workers to the growing gov't workforce (and we have big time), you must also keep adding workers to the private sector jobs in order to maintain the funding balance. Simple supply and demand so to speak. Now, what happens for example if a country in this scenario say for example stopped growing it's core population base of citizens by a reduction in child births? What happens at the same time that gov't continues to grow and a privater sector worker funding shortfall begins to grow otherwise known as a deficit because there are no longer enough workers in the private ranks to keep that end of the economy going to produce those tax revenues? Can the gov't make a trip to the private sector worker store and buy some private sector workers for an "INFLUX" into the American private sector workforce? Can the gov't "CROSSOVER" so to speak to another area and "BRING BACK" workers to make up that shortfall?

Get ya a mouthful of that, swish it around a while and you just might begin to figure out just what that taste really is and just who is the culprit in much that what ails us. We thought they were our friend, we thought they would step up and defend us, we thought they would do the right thing but yet with all the talk they do nothing.

WE THOUGHT WRONG MY FRIEND!

 

[satellitedriver]

1timepu,

I appreciate what you are saying but my problem is we have one tax system they abuse in Washington so why give them a supposed revenue neutral new system they can abuse just as easily. It's not the specific means of taxation that is the problem, it's the totally corrupt gov't that hides behind it (income tax) and that the public blames (income tax again) for all the ills.

I can't say at this point who I'll vote for as my distaste for all things democrat or republican is so strong but Ron Paul makes a rather interesting point in that if you cut the size of gov't back to it's level that it was in 2000', the monetary savings would be enough that you could completely eliminate the personal income tax off the books. We could end Social Security taxes right now and if we reprioritize federal spending, not one soul recieving or who is scheduled over the coming years to recieve SS would miss a payment. Much of welfare is the same way. The only thing stopping the ending of direct taxation of income is our refusal to change gov't from being the hog trough of the special interests that run Washington via K Street.

For those of you who fashion themselves as "Conservative" on the premise of small gov't, less taxes and fiscal responsibility and yes those are good things that I too agree with, we're talking about taking Ron Paul's idea and eliminating all the gov't growth during the Bush years and going back to the size and footprint of gov't under the so-called big spending liberal of Bill Clinton. My point is that gov't grew many fold under the republicans watch and much of that growth was outside the scope of gov't needs as a result of the events of 9/11 and the war on terror.

Unless you can control that unchecked excessive growth that both parties have equal hands in, no formula, system or other means of taxation will in the end work. The only way I know of to get their attention is to deny them your support and vote and therefore I choose to give my vote to 3rd parties out of pure principle. I don't choose the lesser of 2 evils, I just refuse to support evil at all.

In 2008', don't vote Republican or Democrat, for once Vote on Principle. You get 15% of the voters out there to vote for anything but republican or democrat and then those 2 are left dividing up 85% or less of the American electorate and the prospect of the winner not getting a clear 50% of the total vote cast and you'll see real quickly the political machine in America turn on it's collective heels. Thomas Jefferson, who with all his faults being still one of my heros once said that Revolution every once in a while is healthy and I tend to agree. We are blessed to live in a day and age and a country where we can have political revolutions and never a shot is fired nor a drop of blood will flow. This IMO is a most precious gift from God and it's time we exercise it.

Just something to think about as the election season heats up even more.

Bless wishes to all!

As the ole' Arlo Guthrie song said,
" It's really OK to have a revolution
It's written right there in the consitution."
I think I got the lyrics right. Working on memory.
What you say is valid, but, just as we are seeing in the UPS contract debate, there is no defined, unifying position held by enough strong willed voters to push over the apple cart.
It is just to easy too stay with the status quo.
On the other hand, how will corruption in govt be stymied(sp) as long as they(the congress) are still spending money that is not their's?
I have no answer to that question.
PAX

 

[traveler]

Traveler,

IMO, the gov't has created a false labor market by propping up job numbers with ever growing numbers of people entering the ranks of jobs with the gov't and civil service.

