Huckabee campaigning for 23% sales tax

[Decker]

Hell, we'll split the difference of the above rates of tax and ask anyone here whether they want to pay 30% extra for all their purchases? 

Decker is a bloodsucking Tax Lawyer, who makes a living out of people having  problems with the current tax code.

What is your problem?  For the most part, I make a living out of ensuring nondiscrimination compliance so that the average joe won't get scammed out of his retirement monies.

Scammed by people, in principle, such as yourself who advocate a huge tax hike on joe average while slashing the tax burden of those equipped to handle that burden:  the monied elites that have suckered you into supporting a tax that will cut your own throat.

I suppose you also believe that the Laffer Curve can indicate that Tax Cuts Pay for themselves--careful, read your own report. 
You smug child. 
Do you really believe there is a free lunch in America?

You must.  You support a flat tax.

Do you even know why we have the progressive tax policy that we do? 

I doubt it.  Ron Paul doesn't either.

You'll have to wait for my next chapter debunking your elitest bullshit. 

Happy New Year Ozark.

[Decker]

(repost in case you missed it Ozark)

Here is the first deception of the report.

Table 3: Estimated 2004 Revenues if the FairTax Proposal were in Effect on page 6 shows Personal Consumption Expenditures of $8,214.30 for the year and a net Fair Tax Revenue of $1,862.65.

Divide $1,862.65 by $8,214.30 and you get a 23% tax rate.

Boy am I in trouble.  I guess it is a....



Wait a moment, what's that?

The scammers are including sales tax revenues the government is paying itself?  But isn't this a revenue-neutral tax meaning that for every dollar that goes out as an expenditure, a dollar of revenue comes in?

So the government is paying itself and these scammers are counting that.  What a Ponzi Scheme. 

Let's do a little math.

$8,214.30 - $1,843.40 (total government consumption) = $6,370.90 (Personal Consumption Expenditures without the shady Gov. pays itself tactic).

What tax rate is that?  $1,862.65 divided by $6,370.90 = 29%

23% is not the same as 29% is it?

There's our first deception. 

Now let's add in Total Government Gross Investment from that same chart.  $372.50 + $1,843.40 = $2,215.90

$8,214.30 - 2,215.90 = $5,998.40

Divide $1,862.65 (Total Fair Tax Revenue) by $5,998.40 and you get: 31% as a REAL TAX RATE.

That is the hidden gift of the Fair Tax.

This is the first in many installments showing the scam of the so-called "Fair Tax".

Here's a freebie:  I can't wait to see Congress Amend the Constitution to eliminate the 16th Amendment.

Stay tuned, there's more to come.

[Decker]

Here's a reference for Ron Paul's misguided idea that there will be no need for an IRS.

National Sales Tax (NST) Hoax: "IRS will be eliminated". The truth is the IRS will become more invasive because it will be needed to:
[1] register and keep a record of every person for the pre-bate
[2] monitor the whereabouts of every citizen: are they in prison?, are they out of the country?, are they members of more than one family?
[3] mail millions of pre-bate checks each month.
[4] collect NST for the 5 states without a sales tax
[5] audit the income-tax-returns of all individuals to ensure that they did not get money from the sales of products or services for which taxes were not collected, or were collected but not sent to the IRS,
[6] audit the income-tax-returns of all firms to ensure that they are collecting the tax on their sales,
[7] audit 45 States for accuracy in collecting NST
[8] audit the purchases of all state, county, and city governments
[9] audit state education lotteries,
[10] issue regulations about what is an investment
[11] etc.
http://www.fair-tax.org/NST.html#IRS

Not only will there be a need for an IRS, the level of governmental meddling will INCREASE under your transparent and simple Fair Tax.  What if merchants just decided to keep that extra 30% tax?  How would you know they do that unless some branch of enforcement exists?

Guys like you never think these things through. 

I like this.  I can't wait for the next installment.

Why?

B/c you asked for it.

[Decker]

INSTALLMENT #2 ON THE FAIR TAX SCAM

Here are some things we know:
1.  The Fair Tax assumptions INCLUDE sales tax the government pays to itself.  That's double dipping aka a Ponzi Scheme.  For the moment, the true rate of taxation is 31% and not 23%

2.  It is extremely likely that the IRS will still exist with more work than ever before b/c of this "transparent and simple tax" (See Reply #122 in this thread)

3.  Ozark did not know that payroll taxes are NOT income taxes and that it was Reagan and NOT Clinton that signed the largest tax increase in history.And why do I list that?  B/c I can and b/c Ozark's uninformed cheerleading days for the Flat Tax Scam are numbered.

TODAY'S ENTRY
The Laffer report (how poetic) on the Fair Tax Proposal introduced to Congress as H.R. 25 and Senate Bill 25 shows that "The tax rate is not 23%.  The Tax Bill, Sec. 2 (a) (5): ". . . `gross payments´ means payments for taxable property or services, including Federal taxes imposed by this title."  and Sec. 101 (b) (1): ". . . the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments . . ."  In Mathematical modeling "including" means add, "is" means equal, and "of" means multiply.  Let X be the "rate of tax", then X is 23% of gross payments. X = .23 multiplied by price plus tax.  Let price be 1, then "rate of tax" and "tax" will be the same number.  Therefore: X = (.23) (1 + X). Answer: X = .30.  The tax rate is 30%.
http://www.fair-tax.org

The Laffer Report admits this on page 5 and then engages in a meaningless comparison with the current income tax system.

The 23% that is used to hoodwink people who do not bother to read the Bill is just a mathematical relationship.  It is not money paid. Item sells for $1, National Sales Tax will be 30 cents, and the Total the consumer pays will be $1.30.  When you divide $0.30 by $1.30 the answer is 23 percent.  This is not the cents the consumer pays. http://www.fair-tax.org

The tax is 30% on purchases of all services and all new products - Sec 1 (b) (2).  The Bill requires that the NST be printed on the cash register receipt - Sec 510.  You buy an Item.  The receipt states: "$1.00 Item", "$0.30 NST", "$1.30 Total".  Citizens will be outraged.  You pay 30 cents because the rate is 30 percent.  The Mathematically-challenged say: "Item costs 77 cents, tax is 23 cents, the total is 1 dollar. That´s a 23 percent tax." 

The proponents of the National Sales Tax Bill say the 23 percent is inclusive. That does not have any meaning for the manager of the store who has to program the cash registers to apply the National Sales Tax. The state sales tax is 4%, the local sales tax is 3%, and National Sales Tax is 30%. The store sells an Item for $1.00. The register is programed to multiply $1.00 by 0.04, multiply $1.00 by 0.03, multiply $1.00 by 0.30, and then print the results of the calculations on the receipts and then add all entries and print the total on the receipt:
 
 Item           $1.00
.04 State tax .04
.03 Local tax .03
.30 Federal tax .30
Total           $1.37
http://www.fair-tax.org

The proponents of the National Sales Tax say the receipt will show the inclusive tax percentage, i.e. the percentage the tax is of the total of the price and the tax:

 
Item           $1.00
.04 State tax .04
.03 Local tax .03
.23 Federal tax .30
Total           $1.37

 
  The $0.04 State Sales Tax divided by $1.04 (the total of the price of the item and the sales tax, inclusive) equals 0.038 (the percentage the tax is of the total of the price and the tax, round to 0.04).   The $0.03 Local Tax divided by $1.03 (the total of the price of the item and the local tax, inclusive) equals 0.029 (the percentage the tax is of the total of the price and the tax, round to 0.03).   The $0.30 National Sales Tax divided by $1.30 (the total of the price of the item and the National Sales Tax, inclusive) equals 0.231 (the percentage the tax is of the total of the price and the tax, round to 0.23).

How many consumers have such low IQ's that they will not understand what is the tax rate?" (I can think of one, can you Ozark?) "Just how many low IQ people are promoting a National Sales Tax and do not understand what is the tax rate? There are thousands of people who cannot preform this analysis. There are thousands who cannot understand it even after this analysis is presented.
http://www.fair-tax.org

Maybe I was wrong about this cutnpaste stuff?  Hmmm.

So the real tax rate is 30%.  30% - 23% = 7%

So we add another 7% to the existing rate of 31% for a true Fair Sales Tax of 38%

There's our lesson for the moment, the deceptive assumptions and tax methodology yields not a 23% rate but a 38% national sales tax rate.

Stay tuned. There is much more to come.

[Decker]

So Eldon supports the Fair Tax.

Two kinds of people support the Fair Tax.

Those that don't understand it or

Those who understand it but have an ulterior motive:
Ron Paul wants no taxes.  And if there will be a tax, then it must be consistent with original intent of the Constitution....along with slavery. 

Arthur Laffer is a supplysider and the Fair Tax is a supplyside consumption tax.

The Elites want a big tax cut and the poor and middle class to pay more taxes.

Which type of person are you Eldon....or Ozark or whoever the hell you are? 

Are you stupid or do you do you have an ulterior motive?

The Fair Tax doesn't add up.

[Ozark]

Nice try Decker Dummy, we now both know the true reason for your hatred of the Fair Tax, people wont need crooked Bloodsucking Tax Lawyers much anymore.   Then Decker will be saying in his new career......... " would you like to super-size your Fries ? "       

Not only will there be a need for an IRS, the level of governmental meddling will INCREASE under your transparent and simple Fair Tax.  What if merchants just decided to keep that extra 30% tax?  How would you know they do that unless some branch of enforcement exists?

How is the tax collected?
Retail businesses collect the tax from the consumer, just as state sales tax systems already do in 45 states; the FairTax is simply an additional line on the current sales tax reporting form. Retailers simply collect the tax and send it to the state taxing authority. All businesses serving as collection agents receive a fee for collection, and the states also receive a collection fee. The tax revenues from the states are then sent to the U.S. Treasury.

It makes the administrative costs of businesses in that state much lower. The state is paid a one-quarter of one percent fee by the federal government to collect the tax. For states that already collect a sales tax, this fee proves generous. A state can choose not to collect the federal sales tax, and either outsource the collection to another state, or opt to have the federal government collect it directly. If a state chooses to conform to the federal tax base, they will raise the same amount of state sales tax with a lower tax rate -- in some cases more than 50 percent lower -- since the FairTax base is broader than their current tax base. States may also consider the reduction or elimination of property taxes by keeping their sales tax rate at or near where it is currently. Finally, conforming states that are part of the FairTax system will find collection of sales tax on Internet and mail-order retail sales greatly simplified.

The increased fairness, transparency, and legitimacy of the system induces more compliance. The roughly 90-percent reduction in filers enables tax administrators more narrowly and effectively to address noncompliance and increases the likelihood of tax evasion discovery. The relative simplicity of the FairTax promotes compliance. Businesses need answer only one question to determine the tax due: How much was sold to consumers? Finally, because tax rates decrease, tax evasion is less profitable; and because of the dramatic reduction in the number of tax filers, tax evaders are more easily monitored and caught under the FairTax system


The truth: More than 80% of all tax returns are eliminated under the FairTax--every individual filing. What remains are retail outlets collecting the FairTax. Of these, 80 percent of all retails sales now occur at large retail chains like Wal-Mart. The point is oversight will still reside under the Treasury Department but the government's responsibility will be over a far smaller "universe" of tax collection points making compliance oversight far less costly and far more effective than the current system which costs $265 billion a year in compliance costs and still comes up $350 billion a year short of what is owed.

# Does the FairTax improve compliance and reduce evasion when compared to the current income tax?

The old aphorism that nothing is certain except death and taxes should be modified to include tax evasion. Tax evasion is chronic under any system so complex as to be incomprehensible. As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), tax evasion in 2001 is beyond 2.6 percent, compared to 1.6 percent in 1991. This represents over 16 percent of taxes due. Almost 40 percent of the public, according to the IRS, is out of compliance with the present tax system, mostly unintentionally due to the enormous complexity of the present system. These IRS figures do not include taxes lost on illegal sources of income with a criminal economy estimated at a trillion dollars. All this, despite a major enforcement effort and assessment of tens of millions of civil penalties on American taxpayers in an effort to force compliance with the tax system. Disrespect for the tax system and the law has reached dangerous levels and makes a system based on taxpayer self-assessment less and less viable.

