Posts
The so called Fair tax, is proof of the sheer ignorance the people of this country have about our nations tax laws.
We have 2 problems. Runaway growth and spending by our government, and massive ignorance by the population concerning our nations financial laws.
I have to comment about the fair tax, that is being talked about for both Federal and State levels.
First on the federal level. Fair tax people want to convince others that our current system cannot be fixed - it can, but only if we the people hold the US congress to doing so. While it may not be the best system, it is the best that we have. Minor changes can be made that will achieve the desired results. However, those results will mean the US Congress will have to admit that it has a limited amount of access to our funds, and that our funds are also limited, thus the US congress cannot take what ever it wants, when it wants.
The Fair tax wants to convince people that the current system would be better served with a national retail sales tax, collected at the retail level. And that this system would cause people who apparently now are not paying taxes, to paying their fair share of taxes. They claim that the fair tax will touch everyone equally. And that their system will eliminate the IRS.
They could not be more wrong. FULL STORY
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Obviously you really know nothing about the Fair Tax, lady. You are full of it. If you are going to trash it then you really ought to talk with someone who can actually explain it to you so you would understand. The income tax can't be fixed. And it won't be fixed. Perhaps you are one of the underground economy that doesn't pay it?
Obviously you are one of the Dingbats who just can't understand what Leaderless America has just explained.
As for being full of it and talking to someone who can actually explain it to me?
Does Daar Fisher or Grandpa Roger qualify? Been there done that and didn't buy the bottle of snake oil.
Specific rebuttals to points made by Angry Citizen – Part 1 of 2:
Item: Income tax system is fixable (??)
If Angry Citizen wants to believe the income tax system is fixable, he must be insane (i.e., definition of insane: trying the same failed strategies over and over, expecting success). The problem with trying to sustain reform can be described with two words, "tax bill."
Yeah, sure "all" we'll need to do, per AC, is to "hold the U.S Congress to doing so." And AC believes that only "minor changes can be made that will achieve the desired results." And, "the U.S. Congress will have to admit that it has a limited amount of access to our funds" . . . and on and on.
FairTax puts the U.S. Congress on the spending side of the family ledger. No "holding them accountable to reform their own ways" required, they simply don't "get theirs" until a family decides to buy something new (or purchase a service by others). Further more, if we don't like Congress's spending priorities, we can boycott new purchases! Under the current system, all we have to do is STOP WORKING (not viable in most cases).
Item: FairTax does not eliminate the IRS (??)
Already answered by Dr. Kotlikoff, responding to the same criticism by another demagoguer:
"Whether or not the tax collection agency retains the initials I, R, and S, it would be completely different from the current enforcement apparatus.
"So the FairTax would abolish the IRS for all practical purposes. And, more importantly, the nation would save $250 billion plus in direct compliance costs and an even larger sum in efficiency costs from eliminating the current federal tax system. Yes, the FairTax would entail collection and efficiency costs, but much lower ones. State governments, most of whom are already collecting and administering their own state sales taxes, would be charge and compensated for collecting the FairTax.
(For more see my Comment posting entitled, “Lie” #3 – “The FairTax would abolish the IRS.”)
Item: "The Fair tax [sic] wants to convince people that the current system would be better served with a national retail sales tax."
Wrong. The People would be better served.
Item: "[FairTax advocates] claim that the fair tax [sic] will touch everyone equally."
Wrong. It is applied uniformly - everyone will NOT be touched equally. Ian, again at Hello Michigan (see my first Comment under this article), gives an example of this system's built-in fairness:
"[Income Tax]: Annualized basis, NOT UNIFORMLY APPLIED. The wealthier one is, the greater access to tax professionals. And, the tax code is ONLY TO HAPPY to provide shelters to the super-rich.
"[FairTax]: Non-annualized basis. UNIFORMLY APPLIED without special treatment for the wealthy. The more you spend, the higher the FT rate you pay. Using a family of four, MI FT rate of 9.75% (BEFORE APPLYING THE REBATE) and spending shown (over 12 monthly periods) result in the EFFECTIVE (post-REBATE APPLIED) rate for that family:
"Spending of $21,200 = NO TAX(Prebates rec'd covered all taxes.)