Can the gov't make a trip to the private sector worker store and buy some private sector workers for an "INFLUX" into the American private sector workforce? Can the gov't "CROSSOVER" so to speak to another area and "BRING BACK" workers to make up that shortfall?

We thought they were our friend, we thought they would step up and defend us, we thought they would do the right thing but yet with all the talk they do nothing.

WE THOUGHT WRONG MY FRIEND!

I only did a partial quote of your post but I believe I picked the meat of it. You have quite and interesting idea there of government (civil service) working with the private sector on balancing jobs. Quite frankly, I never thought of that. The old saying comes to mind about the forest and the trees. Now all we have to do is get some members of congress interested in that. I would suggest everyone here write their representatives in Congress if this seems viable to you.

 

[1timepu]

Ron Paul is nice but he is not going to win. Getting rid of taxes is not going to happen. Getting the Fair Tax passed is the best option. 65 congress men and women are behind, if you know a little about goverment you know then that we are not that far away from support to bring it to the floor for a vote. Also Fair Tax is changing the way they have been operating....they are now in serious organization mode, they are organizing every state and getting people on board, they are looking to get 1 to 2 million people in washington D.C. in the fall of 08 to rally to abolish the current tax system and pass the Fair Tax. And as far as all those un-employed accountants, with the economy growing %10 in the first year there will be plenty of jobs for them, just not in accounting! Remember the power of the people is a truly pwerful thing to behold, just look at the Amnesty bills that have been shot down. When it comes down to it they will listen to us and not the lobbyist, because VOTES COUNT! Just ask Harry Reid for his stance on Illegal Immigration the people of Nevada are ready to hang him, VOTES COUNT that is US PEOPLE!!! STAND TOGETHER!

 

[GuyinBrown]

Ron Paul is nice but he is not going to win. Getting rid of taxes is not going to happen. Getting the Fair Tax passed is the best option. 65 congress men and women are behind, if you know a little about goverment you know then that we are not that far away from support to bring it to the floor for a vote.

Bringing it to the floor for a vote and getting the majority to vote for it are substantially different things. If there are 65 congressmen ( and women ) behind this, ( I have to assume you're speaking about Representatives and not Senators ) then you'll still need 153 more to get behind it in order to guarantee it would pass ( in the House ). Then you'd only have to get the bill sponsored in the Senate and find a majority to pass it there as well. THEN... you have to get the House and the Senate to reconcile the language in the bills so it could become law.

I do know a little bit about government and unfortunately, my opinion remains that this will never happen. Get them to abolish lobbyists first and then you might have a shot. Currently, there are too many opportunities for this to be derailed by those people who would be hurt by the "Fair Tax".

 

[1timepu]

Bringing it to the floor for a vote and getting the majority to vote for it are substantially different things. If there are 65 congressmen ( and women ) behind this, ( I have to assume you're speaking about Representatives and not Senators ) then you'll still need 153 more to get behind it in order to guarantee it would pass ( in the House ). Then you'd only have to get the bill sponsored in the Senate and find a majority to pass it there as well. THEN... you have to get the House and the Senate to reconcile the language in the bills so it could become law.

I do know a little bit about government and unfortunately, my opinion remains that this will never happen. Get them to abolish lobbyists first and then you might have a shot. Currently, there are too many opportunities for this to be derailed by those people who would be hurt by the "Fair Tax".

Who would be HURT by the FAir Tax??

 

[GuyinBrown]

Who would be HURT by the FAir Tax??

Anyone associated with income tax returns or the IRS. That's quite a few people. I'm not saying the Fair Tax is good or bad, just that the forces that actually shape government are stronger than the general population's desire for change.

 

[wkmac]

Anyone associated with income tax returns or the IRS. That's quite a few people. I'm not saying the Fair Tax is good or bad, just that the forces that actually shape government are stronger than the general population's desire for change.