The FairTax reduces rather than increases the problem of tax evasion. The increased fairness, transparency, and legitimacy of the system induces more compliance. The roughly 90-percent reduction in filers enables tax administrators more narrowly and effectively to address noncompliance and increases the likelihood of tax evasion discovery. The relative simplicity of the FairTax promotes compliance. Businesses need answer only one question to determine the tax due: How much was sold to consumers? Finally, because tax rates decrease, tax evasion is less profitable; and because of the dramatic reduction in the number of tax filers, tax evaders are more easily monitored and caught under the FairTax system.

 Item           $1.00
.04 State tax .04
.03 Local tax .03
.30 Federal tax .30
Total           $1.37
http://www.fair-tax.org

The proponents of the National Sales Tax say the receipt will show the inclusive tax percentage, i.e. the percentage the tax is of the total of the price and the tax:

 
Item           $1.00
.04 State tax .04
.03 Local tax .03
.23 Federal tax .30
Total           $1.37

 
  The $0.04 State Sales Tax divided by $1.04 (the total of the price of the item and the sales tax, inclusive) equals 0.038 (the percentage the tax is of the total of the price and the tax, round to 0.04).   The $0.03 Local Tax divided by $1.03 (the total of the price of the item and the local tax, inclusive) equals 0.029 (the percentage the tax is of the total of the price and the tax, round to 0.03).   The $0.30 National Sales Tax divided by $1.30 (the total of the price of the item and the National Sales Tax, inclusive) equals 0.231 (the percentage the tax is of the total of the price and the tax, round to 0.23).

How many consumers have such low IQ's that they will not understand what is the tax rate?" (I can think of one, can you Ozark?) "Just how many low IQ people are promoting a National Sales Tax and do not understand what is the tax rate? There are thousands of people who cannot preform this analysis. There are thousands who cannot understand it even after this analysis is presented.
http://www.fair-tax.org

Maybe I was wrong about this cutnpaste stuff?  Hmmm.

So the real tax rate is 30%.  30% - 23% = 7%

So we add another 7% to the existing rate of 31% for a true Fair Sales Tax of 38%

There's our lesson for the moment, the deceptive assumptions and tax methodology yields not a 23% rate but a 38% national sales tax rate.

Stay tuned. There is much more to com

First of all used items, including houses, will not be taxed. Secondly the 30% exclusive tax rate (tax applied external to the actual price of the item) under The Fair Tax you refer to is the 23% inclusive tax rate included in the price of every item bought today. Consequently the dollar amount collected from the inclusive tax rate will become the 30% exclusive rate on an item with the Fair tax. Example: $100 item today includes 23% or $23 in hidden taxes. The actual cost is $77. That will be the price listed on the bill with The Fair Tax. The $23 in tax will be collected on that $77 for a rate of 30%(23/77). The bottom line is the dollar amount collected will be the same as it is with the inclusive tax rate collected on items today.





As the FairTax gains more national attention, questions have again arisen about whether the FairTax rate is 23 percent or 30 percent. In the toxic environment that often accompanies public policy debates, FairTax.org has even been accused by some of misleading the public, even though full descriptions of "tax-inclusive" and "tax-exclusive" calculations abound on our Web site. We hope the following explanation puts all such questions to rest -- at last.

Let’s use an example to illustrate the difference between tax-inclusive and tax-exclusive tax rates.

Assume there is a worker named Joe who earns $125 and spends all of his earnings. Let’s further assume that the government requires him to pay $25 in taxes.

If the government put a tax on Joe’s income, he would earn $125 before tax and would have $100 after tax to spend at the General Store. Thus, Joe has to earn $125 to have $100 to spend. Joe would also have to file an income tax return.

If the government put a tax on what Joe spends, he would earn $125 and would have $125 to spend at the store. Of the $125 paid by Joe to the storekeeper, $100 would be for the goods he bought at the store and $25 would be taxes that the storekeeper would send to the government. Joe would not have to file a tax return, as the storekeeper sends the tax in to the government.

Either way, Joe pays $25 in taxes and the government gets $25 in taxes. With a tax on income, Joe pays the $25 directly to the government, and with the tax on spending (sales tax), he pays the $25 in taxes indirectly when he buys something from the General Store. The General Store sends the tax that Joe paid to the government.



We  may report the tax rate as $25/$125 = 20 percent, which is the tax-inclusive rate (meaning that the tax is included in the base). Alternately, we may think of the tax rate as $25/$100 = 25 percent, which is the tax-exclusive rate (meaning the tax is excluded from the base). The 23 percent FairTax rate set out in HR 25/S 1025 is a tax-inclusive rate, as is the current personal income tax, whereas most state-level sales taxes are quoted on a tax-exclusive basis. For ease of comparison, FairTax.org gives the tax rate both ways. Both rates are relevant, since the FairTax is replacing an income tax system, and 23 percent correctly represents the tax burden compared to the current system.

More than 80% of all tax returns are eliminated under the FairTax--every individual filing. What remains are retail outlets collecting the FairTax. Of these, 80 percent of all retails sales now occur at large retail chains like Wal-Mart. The point is oversight will still reside under the Treasury Department but the government's responsibility will be over a far smaller "universe" of tax collection points making compliance oversight far less costly and far more effective than the current system which costs $265 billion a year in compliance costs and still comes up $350 billion a year short of what is owed.


The FairTax rate of 23% (when calculated inclusively like income tax rates) has been thoroughly researched to provide all the revenues now collected under both the income tax system and through FICA payroll taxes. Reports otherwise are largely based on the President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform which declared the rate would have to be much higher. What the Panel failed to make clear in an amazingly shameless sleight-of-hand is that they never studied the FairTax legislation as it exists in pending legislation. They ignored $22 million of FairTax research and, instead, quietly devised their own national consumption tax which they loaded with the exemptions and deductions they felt were "politically realistic". They also failed to calculate the effects of elimination of the FICA tax on annual taxpayer burdens or on the distributional effects of the FairTax across the income spectrum. Upon completion--and after declaring a national consumption tax flawed--they then refused to publish their underlying assumptions and the top two former Senators who led the exercise found employment in K Street income tax lobbying firms.



Great public policy changes do not happen easily. We believe, however, in the promise of the Founding Fathers that this is a nation, "of, by and for the people". In the last year we have seen more Congressional co-sponsors come on board faster than ever before. We have seen five of eight GOP candidates and one Democratic candidate embrace the FairTax. With increased media coverage, as at least one candidate has made this a central plank of his campaign, more and more Americans have come to understand the powerful benefits the FairTax offers the nation. They are, in turn, joining our growing citizen army and are beginning to communicate their wishes to their elected officials. All of this progress is a consequence of the body politic first learning about and then accepting the FairTax. As our ranks grow such pressure will increase on Members of Congress and at some point, the voice of the people will eclipse the voices of the relatively small number of Washingtonians who profit working the income tax system at great cost to the nation. Enactment of the FairTax will require advanced citizenry and a resurgence of what has been too often forgotten--public policy can and should be driven by the public. All that is required is that we all dare to be fair and remind our elected official that they work for their constituents--not for the narrow self-interests of the tax writing committee, the lucrative tax lobby business or the academicians who have built careers around the complexity of the tax code.

Consumption is a more stable source of revenue than income, as shown in Figure 3. The chart compares the yearly changes in the tax bases for the income tax (adjusted gross income -- AGI) and the FairTax (personal consumption expenditures -- PCE) for years 1974 to 2004. PCE has always grown from year to year, whereas AGI dropped from 2000 to 2001 and from 2001 to 2002 -- two years in a row. The higher growth rates of AGI in boom years result in overspending and then when the economy slows down either budget cuts are needed or, what is more often the case, taxes are raised or the budget deficit increases.



And lastly,

Once again :   Decker is a bloodsucking Tax Lawyer, who makes a living out of people having  problems with the current tax code.

So Do any of you on GetBig really think Decker would be for a new Fair Tax system, that would do away with individuals and businesses having to file taxes, and needing his services ?

I think even the dumbest of the dumb can figure this one out, the answer is HELL NO ! ! !               





Ron Paul

Yes      "I'll vote for the FairTax if it comes up.."  http://easylink.playstream.com/fairtax/RonPaul-FairTax.wvx


Vote for Ron Paul

[Decker]

Your answers to my evidence are feeble.

The IRS will not only still exist, it will grow under your Fair Tax Scam.  Enforcement, audits, and prebate welfare checks assure that.  But you show us "How the Tax is Collected"...how feeble of you.

The only way 23% will stay 23% is if the merchants all cut their profits to mask the true 30% cost of the tax (that's not including the Ponzi scheme of counting the tax dollars the gov. pays to itself--what a scam).

Why are you comparing the FAir tax to the Income tax?  It doesn't change the fact that the tax rate is really at least 30% and not 23%.  Talk about misdirection.  Income tax is not a sales tax.  The Gov. does not file a 1040 paying itself income tax you dolt.  Unlike your deceitful Fair Tax Scam, where the Gov. pays itself tax income.  Can anyone say, "Double Dip"?

As for me, like I said before, you have no idea what nondiscrimination policies are built into the tax code for income tax or retirement plan taxes.  Keep up your smoke and mirrors.  You just look like an uniformed, uneducated dipshit.

I'll ask you Ozark?

Are you so stupid that you cannot do simple math showing the Fair Tax Scam or do you have an ulterior motive like Ron Paul does?

[Ozark]

Are you so stupid that you cannot do simple math showing the Fair Tax Scam or do you have an ulterior motive like Ron Paul does?

Nice try Decker Dummy, we now both know the true reason for your hatred of the Fair Tax, people wont need crooks Tax Lawyers  much anymore.   Then Decker will be saying in his new career......... " would you like to supersize that order ? "

The only one on here with an ulterior motive, is Decker the tax lawyer   


Once again :

The FairTax ends all record keeping and income tax filings of any kind for individuals, totally insulating them from the high costs and abusive tactics of tax preparers.     Bad for Decker     
 
It is estimated that Americans spend at least $265 billion a year to comply with the tax code -- nearly $900 for every man, woman, and child in America. That is greater than the current federal deficit ($205 billion). Billions of dollars in compliance costs are wasted each year, and we have nothing of value to show for this expenditure -- not one single productive service or product is added to our nation’s wealth. It is estimated that the FairTax dramatically cuts such compliance costs, perhaps as much as 95 percent. Bad for Decker       

There are, of course, still some people who are involved in sales tax return preparation and sales tax administration under the FairTax, but many fewer than those involved with the income tax today. Those tax preparers, tax lawyers, and Internal Revenue Service employees, who are typically well educated and well equipped with transferable skills, will have to find other, more productive work. The projected 10.5 percent growth in the economy during the first year of the FairTax will provide plenty of new jobs.    Very bad for Decker          






The following is a list of professional and university economists, that endorse the FairTax Plan.