Of $ 42,400 = 4.88% (effective MI FairTax %, after prebate applied)
Of $ 50,000 = 5.62%
Of $100,000 = 7.68%
Of $200,000 = 8.72%
Of $800,000 = 9.49%"
Keep in mind that Ian's example includes NO SAVINGS. Money saved by families, under a FairTax, is NOT available to be spent (or to pay tax!)
Specific rebuttals to points made by Angry Citizen – Part 2 of 2:
Item: "...the Fair tax would require a new bureaucracy ...to mail rebate checks."
The machinery is in place. No system is perfect, and some mistakes will be made. There may be a marginal increase in staff required, but AC's claim about a huge new bureaucracy seems way overblown - given the limited nature of the function.
Item: "Proponents of the Fair tax, claim that by removing all corporate and excise taxes from goods and services, that their prices should drop by 20-80% percent, in some case. This is true..."
Non-sense. I know of no case where FairTaxers are representing that prices will drop as much as 80%, yet AC is acknowledging it as true. Also, we're not talking about removing "excise" taxes - only corporate income / payroll taxes and compliance costs (which inflate consumer prices).
- - -
AC then goes to inordinate length to make FairTaxers' point that all costs for corporate taxation are paid by consumers (though, again, he's stating up to 90%! - I'd like to see an example of that excess). Yet, he completely misses the point: FairTax makes these taxes VISIBLE, where they are hidden under the current system.
Instead, in AC's mind, the reason we need the FairTax is only because of the lack of accountability of the IRS! Nevermind about an income tax code of 60K pages that no one interprets the same way. Never mind non-uniform application of the income tax, the loopholes and special treatment for privileged groups well-represented by lobbyists who game that code to gain benefit to the few at cost to the many (meaning: US!).
AC's prescription to fix the income tax?
Enforcement of demands that have been made by what the IRS called "tax protestors," and on account of which they've failed to file income tax returns and ended up in the pokey. (Great system, this income tax, subjecting average non-business-owning, wage-earning Americans to audit, interest, penalites . . . even prison!)
And what does AC think about the MI FairTax?
He thinks it would be okay, but not above 8%. (If he studied the example that Ian posted above, he'd see that only those doing very well will pay 8%, or above. But THEY will be in control, and make that decision, based on what they decide to purchase new, at retail.)
So AC concludes "We don't NEED the FairTax, we only have to make the IRS accountable!"
My, now THERE'S a realistic plan (*tongue firmly in cheek).
People who stoop to name calling such as calling anyone who is a proponent of the Fair Tax a dingbat is a Sol Alinsky trick used by the left.
People who use name calling instead of actually debating an issue usually have no argument they are able to actually debate.
It seems to me that all you people who support the Fair Tax seem concerned about is the title of this post. Not one of you have addressed the substance of what this person wrote.
Strange, this sounds very familiar. Liberal Marxist use the same tactic. Attack the messenger and ignore the message.
You guys just can't stand the fact that you got spanked and sent to bed without dinner.
You have the opportunity to dispute the substance of the article but you choose only to take offense at the title. Hmmmmmm...why is that.
Because you can't dispute the facts this person brought out so not only do you attack me, but the writer of the article as well.
Independent Thinker, you tell me I'm full of it? Go back and play in your sandbox little boy. You aren't even in my league.
It looks to me like Daar covered just about everything or are you just choosing to ignore it? I am thinking that you are not really a conservative. You are not debating you are just attacking.
Why are you so angry? If you didn't want people to take offense your name calling why did you name this blog as you did. The very title is an attack on anyone who disagrees with you.
So we are supposed to just sit around the campfire and sing cumbayaa with someone who calls us dingbats before you hear the debate?
It is pretty well impossible to have a rational discussion with an irrational person. Have a nice day. I am too busy to be bothered with this kind of vitriol. Your mind is closed that is pretty obvious.
Post a Comment