Guy,
On the surface, what you say would seem to make sense but it's not completely true. The corner H&R Block or Joe's Tax Return service would suffer but the larger accounting business would not. I have an accounting service prepare my returns and several years ago when the idea of Flat taxes, the first national sales tax idea known as CATS was floating around I asked the head of the firm and some of the senior partners about it and they all welcomed the idea. Tax preparations were not that important part of their business and in fact was really a drain come the months of March and April and then a few months later when extension season hit into gear. They even said that a sales tax will still require record keeping and tax processing and by further compressing the process into a smaller arena, it would simplify their lives by reducing the amount of tax code and law that they much remain abreast of.

My next stop was to my next door neighbor who started 26 years ago as a lowly revenue agent for the IRS and is now a regional criminal investigator. Before you think "Oh !" he is a fantastic neighbor. You think Cops on TV is funny, you should hear some of the stories he tells about. Anyway, he also said the same thing about the impact on the IRS in regards to changing to a national sales tax. Sure, some of the tax processing would go away but he also said much of that is now automated. Your tax return is gone over via automation procedures and given what is called a "DIF" score which scores your deductions based on a mean average of those deductions within your income brackett. If a deduction bounces outside those averages, the Dif score will flag your return for further review and a physical person will take over an potential audit could be the result. The biggest impact of a national sales tax would be in this automated function and also the seasnonal hire or processing personal in the tax return season. The day to day operations would actually be refocused to the sales tax and enforcing the processing and collection of such. It would in fact be easier for IRS personal too as the elimination of sections of the tax code would take place, thus the amount of regualtory law to remember and deal with would also reduce.

I'm not a supporter of the FairTax because I first off believe you could eliminate the 16th amendment altogether. The Fair Tax would also do this as the sales tax is not an income tax but rather an excise tax provided for in Article 1 of the Constitution. The potential double whammy that I really expect to happen is that the 16th amendment would stay in place because like the 3/4ths State process to add an amendment, so must the same process for removal and I just think our gov't would deceptively try to convince the ignorant public, removal of the amendment wasn't needed so that if need be you get that double whammy some day.

Why replace one tax plan with another plan believed to be revenue neutral when you have a gov't in Washington who just wastes the money in the first place? If we had honest and fiscally minded elected leaders, the current income tax (Karl Marx and the 10 planks not withstanding) would work just fine if you felt that was really needed to begin with. I happen to believe the income tax enacted by amendment the same year as the Federal Reserve came into being is a necessary means when our move into a centralized fractional reserve banking system and a means of inflationary control but that's a whole other issue and story. An no it's not some Jekyll Island conspiracy, it's pure economic principles. It's also when we moved lockstep from what was left of a pure Free Market and into a purely capitalistic economic society dictated by public policy out of Washington.

Even the Social Security tax monies are spent on waste and earmarks as fast as congress gets them and replaced with an IOU to be paid by future taxpayers at best. Funny, we have a union and pension plan accused of doing similar things in the way of mismanagement of funds and we hear an almost unnanimous cry of "FOUL" and "CHANGE THE SYSTEM" but with Social Security we hear many of those same people cry "FOUL" when any discussion hints at changing that system. Kinda odd that when it comes to the union or UPS they have no faith (me neither)when the facts can show that not all the problems can be traced to pure abuse but rather some results because of market conditions and demographics of declining union memebership. The mismanagement came that they failed to react to those obvious conditions rather than moving monies into power grabbing schemes. Those had ended a couple of decades ago.

In the case of SS, it's an issue of pure abuse and irresponsible fiscal behavior as both parties in the Congress and the White House to use this so-called trust fund among others as a slush fund for funding budget deficits and vote buying schemes otherwise known as earmarks which cause much of the deficits.

If they are abusing the current system forcing upward pressures on taxation, then those same forces will be at play with a FairTax plan and when the consumer isn't consumming enough or they just need more money, they'll raise the % of tax at the point of sale. I appreciate the effort that Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder have put into the FairTax and especially the public debate it has generated. It's a very welcomed debate IMO and both men deserve praise for it but I also think it will fail in the end even if passed because of the irresponsible fiscal nature of the Federal gov't in Washington DC and our lack of conviction as voters to put a stop to it.

JMHO.