(Decker wants you to believe they are either stupid, or have an ulterior motive )

Donald L. Alexander
Professor of Economics
Western Michigan University
Wayne Angell
Angell Economics
Jim Araji
Professor of Agricultural
Economics
University of Idaho
Ray Ball
Graduate School of Business
University of Chicago
Roger J. Beck
Professor Emeritus
Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale
John J. Bethune
Kennedy Chair of Free
Enterprise
Barton College
David M. Brasington
Louisiana State University
Jack A. Chambless
Professor of Economics
Valencia College
Christopher K. Coombs
Louisiana State University
William J. Corcoran, Ph.D.
University of Nebraska at
Omaha
Eleanor D. Craig
Economics Department
University of Delaware
Susan Dadres, Ph.D.
Department of Economics
Southern Methodist University
Henry Demmert
Santa Clara University
Arthur De Vany
Professor Emeritus
Economics and Mathematical
Behavioral Sciences
University of California, Irvine
Pradeep Dubey
Leading Professor
Center for Game Theory
Dept. of Economics
SUNY at Stony Brook
Demissew Diro Ejara
William Paterson University of
New Jersey
Patricia J. Euzent
Department of Economics
University of Central Florida
John A. Flanders
Professor of Business and
Economics
Central Methodist University
Richard H. Fosberg, Ph.D.
William Paterson University
Gary L. French, Ph.D.
Senior Vice President
Nathan Associates Inc.
Professor James Frew
Economics Department
Willamette University
K. K. Fung
University of Memphis
Satya J. Gabriel, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics and
Finance
Mount Holyoke College
Dave Garthoff
Summit College
The University of Akron
Ronald D. Gilbert
Associate Professor of
Economics
Texas Tech University
Philip E. Graves
Department of Economics
University of Colorado
Bettina Bien Greaves, Retired
Foundation for Economic
Education
John Greenhut, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Finance & Business Economics
School of Global Management
and Leadership
Arizona State University
Darrin V. Gulla
Dept. of Economics
University of Georgia
Jon Halvorson
Assistant Professor of
Economics
Indiana University of
Pennsylvania
Reza G. Hamzaee, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics &
Applied Decision Sciences
Department of Economics
Missouri Western State College
James M. Hvidding
Professor of Economics
Kutztown University
F. Jerry Ingram, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics and
Finance
The University of Louisiana-
Monroe
Drew Johnson
Fellow
Davenport Institute for Public
Policy
Pepperdine University
Steven J. Jordan
Visiting Assistant Professor
Virginia Tech
Department of Economics
Richard E. Just
University of Maryland
Dr. Michael S. Kaylen
Associate Professor
University of Missouri
David L. Kendall
Professor of Economics and
Finance
University of Virginia's College
at Wise
Peter M. Kerr
Professor of Economics
Southeast Missouri State
University
Miles Spencer Kimball
Professor of Economics
University of Michigan
James V. Koch
Department of Economics
Old Dominion University
Laurence J. Kotlikoff
Professor of Economics
Boston University
Edward J. López
Assistant Professor
University of North Texas
Franklin Lopez
Tulane University
Salvador Lopez
University of West Georgia
Yuri N. Maltsev, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
Carthage College
Glenn MacDonald
John M. Olin Distinguished
Professor of Economics and
Strategy
Washington University in St.
Louis
Dr. John Merrifield,
Professor of Economics
University of Texas-San
Antonio
Dr. Matt Metzgar
Mount Union College
Carlisle Moody
Department of Economics
College of William and Mary
Andrew P. Morriss
Galen J. Roush Professor of
Business Law & Regulation
Case Western Reserve
University School of Law
Timothy Perri
Department of Economics
Appalachian State University
Mark J. Perry
School of Management and
Department of Economics
University of Michigan-Flint
Timothy Peterson
Assistant Professor
Economics and Management
Department
Gustavus Adolphus College
Ben Pierce
Central Missouri State
University
Michael K. Pippenger, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of
Economics
University of Alaska
Robert Piron
Professor of Economics
Oberlin College
Mattias Polborn
Department of Economics
University of Illinois
Joseph S. Pomykala, Ph.D.
Department of Economics
Towson University
Barry Popkin
University of North Carolina-
Chapel Hill
Steven W. Rick
Lecturer, University of
Wisconsin
Senior Economist, Credit Union
National Association
Paul H. Rubin
Samuel Candler Dobbs
Professor of Economics & Law
Department of Economics
Emory Univeristy
John Ruggiero
University of Dayton
Michael K. Salemi
Bowman and Gordon Gray
Professor of Economics
University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill
Dr. Carole E. Scott
Richards College of Business
State University of West
Georgia
Carlos Seiglie
Dept. of Economics
Rutgers University
John Semmens
Economist
Phoenix College
Arizona
Alan C. Shapiro
Ivadelle and Theodore Johnson
Professor of Banking and
Finance
Marshall School of Business
University of Southern
California
Dr. Stephen Shmanske
Professor of Economics
California State University,
Hayward
James F. Smith
University of North Carolina-
Chapel Hill
Vernon L. Smith
Economist
W. James Smith
Dean of Liberal Arts and
Sciences and Professor of
Economics
University of Colorado at
Denver
John C. Soper
Boler School of Business
John Carroll University
Roger Spencer
Professor of Economics
Trinity University
Daniel A. Sumner, Director,
University of California
Agricultural Issues Center
and the Frank H. Buck, Jr.,
Chair Professor,
Department of Agricultural and
Resource Economics,
University of California, Davis
Curtis R. Taylor
Professor of Economics and
Business
Duke University
Robert Vigil
Analysis Group, Inc.
John H. Wicks, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Department of Economics
University of Montana
F. Scott Wilson, Ph.D.
Canisius College
Mokhlis Y. Zaki
Professor of Economics
Emeritus
Northern Michigan University




Nice try Decker Dummy, we now both know the true reason for your hatred of the Fair Tax, people wont need crooks Tax Lawyers  much anymore.   Then Decker will be saying in his new career......... " would you like to supersize that order ? "



Ron Paul

Yes      "I'll vote for the FairTax if it comes up.."  http://easylink.playstream.com/fairtax/RonPaul-FairTax.wvx

Vote for Ron Paul

[Decker]

Way to avoid the questions at hand you novice.

Who tracks the prebate welfare checks.  Or do we just mail those out to like everybody?  Free money!!!

Thanks for addressing the simple math that I provided showing beyond a doubt what a scam your Fair Tax is.

Ozark avoids all questions requiring critical thought.

Ozark cutsnpastes irrelevant "counter arguments".

Ozark does not know what he's talking about.

I don't want the Fair Tax b/c it is a regressive tax that hurts poor people and the middle class while giving a huge tax cut to the wealthy elites while seriously underfunding our government.

Ozark wants a Fair Tax b/c....well, just b/c he does.  He has no answer for the real facts.  He just wants it to scrap the IRS and the Code b/c they take his money.

[Ozark]

Way to avoid the questions at hand you novice.

Who tracks the prebate welfare checks.  Or do we just mail those out to like everybody?  Free money!!!

Thanks for addressing the simple math that I provided showing beyond a doubt what a scam your Fair Tax is.

Ozark avoids all questions requiring critical thought.

Ozark cutsnpastes irrelevant "counter arguments".

Ozark does not know what he's talking about.

I don't want the Fair Tax b/c it is a regressive tax that hurts poor people and the middle class while giving a huge tax cut to the wealthy elites while seriously underfunding our government.

Ozark wants a Fair Tax b/c....well, just b/c he does.  He has no answer for the real facts.  He just wants it to scrap the IRS and the Code b/c they take his money.

Nice try Decker Dummy, we now both know the true reason for your hatred of the Fair Tax, people wont need crooks Tax Lawyers  much anymore.   Then Decker will be saying in his new career......... " would you like to supersize that order ? "


Here are the facts:


 How does the prebate work?

All valid Social Security cardholders who are U.S. residents receive a monthly prebate equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, also known as the poverty level expenditures. The prebate is paid in advance, in equal installments each month. The size of the prebate is determined by the Department of Health & Human Services’ poverty level guideline multiplied by the tax rate. This is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level calculation that includes food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, etc. See chart in Figure 1 below.


[1] Alaska and Hawaii have different poverty levels and different FairTax rebates.  See charts below.

[2] Federal Register:  Jan. 24, 2007 (Vol. 72, No. 15, pp. 3147-3148).



Why not just exempt food and medicine from the tax? Wouldn’t that be fair and simple?

Exempting items by category is neither fair nor simple. Respected economists have shown that the wealthy spend much more on unprepared food, clothing, housing, and medical care than do the poor. Exempting these goods, as many state sales taxes do, actually gives the wealthy a disproportionate benefit. Also, today these purchases are not exempted from federal taxation. The purchase of food, clothing, and medical services is made from after-income-tax and after-payroll-tax dollars, while their purchase price hides the cost of corporate taxes and private sector compliance costs.

Finally, exempting one product or service, but not another, opens the door to the army of lobbyists and special interest groups that plague and distort our taxation system today. Those who have the money will send lobbyists to Washington to obtain special tax breaks in their own self-interest. This process causes unfair and inefficient distortions in our economy and must be stopped.

Is the 23% FairTax revenue-neutral rate higher or lower when compared to income and Social Security taxes people pay today?

Most people are paying that much or more today -- much of it is just hidden from view. The income tax bracket most people fall into is 15 percent, and all wage earners pay 7.65 percent in payroll taxes. That’s 23 percent right there, without taking into account the 7.65 percent employer matching! On top of that, you have to add in the business taxes and associated compliance costs passed on to consumers in higher prices.

Effective tax rates vs. stated tax rates
Because the 23-percent FairTax rate of $0.23 on every dollar spent is not imposed on necessities, an individual spending $30,000 pays an effective tax rate of only 15.5 percent, not 23 percent. That same individual will pay 17.3 percent of his or her income to federal taxes under current law. See effective tax rates for a family of four at various spending levels in Figure 2.


Does the FairTax rate need to be much higher to be revenue neutral?

The proper tax rate has been carefully worked out; 23 percent does the job of: (1) raising the same amount of federal funds as are raised by the current system, (2) paying the universal rebate, and (3) paying the collection fees to retailers and state governments. Unlike some other proposals, this rate has been independently confirmed by several different, nonpartisan institutions across the country. Detailed calculations are available from FairTax.org.

How is the Social Security system affected?

Like all federal spending programs, Social Security operates exactly as it does today, except that its funds come from a broad, progressive sales tax, rather than a narrow, regressive payroll tax. Employers continue to report wages for each employee, though, to the Social Security Administration for the determination of benefits. The transition to a reformed Social Security system is eased while ensuring there is sufficient funding to continue promised benefits.

Meanwhile, Social Security/Medicare funds are no longer triple-taxed as under the current system: 1) when payroll taxes are initially withheld; 2) when those withheld payroll taxes are counted as part of the taxable base for income tax purposes; and 3) when the promised benefits are finally received.

Is consumption a reliable source of revenue?

Yes, in fact, consumption is a more stable source of revenue than income, as shown in Figure 3. The chart compares the yearly changes in the tax bases for the income tax (adjusted gross income -- AGI) and the FairTax (personal consumption expenditures -- PCE) for years 1974 to 2004. PCE has always grown from year to year, whereas AGI dropped from 2000 to 2001 and from 2001 to 2002 -- two years in a row. The higher growth rates of AGI in boom years result in overspending and then when the economy slows down either budget cuts are needed or, what is more often the case, taxes are raised or the budget deficit increases.



How is the tax collected?

Retail businesses collect the tax from the consumer, just as state sales tax systems already do in 45 states; the FairTax is simply an additional line on the current sales tax reporting form. Retailers simply collect the tax and send it to the state taxing authority. All businesses serving as collection agents receive a fee for collection, and the states also receive a collection fee. The tax revenues from the states are then sent to the U.S. Treasury.


Why is the FairTax better than our current system?

Our present tax system is one of the reasons that people are finding it so difficult to get ahead these days. It is one of the reasons the next generation may not have a standard of living as high as this generation. Cars replaced the horse and buggy, the telephone replaced the telegraph, and the FairTax replaces the income tax. The income tax is holding us back and making it more difficult than it needs to be to improve our families’ standard of living. It makes it needlessly difficult for our businesses to compete in international markets. It wastes vast resources on complying with needless paperwork. We can do better and we must.

Is the FairTax fair?

Yes, the FairTax is fair, and in fact, much fairer than the income tax. Wealthy people spend more money than other individuals. They buy expensive cars, big houses, and yachts. They buy filet mignon instead of hamburger, fine wine instead of beer, designer dresses, and expensive jewelry. The FairTax taxes them on these purchases. If, however, they use their money to build job-creating factories, finance research and development to create new products, or fund charitable activities (all of which help improve the standard of living of others), then those activities are not taxed.

How does the FairTax protect low-income and lower-middle-income families and individuals?

Under the FairTax Plan, poor people pay no net FairTax at all up to the poverty level! Every household receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, and wage earners are no longer subject to the most regressive and burdensome tax of all, the payroll tax. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a tax of only 11.5 percent -- a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today.

Under the federal income tax, slow economic growth and recessions have a disproportionately adverse impact on lower-income families. Breadwinners in these families are more likely to lose their jobs, are less likely to have the resources to weather bad economic times, and are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a dynamic, growing economy provides. Retaining the present tax system makes economic progress needlessly slow, thus harming low-income people the most.

In contrast, the FairTax dramatically improves economic growth and wage rates for all, but especially for lower-income families and individuals. In addition to receiving the monthly FairTax prebate, these taxpayers are freed from regressive payroll taxes, the federal income tax, and the compliance burdens associated with each. They pay no more business taxes hidden in the price of goods and services, and used goods are tax free.


Is it fair for rich people to get the exact same FairTax prebate from the federal government as the poorest person in America?

Let’s look at a billionaire under the FairTax -- if he spends $10,000,000 dollars he pays a tax of $2,300,000 and gets a prebate of $4,697 (assuming he is married and has no children). His effective tax rate as a percent of spending is 22.95 percent.

Now, let’s look at a middle-income married couple with no children under the FairTax -- if they spend $50,000, they pay $6,803 net of their prebate for an effective tax rate of 13.6 percent. The effective tax rate increases as spending increases, but never exceeds 23 percent!

Figure 4: Comparison of effective tax rates: FairTax, income tax
     FairTax    Current tax
Expenditures = income    $50,000    $50,000
Net tax    $6,803    $7,918
Effective tax rate    13.6%    15.8%

n contrast, if this same couple earns $50,000 in wages today under the current tax system, they pay $4,093 in income taxes and $3,825 in payroll taxes for a total of $7,918 in taxes (15.8 percent) -- a tax burden 14.1 percent higher than under the FairTax. In addition, their employer pays another $3,825 in payroll taxes. Most economists agree that the employer payroll tax is actually borne by employees in the form of lower wages. Looked at this way, this couple is paying $11,743 (23.5 percent) in taxes today, which doesn’t even include the hidden taxes they pay every time they make a purchase.

Finally, let’s look at a low-income couple that spends at the poverty level under the FairTax -- they pay no net FairTax at all. Today, under the income tax system, they not only pay 15 percent in payroll taxes, but they also pay hidden taxes -- arising from corporate taxes, private sector compliance costs, and payroll taxes passed on to consumers and embedded in the price of everything they buy.

What about senior citizens, retired people, and anyone on a fixed income?

As a group, seniors do very well under the FairTax. Low-income seniors are much better off under the FairTax than under the current income tax system.

Some erroneously believe that people who live exclusively on Social Security pay no taxes. They may not know it, but they are paying hidden corporate income taxes and employer payroll taxes whenever they buy anything. Under the FairTax, seniors pay $0.23 out of every dollar they choose to spend on new goods and services.

Plus, seniors, like everyone else, receive a monthly prebate, in advance of purchases, for taxes paid on the cost of necessities which more than pays for all of the taxes they would pay if they received the average Social Security benefit amount and spent it all. If seniors choose to work, they are freed from regressive payroll taxes, the federal income tax on wages, and the compliance burdens associated with each. They pay no more hidden taxes on goods or services, and used goods are tax free. There is no income tax on their Social Security benefits.

The income tax imposed on investment income and pension benefits or IRA withdrawals is repealed. Pension funds, IRAs, and 401(k) plans had assets of $12 trillion in 2004. An income tax deduction was taken for contributions to most of these plans. All beneficiaries and owners of these plans expected to pay income tax on them upon withdrawal, but are not required to do so under the FairTax.

All owners of existing homes experience large capital gains due to the repeal of the income tax and implementation of the FairTax Plan. Seniors have dramatically higher home ownership rates than other age groups (81 percent for seniors compared to 65 percent on average). Homes are often a family’s largest asset. Gains are likely to be in the range of 20 percent.

The FairTax makes the economy much more dynamic and prosperous. Consequently, federal tax revenues grow. This makes it less likely that federal budget pressures require Medicare or Social Security benefit cuts.

How does the FairTax help seniors who have paid taxes on their retirement savings or invested in Roth IRAs?

Simply put, the FairTax is a revenue-neutral proposal, raising no more money than does the current system. The FairTax only changes where the money is raised, not the amount.

Additionally, some erroneously believe that people who have invested in Roth IRAs will never pay taxes on this money again. They may not know it, but they are paying corporate income taxes, employer payroll taxes, plus the associated compliance costs that are hidden in the price of every retail purchase they make. Under the FairTax, these hidden taxes are driven out of retail prices. And note, they can determine the amount of tax they pay through their own lifestyle choices.

Furthermore, used goods are not taxed because they have already been taxed once -- when they were new. Therefore senior citizens, like all Americans, do not lose purchasing power, but gain it instead. Moreover, the FairTax preserves the purchasing power of Social Security benefits, and seniors receive a monthly prebate so they don’t pay taxes on the purchase of necessities. Tax-deferred investments get a one-time windfall. Savings invested in any long-term, income-generating asset such as a stock, real estate, or a long-term bond that can’t be called, increase substantially in value. Finally, complex estate planning is an artifact of an earlier age.

How does the FairTax affect wages and prices?

Americans who produce goods and earn wages must pay significant tax and compliance costs under the current federal income tax. These taxes and costs both reduce after-tax wages and profits and are then passed on to the consumers of those goods and services in the form of price increases. When the FairTax removes income, capital gains, payroll, and estate and gift taxes, the pre-FairTax prices of these goods and services will fall. The removal of these hidden taxes may also allow wages to rise. Exactly how much prices will fall and wages will rise depends on market forces. For example, in a profession with many jobs and too few to fill them, wages will likely increase more than in fields where there are too many employees and not enough jobs.

Why not just exempt necessities from the FairTax instead of providing for a prebate?

The prebate is the most equitable and most efficient way to make the FairTax progressive. If the FairTax were to exempt necessities, the tax rate would have to be 20 percent higher then the FairTax rate with a prebate.

Should the government tax services?

Service providers are not exempt from the income tax today, and should not be exempt from the FairTax. Services now account for well over one-half of the gross domestic product (GDP). Neither consumption of services nor consumption of goods should be tax preferred. And it is economically foolish not to tax the fastest growing segment of our economy. Competition, not politics, should determine what goods and services cost.

#


How does the FairTax affect income tax preparers, accountants, and many government employees?

There are, of course, still some people who are involved in sales tax return preparation and sales tax administration under the FairTax, but many fewer than those involved with the income tax today. Those tax preparers, tax lawyers, and Internal Revenue Service employees, who are typically well educated and well equipped with transferable skills, will have to find other, more productive work. The projected 10.5 percent growth in the economy during the first year of the FairTax will provide plenty of new jobs.

But the heavy compliance costs of the income tax are like an anchor holding back economic growth. We have nothing to show for the $265 billion (greater than the current federal deficit -- $205 billion) that we spend each year measuring, tracking, sheltering, documenting, and filing our annual income. Surely these valuable labor and capital resources can be employed more productively -- for example, in following the money trails left by terrorist, drug, and other criminal enterprises, rather than in tracking every American wage earner.

[Ozark]

What about the home mortgage deduction?

The FairTax has positive effects on residential real estate far beyond this narrow question. Today’s homeowners, if they itemize (and 70 percent do not), pay their interest with post-Social Security/pre-income tax dollars. They then pay their principal with post-SS/post-income tax dollars. Those who do not itemize get no advantages at all. Under the FairTax, all homeowners make their entire house payment with pre-tax dollars.

With the FairTax, mortgage interest rates fall by about 25 percent (about 1.75 points) as bank overhead falls; this is a huge savings for consumers. For example, on a $150,000, thirty-year home mortgage at an interest rate of 7.00 percent, the monthly mortgage payment is $999.12 for principal and interest. On that same mortgage at a 5.25 percent interest rate, the monthly payment is $830.01. Over 30 years, the 1.75-percent decrease in interest rates in this instance results in a $60,879 cost savings to the consumer. Finally, first-time buyers save for that down payment much faster, as savings are not taxed.

Under the FairTax, home ownership is a possibility for many who have never had that option under the income tax system. Lower interest rates, the repeal of the income tax, the repeal of all payroll taxes, and the prebate mean that people have more money to spend and have an increased opportunity to become homeowners.

What happens to charitable giving?

Charitable contributions depend on one factor more than any other: The health of the economy (not tax benefits). As a wide range of economists agree on the economic expansion the FairTax delivers, charitable contributions benefit also.

For all of the money that pours into churches every Sunday and into a broad range of charities every day, only the 30 percent who itemize get any tax benefit. The other 70 percent have given and keep giving with no tax benefit whatsoever.

The FairTax allows people to make charitable contributions out of pre-tax dollars. Thus, those generally less affluent taxpayers who do not itemize see their cost of charitable giving go down under the FairTax.

Do corporations get a windfall with the abolition of the corporate tax?

Corporations are legal fictions that have not, do not, and never will bear the burden of taxation. Only people pay taxes. Corporations pass on their tax burden in the form of higher prices to consumers, lower wages to workers, and/or lower returns to investors. The idea that taxing a corporation reduces taxes on, say the working poor, is a cruel hoax. A corporate tax only makes what the working poor buy more expensive, costs them jobs, lowers their lifestyle, or delays their retirement. Under the FairTax Plan, money retained in the business and reinvested to create jobs, build factories, or develop new technologies, pays no tax. This is the most honest, fair, productive tax system possible. Free market competition will do the rest.

Does the FairTax burden the retail industry?

All businesses are tax collectors today. They withhold income and payroll taxes from their employees. Moreover, the vast majority of retail businesses operating in states with a sales tax (45 states currently use a sales tax) are already sales tax collectors. Under the FairTax, retailers are paid a fee equal to one-quarter of one percent of federal sales tax they collect and remit. In addition, of course, retailers no longer bear the cost of complying with the income tax, including the uniform capitalization requirements, the various depreciation schemes, and the various employee benefit and pension rules. Finally, the economic growth resulting from the aggregate, beneficial effects of dramatically lower income tax compliance costs and no payroll or income taxes, customers having substantially more money -- the greatest influence on retail sales -- and a reasonable fee for collecting the FairTax, all ensure that retailers do quite well.

How are state tax systems affected, and can states adequately collect a federal sales tax?

No state is required to repeal its income tax or piggyback its sales tax on the federal tax. All states have the opportunity to collect the FairTax; states will find it beneficial to conform their sales tax to the federal tax. Most states will probably choose to conform. It makes the administrative costs of businesses in that state much lower. The state is paid a one-quarter of one percent fee by the federal government to collect the tax. For states that already collect a sales tax, this fee proves generous. A state can choose not to collect the federal sales tax, and either outsource the collection to another state, or opt to have the federal government collect it directly. If a state chooses to conform to the federal tax base, they will raise the same amount of state sales tax with a lower tax rate -- in some cases more than 50 percent lower -- since the FairTax base is broader than their current tax base. States may also consider the reduction or elimination of property taxes by keeping their sales tax rate at or near where it is currently. Finally, conforming states that are part of the FairTax system will find collection of sales tax on Internet and mail-order retail sales greatly simplified.

How does the plan affect economic growth?

With the penalty for working harder and producing more removed, Americans are free to keep every dollar they earn, and a new era of economic growth and job creation is unleashed. Hidden taxes are history, Americans are able to save more, and businesses invest more. Capital formation, the real source of job creation and innovation, is facilitated. Gross domestic product (GDP) increases by an estimated 10.5 percent in the first year alone. The FairTax as proposed raises the economy’s capital stock by 42 percent, its labor supply by 4 percent, its output by 12 percent, and its real wage rate by 8 percent.

As U.S. companies and individuals repatriate, on a tax-free basis, income generated overseas, huge amounts of new capital flood into the United States. With such a huge capital supply, real interest rates remain low. Additionally, other international investors will seek to invest here to avoid taxes on income in their own countries, thereby further spurring the growth of our own economy

#


What economic changes come at the retail level with the FairTax?

Our baby boom generation has been trained to spend money before inflation eats it up or savings is taxed away. This group, for good or evil, will likely spend their initial pay raise. Others will recognize the advantages of savings and investment. There will be a whole new round of home refinancings. There will likely be a lot of interest in the actual cost of the federal government when consumers see their most recent contribution at the bottom of each retail receipt.

Since the FairTax plan is revenue neutral, the same amount of resources is extracted from the economy as is extracted under current law. These funds are, however, extracted in a less economically damaging way. Every known economic projection shows the economy doing better, often much better, under the FairTax.
Because the economy grows, is more efficient and more productive, that means investment, wages, and consumption are higher than they are under the income tax.

What happens to interest rates?

First, interest rates drop quickly by approximately one-quarter. Interest rates include compensation to the lender for the tax that they must pay on interest you pay them. That is why taxable bonds bear a higher interest rate than tax-exempt bonds. When the tax on interest is removed, interest rates will drop toward today’s tax-exempt rate.

Second, under the current system, savings and investments are taxed. Under the FairTax, savings and investments are not taxed at all. As Americans save more money, the pool of funds in lending institutions grows. When you add to this the flood of capital currently trapped offshore, we realize a huge increase in the pool of capital, thereby causing the cost of borrowing funds to drop.

What happens to the stock market, mutual funds, and retirement funds?

Investors prosper greatly under this plan, since corporations face lower operating costs and individuals have more money to save and invest. The reform significantly enhances the retirement savings and/or retirement spending power of most Americans. The purchase of stocks is considered a purchase for investment purposes and not personal consumption so they are purchased tax free. The service fees charged by the broker, however, are personal consumption and therefore subject to tax.


What happens to tax-free bonds?

Tax-free bonds are still tax free, though they are now directly competitive with corporate bonds. Under the FairTax, equities, treasuries, bonds, and other investments are all tax free. There is a one-time windfall in non-callable instruments, such as corporate bonds; this windfall also has a positive effect on callable instruments with some time remaining to the call date, including treasuries.

How does this affect U.S. competitiveness in foreign trade?

Because the FairTax is automatically border adjustable, the 17 percent competitive advantage, on average, of foreign producers is eliminated, immediately boosting U.S. competitiveness overseas. American companies doing business internationally are able to sell their goods at lower prices but at similar margins, and this brings jobs to America.

In addition, U.S. companies with investments or plants abroad bring home overseas profits without the penalty of paying income taxes, thus resulting in more U.S. capital investment.

And at last, imports and domestic production are on a level playing field. Exported goods are not subject to the FairTax, since they are not consumed in the U.S.; but imported goods sold in the U.S. are subject to the FairTax because these products are consumed domestically.

What about border issues?

It is unlikely that “shopping across the border” in Canada or Mexico will result in any cost savings to the consumer. Remember, the FairTax is revenue neutral and therefore price neutral. This means the relative cost of retail goods and services after the FairTax remains very close to the same levels found in the marketplace today. With regard to interstate competition, since all states have the same federal sales tax rate, the federal sales tax is not an incentive to cross state lines to avoid the tax.

Does the FairTax improve compliance and reduce evasion when compared to the current income tax?

The old aphorism that nothing is certain except death and taxes should be modified to include tax evasion. Tax evasion is chronic under any system so complex as to be incomprehensible. As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), tax evasion in 2001 is beyond 2.6 percent, compared to 1.6 percent in 1991. This represents over 16 percent of taxes due. Almost 40 percent of the public, according to the IRS, is out of compliance with the present tax system, mostly unintentionally due to the enormous complexity of the present system. These IRS figures do not include taxes lost on illegal sources of income with a criminal economy estimated at a trillion dollars. All this, despite a major enforcement effort and assessment of tens of millions of civil penalties on American taxpayers in an effort to force compliance with the tax system. Disrespect for the tax system and the law has reached dangerous levels and makes a system based on taxpayer self-assessment less and less viable.

The FairTax reduces rather than increases the problem of tax evasion. The increased fairness, transparency, and legitimacy of the system induces more compliance. The roughly 90-percent reduction in filers enables tax administrators more narrowly and effectively to address noncompliance and increases the likelihood of tax evasion discovery. The relative simplicity of the FairTax promotes compliance. Businesses need answer only one question to determine the tax due: How much was sold to consumers? Finally, because tax rates decrease, tax evasion is less profitable; and because of the dramatic reduction in the number of tax filers, tax evaders are more easily monitored and caught under the FairTax system.


Finally, the wealthy make decisions on charitable giving based on the cause. Once they have determined the cause is worthy, their contribution is structured to maximize the gift and minimize the tax. But the intention to give comes first; taxes simply determine the structure -- rarely the amount -- of the gift.

What other significant economies use such a tax plan?

Two of the largest economies in the world rely almost solely on sales taxes: Florida and Texas. Many civilizations in history have relied solely on transaction-based consumption taxes: A percentage of a grain shipment in exchange for a safe harbor. Even a cursory study of history shows that nation/states that relied on consumption taxes flourished and prospered, supported democracies/republics, had expanding economies, and high levels of civil rights for their citizens. The exact opposite is true for empires that relied on income/poll/head taxes. These taxes were used to support despots, eventually collapsed the economies in which they were applied, and sundered civil rights.

The sales tax is a familiar tax, being a major source of revenue in 45 states and the District of Columbia. It is true, however, that no post-industrial nation, until now, has ever repealed its income tax and replaced it with a federal retail sales tax. However, England did repeal its detested income tax upon the defeat of Napoleon and enjoyed the fastest, longest expansion of its economy in its long history. An expansion that ended only with the -- you guessed it -- re-imposition of an income tax.

Is the FairTax just another conservative tax scheme? Or just another liberal tax scheme?

The FairTax has nonpartisan support from people in all walks of life. From both major parties and several third parties. Its supporters need only have one common belief: That it is a fairer, simpler, more efficient way to raise federal revenue. The FairTax delivers these benefits to all American people and more. More government accountability for taxpayer dollars, a tax system that is less susceptible to being manipulated by special interests, a tax system that will make it easier -- not harder -- for the average person to get ahead, and perhaps most importantly, a tax system that provides real, honest, and transparent tax relief for those who need it most.

How does the income tax affect our economy?

How does dragging an anchor affect the speed of a ship? Our entire economy is not dependent on the income tax. Instead, our economy is held back by the income tax. There was no income tax for the first 124 years of our history -- that’s more than half the time we have existed as a nation. A study by the Government Accountability Office estimated that the federal tax system imposed efficiency costs on the U.S. economy of two to five percent of GDP. Under the FairTax, within ten years average Americans will be at least 10 percent and probably 15 percent better off than they would be under the current system. That translates to an increase of $3,000 to $4,500 per household, per year.

How does this plan affect compliance costs?

It is estimated that Americans spend at least $265 billion a year to comply with the tax code -- nearly $900 for every man, woman, and child in America. That is greater than the current federal deficit ($205 billion). Billions of dollars in compliance costs are wasted each year, and we have nothing of value to show for this expenditure -- not one single productive service or product is added to our nation’s wealth. It is estimated that the FairTax dramatically cuts such compliance costs, perhaps as much as 95 percent.

What do we experience in the transition from the income tax to the FairTax?

Everyone will have to think about taxes in a different way. Income -- what we earn -- no longer has to be documented, measured, and tracked for tax purposes. The only relevant measure of our tax liability is the amount we choose to spend on final, discretionary consumption. Tax-related issues are suddenly a lot simpler and more straightforward than they used to be. The aggravation and anxiety associated with “April 15th ” disappears forever after passage of the FairTax. The FairTax is not new -- most Americans come into contact with sales taxes daily, since 45 states currently use them to collect state revenues. It is easier to switch from an income tax to the FairTax system than it is to switch from gallons to liters, or from feet to meters! Of course, those who depend on the structure and complexity of our current system (e.g., tax lobbyists, tax preparers, and tax shelter promoters) will have to find more productive economic pursuits. However, everyone will have enough advance notice to adjust to the new system.

Job creation booms. Residential real estate booms. Financial services boom. Exports boom. Retail prospers. Farming and ranching prosper. Churches and charities prosper. Civil liberties are enhanced. In short, it is difficult to imagine the far-reaching, positive effects of this change. Though this tax policy is exactly what our Founding Fathers counseled us to do with the Federalist Papers and the Constitution.

Is the FairTax progressive? Do the rich pay more and the poor pay less as a percentage of their spending?

Absolutely, as you can see in Figure 6 below -- where the graph shows annual expenditures for a family of four and the corresponding FairTax effective tax rates. The poor actually pay less than zero-percent retail sales tax on their spending. Much like with the earned income tax credit of today, the rebate may give them more money than they actually spend on retail taxes. Especially if they are frugal and buy mostly used products. On the other hand, the wealthy approach a maximum of 23-percent retail sales tax on their spending.

No other country has a system of government like ours, and no other country has led the world in so many fields as ours. It was France and Germany that forced the imposition of a VAT in addition to income taxes across the European Community. Shall we follow France’s lead?

Figure 6: Annual expenditures vs. FairTax effective tax rates, for a family of four










Ron Paul

Yes      "I'll vote for the FairTax if it comes up.."  http://easylink.playstream.com/fairtax/RonPaul-FairTax.wvx



Vote for Ron Paul

[Decker]

More irrelevant comparisons to the income tax from Scammer Ozark.

We know this to be true about the Fair Tax Scam:

1.  The Fair Tax assumptions INCLUDE sales tax the government pays to itself.  That's double dipping aka a Ponzi Scheme.  For the moment, the true rate of taxation is 31% and not 23%

2.  It is extremely likely that the IRS will still exist with more work than ever before b/c of this "transparent and simple tax" (See Reply #122 in this thread)

3.  The true Fair Sales Tax is 38%.  As an inclusive sales tax, the tax is 30% on purchases of all services and all new products - Sec 1 (b) (2).  The Bill requires that the NST be printed on the cash register receipt - Sec 510.  You buy an Item.  The receipt states: "$1.00 Item", "$0.30 NST", "$1.30 Total".

Now here's why the Poor will Pay big taxes under the FAir Tax Scam:

National Sales Tax (NST) Hoax: "the poverty level income will not be taxed". The Bill requires a pre-bate of 23% of the poverty level income. The 2006 A.D.¹ Guideline poverty level is $9,800.00. The pre-bate will be $2,254.00 ($9,800.00 * .23 = $2,254.00). The poverty-level income person can buy $7,513.33 worth of products and services using the pre-bate to pay the 30% NST ( .30X = $2,254.00 therefore X =$7,513.33 ). Then the poverty level income person will use only his/her remaining $2,286.67 ( $9,800.00 - 7,513.33 = $2,286.67 ) to buy $1,758.98 worth of products and pay $527.69 for NST ( X + .30X = $2,286.67 therefore X = $1,758.98 for products. $2,286.67 total available minus $1,758.98 for purchases = $527.69 for NST ).

What sort of irrational, cruel people are promoting this system as a fair tax, when a person with a poverty level income pays $527.69 in federal taxes? This will severely punish the people living off of Social Security. To the Mathematically-challenged: calculate the taxes paid when the poverty level income is $20,000. Surprise! The Math of the Bill will always tax poverty-level income.

 
 
National Sales Tax (NST) Hoax: "low incomes will pay little taxes".  A person earning $6 per hour will gross $12,480.00 per year. The pre-bate will be $2,254.00.  This person can buy $7,513.33 worth of products using the pre-bate to pay the NST.  S/he will purchase products and pay the sales tax with his/her own money ($4,966.67) after spending $7,513.33 ($12,480 - $7,513.33 = $4,966.67.  The sales tax is 30%, therefore X + .30X = $4,966.67.  X will equal $3,820.52 for purchases.  That will be $4,966.67 total available minus $3,820.52 for purchases equals $1,146.15 for taxes.

 
 The effective federal income tax rate will be $1,146.15 / $12,480 = 9.18% of the poor person's income.  This sales tax system will create effective income tax rates that will plot a negatively accelerating curve that is more obscene than the current bracket system plots.  A negatively accelerating curve means that the tax rate increases faster on low and middle incomes than it does on high incomes.   Construct a graph. Percent tax on the Y axis.  Gross income on the X axis.  Draw a straight line from 0 thru 9.18% tax and $12,480 income, and you will get a 50% tax at about $64,000 income.  This places the 9.18% tax in perspective. The straight line is because the income tax rate should increase the same for all incomes.
http://www.fair-tax.org/NST.html#Poverty

Even with the Tax bill's own numbers, the poor and working poor will be paying more under the Fair Tax Scam.

[Ozark]

The FairTax Rate: a 23% tomato or a 30% tomato?

05/31/2007

tomatoAs the FairTax gains more national attention, questions have again arisen about whether the FairTax rate is 23 percent or 30 percent. In the toxic environment that often accompanies public policy debates, FairTax.org has even been accused by some of misleading the public, even though full descriptions of "tax-inclusive" and "tax-exclusive" calculations abound on our Web site. We hope the following explanation puts all such questions to rest -- at last.

Let’s use an example to illustrate the difference between tax-inclusive and tax-exclusive tax rates.

Assume there is a worker named Joe who earns $125 and spends all of his earnings. Let’s further assume that the government requires him to pay $25 in taxes.

If the government put a tax on Joe’s income, he would earn $125 before tax and would have $100 after tax to spend at the General Store. Thus, Joe has to earn $125 to have $100 to spend. Joe would also have to file an income tax return.

If the government put a tax on what Joe spends, he would earn $125 and would have $125 to spend at the store. Of the $125 paid by Joe to the storekeeper, $100 would be for the goods he bought at the store and $25 would be taxes that the storekeeper would send to the government. Joe would not have to file a tax return, as the storekeeper sends the tax in to the government.

Either way, Joe pays $25 in taxes and the government gets $25 in taxes. With a tax on income, Joe pays the $25 directly to the government, and with the tax on spending (sales tax), he pays the $25 in taxes indirectly when he buys something from the General Store. The General Store sends the tax that Joe paid to the government.


We  may report the tax rate as $25/$125 = 20 percent, which is the tax-inclusive rate (meaning that the tax is included in the base). Alternately, we may think of the tax rate as $25/$100 = 25 percent, which is the tax-exclusive rate (meaning the tax is excluded from the base). The 23 percent FairTax rate set out in HR 25/S 1025 is a tax-inclusive rate, as is the current personal income tax, whereas most state-level sales taxes are quoted on a tax-exclusive basis. For ease of comparison, FairTax.org gives the tax rate both ways. Both rates are relevant, since the FairTax is replacing an income tax system, and 23 percent correctly represents the tax burden compared to the current system.

[Ozark]

FairTax Facts

COMMENTARY from The Wall Street Journal Online, p. A10

Much has been written lately about the FairTax, the proposal to replace the current federal income tax with a national retail sales tax. Unfortunately, much of it is wrong.

This country needs a spirited and wide-ranging debate about fundamental tax reform. But that debate is not advanced by misimpressions and distortions of the FairTax. Let us then clear up a few.

One assertion about the FairTax is that it began as a project of the Church of Scientology at a time when it was seeking tax-exempt status. This is false. The FairTax actually comes to us from market research conducted more than a decade ago by a handful of business leaders. Their goal was to determine what type of tax system would be most acceptable to the American public. The studies they paid for cost millions of dollars, included hard economic research by respected scholars, and were subjected to critical peer review. The result is a proposal, since introduced as legislation in Congress, now known as the FairTax.

What emerged from this research is that a national retail sales tax is a preferred method of taxation among most Americans surveyed. Another is that the tax would have significant benefits for the nation's economy.

Why? Because it eliminates income taxes and payroll taxes (for Social Security and Medicare), which are costly to collect and end up as "embedded" in the price of everything we buy. Along with getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service and the complexities of the income tax code, the FairTax would eliminate the distorting effect that income and payroll taxes have on the economy.

Research on the price of consumer goods reveals that up to 20% of all prices today represent hidden income taxes and payroll taxes. Once these taxes are repealed and replaced with the FairTax, it is likely that market pressure would force retail prices to fall.

Eliminating embedded taxes will also do something else -- it will remove significant price disadvantages suffered by American producers competing with tax-free imports. Eliminating corporate income taxes and capital gains taxes, which the FairTax would do, would likely make the American economy the most desirable place in the world to do business.

Another benefit of the FairTax is that, unlike other sales taxes, it would not hit the poorest Americans the hardest. The FairTax proposal calls for sending every American a "prebate" check to offset the cost of the national sales taxes paid by those living in poverty. This feature would effectively exempt those living below the poverty line from paying taxes to the federal government, and provide all taxpayers with a reimbursement of a portion of taxes paid.

The FairTax rate is 23% on retail sales when calculated "inclusively," as are income tax rates. It will, in a fairer, more transparent and less-expensive way, raise the same amount of money the federal government now collects through the income and payroll taxes. Because it would be levied on consumption at the final point of sale, instead of on earnings, it would dramatically expand the tax base. The FairTax would collect revenue from the underground economy. Even illegal immigrants and the 40 million foreign tourists who visit the U.S. each year would pay it.

The distributional effects of the FairTax have been extensively studied, and although the proposal has distinct advantages for investors and wealth creation across the income spectrum, the greatest benefit of the FairTax is to low- and moderate-income Americans. The effect of eliminating regressive payroll taxes is commonly overlooked when analyzing the FairTax, but it would have a very significant impact, as these taxes represent the single largest tax burden on these income earners.

Significantly, the FairTax eliminates all loopholes, gimmicks, exemptions and deductions from the federal tax system. Under the FairTax, Congress would no longer be able to reward friends, punish enemies or manipulate behavior through the tax code. The FairTax would also eliminate the lucrative tax lobbying practices that represent more than 50% of all lobby dollars spent annually in Washington.

It's no surprise, then, to see that vested interests have argued against the FairTax and in favor of keeping the mortgage interest deduction. But wouldn't it be better for everyone to stop the IRS from withholding from paychecks; to see the price of new homes -- and all other goods -- drop by removing embedded costs; and to have interest rates fall as the savings rate increases? Is it really in everyone's interests to keep the income-tax system so that one-third of taxpayers can go on deducting a portion of their mortgage interest from their federal taxes?

There have been many tax reform proposals over the years, but most of them simply call for reforming around the margins of the existing tax system. The President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform was assembled by the Bush administration and concluded its work a few years ago. Instead of seriously looking at the FairTax, the panel looked at a very different type of consumption tax, riddled with exemptions, and then declared that it would be too expensive and that the rate would have to be far higher than the FairTax rate.

Politically, the FairTax will only become law once enough citizens demand that it be enacted, overcoming the self-interest that members of Congress and others have in holding onto the current system. It is debatable whether a modern, citizen-led tax revolution is possible. But the growing popularity (even among presidential candidates) of the FairTax suggests that another Boston Tea Party may be at hand.








Ron Paul

Yes      "I'll vote for the FairTax if it comes up.."  http://easylink.playstream.com/fairtax/RonPaul-FairTax.wvx



Vote for Ron Paul

[Decker]

The FairTax Rate: a 23% tomato or a 30% tomato?

05/31/2007

tomatoAs the FairTax gains more national attention, questions have again arisen about whether the FairTax rate is 23 percent or 30 percent. In the toxic environment that often accompanies public policy debates, FairTax.org has even been accused by some of misleading the public, even though full descriptions of "tax-inclusive" and "tax-exclusive" calculations abound on our Web site. We hope the following explanation puts all such questions to rest -- at last.

Let’s use an example to illustrate the difference between tax-inclusive and tax-exclusive tax rates.

Assume there is a worker named Joe who earns $125 and spends all of his earnings. Let’s further assume that the government requires him to pay $25 in taxes.

If the government put a tax on Joe’s income, he would earn $125 before tax and would have $100 after tax to spend at the General Store. Thus, Joe has to earn $125 to have $100 to spend. Joe would also have to file an income tax return.

If the government put a tax on what Joe spends, he would earn $125 and would have $125 to spend at the store. Of the $125 paid by Joe to the storekeeper, $100 would be for the goods he bought at the store and $25 would be taxes that the storekeeper would send to the government. Joe would not have to file a tax return, as the storekeeper sends the tax in to the government.

Either way, Joe pays $25 in taxes and the government gets $25 in taxes. With a tax on income, Joe pays the $25 directly to the government, and with the tax on spending (sales tax), he pays the $25 in taxes indirectly when he buys something from the General Store. The General Store sends the tax that Joe paid to the government.


We  may report the tax rate as $25/$125 = 20 percent, which is the tax-inclusive rate (meaning that the tax is included in the base). Alternately, we may think of the tax rate as $25/$100 = 25 percent, which is the tax-exclusive rate (meaning the tax is excluded from the base). The 23 percent FairTax rate set out in HR 25/S 1025 is a tax-inclusive rate, as is the current personal income tax, whereas most state-level sales taxes are quoted on a tax-exclusive basis. For ease of comparison, FairTax.org gives the tax rate both ways. Both rates are relevant, since the FairTax is replacing an income tax system, and 23 percent correctly represents the tax burden compared to the current system.

What's the point of comparing the income tax to your scam Fair Tax?

As an inclusive sales tax, the tax is 30% on purchases of all services and all new products - Sec 1 (b) (2).  The Bill requires that the NST be printed on the cash register receipt - Sec 510.  You buy an Item.  The receipt states: "$1.00 Item", "$0.30 NST", "$1.30 Total".

The only way for the 23% to be the applicable rate would be if the Nation's Business Men absorbed the extra 7% total sales tax.

Yeah, and that'll really happen.

And I will repeat, Why are you comparing the Income tax to your Fair Tax Scam?  The comparison serves no purpose other than to compare apples with oranges....and to fool people like yourself into thinking the comparison is really saying that 23% percent is 30%. 

Basic math shows your Fair Tax as the Elitest Tax Raising Scam it is.

[Ozark]

The FairTax will not be enforceable and evasion will be rampant"

The truth: More than 80% of all tax returns are eliminated under the FairTax--every individual filing. What remains are retail outlets collecting the FairTax. Of these, 80 percent of all retails sales now occur at large retail chains like Wal-Mart. The point is oversight will still reside under the Treasury Department but the government's responsibility will be over a far smaller "universe" of tax collection points making compliance oversight far less costly and far more effective than the current system which costs $265 billion a year in compliance costs and still comes up $350 billion a year short of what is owed.

"The FairTax will not be revenue neutral (i.e. bring in the same revenue as the current system) at 23%"

The truth: The FairTax rate of 23% (when calculated inclusively like income tax rates) has been thoroughly researched to provide all the revenues now collected under both the income tax system and through FICA payroll taxes. Reports otherwise are largely based on the President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform which declared the rate would have to be much higher. What the Panel failed to make clear in an amazingly shameless sleight-of-hand is that they never studied the FairTax legislation as it exists in pending legislation. They ignored $22 million of FairTax research and, instead, quietly devised their own national consumption tax which they loaded with the exemptions and deductions they felt were "politically realistic". They also failed to calculate the effects of elimination of the FICA tax on annual taxpayer burdens or on the distributional effects of the FairTax across the income spectrum. Upon completion--and after declaring a national consumption tax flawed--they then refused to publish their underlying assumptions and the top two former Senators who led the exercise found employment in K Street income tax lobbying firms.

"The FairTax is not politically viable"

The truth: Great public policy changes do not happen easily. We believe, however, in the promise of the Founding Fathers that this is a nation, "of, by and for the people". In the last year we have seen more Congressional co-sponsors come on board faster than ever before. We have seen five of eight GOP candidates and one Democratic candidate embrace the FairTax. With increased media coverage, as at least one candidate has made this a central plank of his campaign, more and more Americans have come to understand the powerful benefits the FairTax offers the nation. They are, in turn, joining our growing citizen army and are beginning to communicate their wishes to their elected officials. All of this progress is a consequence of the body politic first learning about and then accepting the FairTax. As our ranks grow such pressure will increase on Members of Congress and at some point, the voice of the people will eclipse the voices of the relatively small number of Washingtonians who profit working the income tax system at great cost to the nation. Enactment of the FairTax will require advanced citizenry and a resurgence of what has been too often forgotten--public policy can and should be driven by the public. All that is required is that we all dare to be fair and remind our elected official that they work for their constituents--not for the narrow self-interests of the tax writing committee, the lucrative tax lobby business or the academicians who have built careers around the complexity of the tax code.

[Decker]

FairTax Facts

COMMENTARY from The Wall Street Journal Online, p. A10

Much has been written lately about the FairTax, the proposal to replace the current federal income tax with a national retail sales tax. Unfortunately, much of it is wrong.

This country needs a spirited and wide-ranging debate about fundamental tax reform. But that debate is not advanced by misimpressions and distortions of the FairTax. Let us then clear up a few.

One assertion about the FairTax is that it began as a project of the Church of Scientology at a time when it was seeking tax-exempt status. This is false. The FairTax actually comes to us from market research conducted more than a decade ago by a handful of business leaders. Their goal was to determine what type of tax system would be most acceptable to the American public. The studies they paid for cost millions of dollars, included hard economic research by respected scholars, and were subjected to critical peer review. The result is a proposal, since introduced as legislation in Congress, now known as the FairTax.

What emerged from this research is that a national retail sales tax is a preferred method of taxation among most Americans surveyed. Another is that the tax would have significant benefits for the nation's economy.

Why? Because it eliminates income taxes and payroll taxes (for Social Security and Medicare), which are costly to collect and end up as "embedded" in the price of everything we buy. Along with getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service and the complexities of the income tax code, the FairTax would eliminate the distorting effect that income and payroll taxes have on the economy.

Research on the price of consumer goods reveals that up to 20% of all prices today represent hidden income taxes and payroll taxes. Once these taxes are repealed and replaced with the FairTax, it is likely that market pressure would force retail prices to fall.

Eliminating embedded taxes will also do something else -- it will remove significant price disadvantages suffered by American producers competing with tax-free imports. Eliminating corporate income taxes and capital gains taxes, which the FairTax would do, would likely make the American economy the most desirable place in the world to do business.

Another benefit of the FairTax is that, unlike other sales taxes, it would not hit the poorest Americans the hardest. The FairTax proposal calls for sending every American a "prebate" check to offset the cost of the national sales taxes paid by those living in poverty. This feature would effectively exempt those living below the poverty line from paying taxes to the federal government, and provide all taxpayers with a reimbursement of a portion of taxes paid.

The FairTax rate is 23% on retail sales when calculated "inclusively," as are income tax rates. It will, in a fairer, more transparent and less-expensive way, raise the same amount of money the federal government now collects through the income and payroll taxes. Because it would be levied on consumption at the final point of sale, instead of on earnings, it would dramatically expand the tax base. The FairTax would collect revenue from the underground economy. Even illegal immigrants and the 40 million foreign tourists who visit the U.S. each year would pay it.

The distributional effects of the FairTax have been extensively studied, and although the proposal has distinct advantages for investors and wealth creation across the income spectrum, the greatest benefit of the FairTax is to low- and moderate-income Americans. The effect of eliminating regressive payroll taxes is commonly overlooked when analyzing the FairTax, but it would have a very significant impact, as these taxes represent the single largest tax burden on these income earners.

Significantly, the FairTax eliminates all loopholes, gimmicks, exemptions and deductions from the federal tax system. Under the FairTax, Congress would no longer be able to reward friends, punish enemies or manipulate behavior through the tax code. The FairTax would also eliminate the lucrative tax lobbying practices that represent more than 50% of all lobby dollars spent annually in Washington.

It's no surprise, then, to see that vested interests have argued against the FairTax and in favor of keeping the mortgage interest deduction. But wouldn't it be better for everyone to stop the IRS from withholding from paychecks; to see the price of new homes -- and all other goods -- drop by removing embedded costs; and to have interest rates fall as the savings rate increases? Is it really in everyone's interests to keep the income-tax system so that one-third of taxpayers can go on deducting a portion of their mortgage interest from their federal taxes?

There have been many tax reform proposals over the years, but most of them simply call for reforming around the margins of the existing tax system. The President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform was assembled by the Bush administration and concluded its work a few years ago. Instead of seriously looking at the FairTax, the panel looked at a very different type of consumption tax, riddled with exemptions, and then declared that it would be too expensive and that the rate would have to be far higher than the FairTax rate.

Politically, the FairTax will only become law once enough citizens demand that it be enacted, overcoming the self-interest that members of Congress and others have in holding onto the current system. It is debatable whether a modern, citizen-led tax revolution is possible. But the growing popularity (even among presidential candidates) of the FairTax suggests that another Boston Tea Party may be at hand.








Ron Paul

Yes      "I'll vote for the FairTax if it comes up.."  http://easylink.playstream.com/fairtax/RonPaul-FairTax.wvx



Vote for Ron Paul

The Fair Tax Scam was organized by wealthy people in Texas to push the nation's tax burden from themselves to the poor and middle class.

National Sales Tax (NST) Wish: "when the NST is enacted prices will be unchanged". This is because 23% of the price of every service and new product is various taxes (income tax, social security, etc.). These taxes will be eliminated and a 30% sales tax will be added. Example: an item now sells for $1. The 23% included taxes will be eliminated ( $1 * .23 = 23 cents ). The item then sells for 77 cents ( $1 - $ .23 = $ .77 ). A 30% NST will be added ($ .77 * .30 NST = 23 cents ) for a sale price of $1 ( $ .77 + $ .23 = $1.00).

If the proponents of the Bill really expect this to happen, then it is irrational and irresponsible to give every person who is at least 18 years old a pre-bate of $2,254 to pay the NST. This is typical of this poorly reasoned Congressional Bill. If eliminating the included 23 percent taxes and adding the 30 percent NST produces the same amount of revenue, then the pre-bates will be a huge outflow of money from the U.S. Treasury. 230,000,000 people aged 18 and over, multiplied by $2,254 = $518,420,000,000. This new item of over 518 Billion dollars will now be in the federal budget.

http://www.fair-tax.org/NST.html#Unchanged

[Decker]

Your flat national sales tax is regressive by definition.  That hurts the poor and middle class.  Ron Paul agreed with that assessment on Russert's show.

Your nonsensical, untraceable, unauditable welfare Prebates do little to change that fact.

[Ozark]

The FairTax is revenue neutral at $0.23 out of every retail dollar spent.

The FairTax is imposed on a base indisputably twice as large as the base of taxable income
today. The truth is that the FairTax rate is the lowest rate possible for any tax plan that does not
tax returns on capital more than once or tax the necessities of life, and is far less than the
marginal rates on labor or capital required by the current system.
The FairTax rate of $0.23 out of every retail dollar spent on new goods or services works.
The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University and Laurence Kotlikoff, Professor of Economics
and noted public finance expert at Boston University, recently teamed up to provide a sound
methodology for estimating the FairTax base and computing the FairTax rate.1 Their report:
• Demonstrates that the 23 percent rate (as compared to current rate terminology for the
taxes the FairTax replaces) specified by the Fair Tax Act (HR 25) is eminently feasible.
• Suggests what led Gale2 and the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform3 to
reach the opposite – and incorrect – conclusion.
Beacon Hill Institute and Dr. Kotlikoff estimate the FairTax base for 2007 to be $11.244
trillion. Implementing the FairTax rate of 23 percent on this base would generate federal tax
revenues equal to $2.586 trillion – $358 billion more than the $2.228 trillion in tax revenues
generated by the taxes it repeals. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 2007 spending
(assuming current levels) is projected to be $3.285 trillion. Revenues from the FairTax at a 23
percent tax rate ($2.586 trillion) plus other federal revenues not repealed by the FairTax are
estimated to yield $3.209 trillion – an amount $76 billion less than the CBO projection. The $76
billion figure is remarkably small when set against the more than 30 percent increase in the real
value of discretionary spending since 2004.4 At 23 percent, non-Social Security spending in
2007 would be $2.102 trillion compared to $2.113 trillion in 2006, a difference of only $12
billion or less than one percent.
The report goes on to prove that implementation of the FairTax, including the
requirement that state and local governments pay the tax on their purchases, entails no reduction
in state and local real spending, provided that these governments adjust their tax structure to
maintain the same state/local tax burden on taxpayers under the current system.
The FairTax lowers the lifetime tax burden for most Americans.
In other research, Dr. Kotlikoff finds that the FairTax lowers marginal tax rates on work and
saving, cuts remaining average lifetime tax rates,5 and enhances overall progressivity. This
occurs because the reduction in these rates is proportionately much greater at the low end of the
earnings distribution than at the high end. Consider a middle-aged couple with two children
earning $20,000 per year compared to that same couple earning $500,000 per year. In switching
to the FairTax, the low-income couple’s FairTax rate is only 1.5 percent versus 11.0 percent
under the current system. The high-income couple’s FairTax rate is 20.5 percent versus 35.6
percent under the current system. The low-income couple gets an 86 percent cut in their average
remaining lifetime tax rate, whereas the high-income couple gets a 42 percent cut.
Kotlikoff’s analysis compares the total effective marginal6 and remaining lifetime
average7 tax rates under the current system with those under the FairTax for 42 typical
income/age/marital status categories: Two marital status groups (single individuals or married
couples), three age groups (ages 30, 45, and 60) whose spouses are the same age, and seven
income groups. Both the single-headed households and the married households have two
children to whom they gave birth at ages 27 and 29. Their earnings between now and retirement
are assumed to remain fixed in real terms and each household is assumed to have a home, a
mortgage, and non-mortgage housing expenses.

Average remaining lifetime tax rates measure what percentage of remaining lifetime
resources the taxpayer pays to the government, netting all future federal tax payments against
Social Security benefits received and the FairTax prebate. These rates provide a more realistic
estimate of the true effective tax burden than comparisons of taxes versus income for a single
year (as done by the tax panel). These findings indicate that the FairTax entails either a
significant or a substantial reduction in the remaining lifetime tax rates of all of our stylized
households. For example, the stylized single age 45 household with $35,000 in annual income
pays, on average, 20.7 percent of its remaining lifetime resources to the government under our
current tax system, but only 5.4 percent under the FairTax. The same aged married couple (see
table below) in which both spouses earn $35,000 faces a 21.3 percent current average tax rate,
but only an 11.6 percent average tax rate under the FairTax.

The FairTax benefits retirees who depend mostly on Social Security.

For older, low-income households, the FairTax generates a major reduction in remaining lifetime
taxes. Again, the reason is that the elderly not only continue, under the FairTax, to receive the
same real Social Security benefits, they also receive the FairTax prebate. The average Social
Security benefits for a retired couple living solely on Social Security are $18,776. The FairTax
prebate for this couple is $4,697 which is $381 more than the FairTaxes the couple would have
to pay if they spent the entire $18,776 on taxable consumption.
Let’s look at a single 60-year-old earning $15,000 a year. His or her average remaining
lifetime tax rate falls from 9.8 percent to -28.0 percent! Middle-income and upper-income
seniors also experience lower average lifetime tax rates under the FairTax compared to the
current tax system. High-income seniors experience average remaining lifetime tax rates under
the FairTax of 18.2 percent for singles and 19.3 percent for couples. However, these rates are
significantly lower than what they would experience under the current system: 40.8 percent for
singles and 41.5 percent for couples.
In general, the FairTax offers several other benefits to seniors. The FairTax repeals the
taxation of Social Security benefits and adjusts Social Security indexing to preserve the
purchasing power of seniors. The FairTax ends all record keeping and income tax filings of any
kind for seniors, totally insulating them from the high costs and abusive tactics of tax preparers.
The FairTax repeals the income tax imposed on investment income and pension benefits or IRA
withdrawals. No form of savings or investment is taxed. The beneficiaries and owners of
pension funds, IRAs, and 401(k) plans (with assets of over $11 trillion in 2003) will not have to
pay taxes on these plans upon withdrawal, despite taking an income tax deduction for the
contributions to most of these plans. (For a complete discussion of these benefits, please see
“The FairTax Benefits Seniors,” available at
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/The_FairTax_benefits_seniors_11-7-06.pdf).

The FairTax preserves the overall progressivity of the federal tax burden.
The FairTax not only lowers remaining average lifetime net tax rates, it also maintains and,
indeed, enhances overall progressivity in the tax system. Consider middle-aged married
households. The FairTax average lifetime tax rate is very low – only 1.5 percent – for the couple
with $20,000 in annual earnings, and much higher – 20.5 percent – for the couple with $500,000
in annual earnings. The reduction in the tax rate is proportionately much greater at the lower end
of the earnings distribution than at the high end. In switching to the FairTax, the $20,000-
earning couple experiences an 86 percent cut in their average tax rate, whereas the $500,000-
earning couple experiences a 42 percent cut.

The FairTax: A very progressive long-run outcome

To get another meaningful picture of how persons in various income groups fare under the
FairTax in the aggregate, Dr. Kotlikoff models the dynamic macroeconomic and microeconomic
effects of replacing the income tax system with the FairTax.9
His model considers three income classes within each generation. It compares what the
economy is like under the FairTax versus what it would be like if the current system were to
remain in place. This approach gives a realistic view of the impact of America’s aging
population, coupled with high and growing health and pension benefits that necessitate much
higher payroll taxes, with potentially damaging effects on the U.S. economy. The FairTax offers
a solution to this dismal economic future.
The shift to the FairTax raises marginal labor productivity and real wages over the course
of the century by 18.9 percent and long-run output by 10.6 percent. Moreover, the FairTax
reduces by half the long-run increase in the effective rate of wage taxation needed to pay the
Social Security and health care benefits of an aging population. These macroeconomic gains
have important microeconomic welfare implications. In the long run:
• Low-income households experience a 26.7 percent welfare gain under the FairTax
• Middle-income households experience a 10.9 percent welfare gain
• High-income households experience a 4.7 percent welfare gain
This is a very progressive long-run outcome.

Progressivity also marks the entire transition. Low-income households, which are
initially alive at the time of the reform, whether they are young, middle age, or old, all
experience welfare gains ranging from 8.3 to over 20 percent. Who pays for these gains? The
answer is hardly anyone. The initial rich elderly and rich middle aged, as well as some middle
age/middle-income households are somewhat affected, but their welfare losses are quite small
compared to the welfare gains experienced by the current poor and future generations.
In switching from taxing income to taxing consumption and adding high progressivity via
a rebate, the FairTax introduces many progressive elements into our fiscal system, removes one
very regressive element (the payroll tax), and provides much better incentives to work and save.
Switching to the FairTax raises long-run capital intensity, thus raising long-run real wages by 19
percent compared to the base-case alternative. The reform also generates major welfare gains for
the poorest members of society, including those now retired and those yet to be born.
In short, according to Dr. Kotlkoff’s analysis, the FairTax offers a real opportunity to
improve the U.S. economy’s performance and the well-being of the vast majority of Americans,
regardless of income and when they were born.

The FairTax dramatically improves the U.S. economy.
New economic research shows that the economy fares much better under the FairTax. The
economy as measured by GDP is 2.4 percent higher in the first year and 11.3 percent higher by
the tenth year than it would otherwise be. Consumption increases by 2.4 percent more in the
first year than it would be if the current system were to remain in place. The increase in
consumption is fueled by the 1.7 percent increase in disposable (after tax) personal income that
accompanies the rise in incomes from capital and labor once the FairTax is enacted. By the tenth
year consumption increases by 11.7 percent over what it would be if the current tax system
remained in place, and disposable income will be up by 11.8 percent.
Following the implementation of the FairTax plan, the higher take-home wage provides
an immediate incentive for people to work more. During the first year, this will lead to total
employment growth of 3.5 percent in excess of the baseline scenario, which continues to grow
through year ten such that total employment is 9.0 percent above what it would have been under
the baseline scenario.
The impact on total labor income is even more pronounced, increasing due to both an
increase in after-tax wages and an increase in the number of people working. Total labor income
will rise 27.4 percent in the first year. By year ten, labor income will be over 41 percent higher
than what it would have been under the baseline scenario

The FairTax improves the international competitiveness of American producers.

Today, we have a tax system that remarkably subsidizes foreign-content vehicles, assisting
Korea, Japan, Germany, and others in competing against the American worker. How do we do
so? The U.S. government’s failure to remove the tax on exports (as do the other 29 OECD
nations) creates a large and artificial relative price advantage (estimated to be over 18 percent)
for foreign goods, in both the U.S. market and abroad.11 A recent MIT report states that the U.S.
failure to recognize and confront this problem costs us more than $100 billion in exports
annually.12 In effect, the U.S. tax system is distorting the international marketplace and is
literally moving good jobs out of this country at a devastating and unsustainable pace. The
FairTax remedies this by taxing foreign-produced goods as U.S.-produced goods are taxed and
by exempting exports fully from taxation, thereby restoring a level playing field for U.S. and
foreign-produced goods.

[Ozark]

The FairTax promotes home ownership better than the current system.

Under the FairTax home purchases are more tax advantaged than they are today. For working
Americans, the “true cost” of buying a home goes down. In a nutshell, homes are more
affordable because:
• The majority of homes are used, thus are not taxed.
• The entire house payment (interest and principal) is paid with pretax dollars by every
homeowner, contrasted with the current system’s interest deduction only to itemizers.
• Interest rates no longer bear upstream costs, driving them lower.
• New home prices do not bear taxes and compliance costs imposed upstream.
• Savings and investments needed to buy homes are not taxed multiple times.

Even though the FairTax makes the mortgage interest deduction irrelevant, housing
becomes more affordable and homebuyers have more money with which to purchase their
homes. There are several reasons for this: (1) Most home sales are for used homes, and unlike
today taxpayers use pretax earnings to buy used homes; (2) unlike the current tax regime, the
FairTax does not tax the earnings used to pay mortgage interest. Even if the mortgage interest
deduction offset all income taxes, interest would still be paid with what one has left over after
payroll taxes; (3) mortgage debt is paid at a lower interest rate since the FairTax lowers the
interest rate of such debt; (4) while a new home is taxed, the FairTax imposes a lower marginal
tax rate on the earnings used to buy the home; (5) unlike the current tax regime, the FairTax fully
untaxes capital gains from the sales of used or new property; (6) the FairTax removes all
embedded tax costs of current construction by untaxing the businesses involved in home
construction and producing building supplies; and (7) the FairTax enables homeowners to save
for a home faster by not taxing savings, unlike today.
In the chart below, we compare how much today’s mortgage interest deduction benefits
the homebuyer relative to the full nontaxation of interest and principal payments on mortgages
under the FairTax by drawing only the most conservative assumptions. To purchase the
$230,000 home mentioned above (assuming a 30-year term and mortgage rate of 6.6 percent),
the prospective homebuyer would have to pay $298,806 in interest in addition to the price of the
home. Since the current system taxes income and payroll, these taxes must be taken into account
when figuring out how much the homebuyer would have to earn over the lifetime of the loan to
pay the loan off. Taking these taxes into account, our homebuyer would have to earn $633,660
to completely pay off the loan.

The FairTax simplifies tax compliance, thereby reducing tax evasion.

Several factors bear upon compliance – both fraud and non-fraud – from the scholarly research.
The most important are the number of taxpayers, marginal tax rates, the complexity of the
system, the number of decisional junctures (opportunities for each taxpayer), transparency or the
risk of detection, the magnitude of punishment if caught, non-financial motivation to cheat
(including perceptions of unfairness), and enforcement resources and safeguards in place.
Research reported above shows that the FairTax dramatically lowers marginal tax rates.
Lower rates, all other things being equal, imply lower evasion because the benefits from evasion
decline while the costs of evasion remain comparable. However, precisely because of the larger
base and lower marginal tax rates, the benefit from lawful tax avoidance or illegal tax evasion
under the FairTax is much less at the margin relative to either the current system or competing
alternative tax systems that have higher marginal tax rates.

Virtually any sales tax would reduce the number of points of collection (and
enforcement) dramatically; the FairTax reduces them by about 80 percent (145 million to 25
million) because individuals no longer have to file annual returns. The Government
Accountability Office, among others, has specifically identified the negative relationship
between compliance costs and the number of focal points for collection. Virtually any sales tax
would concentrate the lion’s share of revenue collection to fewer than ten percent of retailers,
further simplifying collection and enforcement. Any sales tax would reduce form and filing
complexity from today’s Rube Goldberg contraption to a simple sales tax return, largely
completed by point-of-purchase software.
Perception of the fairness of the tax system is increasingly regarded as an important
consideration. Studies have persuasively shown that attitudes are important determinants of
compliance. Under the FairTax, as the costs of compliance shrink and the perceived fairness of
the tax system increases, some of the hostility to the tax system will decline.

What is the FairTax Plan?

The FairTax Plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an
integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal
taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue replacement, and, through companion
legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment. This nonpartisan legislation (HR 25/S 1025) abolishes all federal
personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and
self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax – administered primarily
by existing state sales tax authorities. The IRS is disbanded and defunded. The FairTax taxes us only on what we
choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and
intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system




Once again :   Decker is a bloodsucking Tax Lawyer, who makes a living out of people having  problems with the current tax code.

So Do any of you on GetBig really think Decker would be for a new Fair Tax system, that would do away with individuals and businesses having to file taxes, and needing his services ?

I think even the dumbest of the dumb can figure this one out, the answer is HELL NO ! ! ! 




Decker the Tax Lawyer does not want you to watch these :

 http://easylink.playstream.com/fairtax/RonPaul-FairTax.wvx

and

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8



 Ron Paul

Yes      "I'll vote for the FairTax if it comes up.."  http://easylink.playstream.com/fairtax/RonPaul-FairTax.wvx

[Ozark]

Democrat Mike Gravel - On Fair Tax

Good Video

[Ozark]

watch this :

 Mike Gravel - Plan to Fix the Tax Structure

[Ozark]

Ron Paul on taxes

[Decker]

Ozark, either you are going to address the math that shows the Fair Tax to be a flat tax scam that hurts the poor and middle class or you're going to continue posting irrelevant shit based on cooked numbers.

What's it going to be?

We know these things to be true about the Flat/Fair Tax Scam:

1.  The Fair Tax assumptions INCLUDE sales tax the government pays to itself.  That's double dipping aka a Ponzi Scheme.  For the moment, the true rate of taxation is 31% and not 23%

2.  It is extremely likely that the IRS will still exist with more work than ever before b/c of this "transparent and simple tax" (See Reply #122 in this thread)

3.  The true Fair Sales Tax is 38%.  As an inclusive sales tax, the tax is 30% on purchases of all services and all new products - Sec 1 (b) (2).  The Bill requires that the NST be printed on the cash register receipt - Sec 510.  You buy an Item.  The receipt states: "$1.00 Item", "$0.30 NST", "$1.30 Total".

I've shown you the questionable math and faulty reasoning your Fair Tax Scam is based on:

--The Gov counts the taxes it pays to itself as "income" even though you claim it's a revenue-neutral tax.  That's what we in the real world call a Ponzi Scheme.

--The Laffer Paper you posted admits that the actual Rate of Tax is 30% (see page 5) then it engages in the same irrelevant comparison with Income tax.  Apples and oranges my friend.

Why should I believe you about the Fair Tax?  You've used obviously cooked numbers and methodology....You really believe that an inclusive Flat Tax is not inclusive and does not have the regressive effects of all flat taxes.  You really believe no federal system for audit or enforcement will be necessary.  You really believe that, after cutting everybody's taxes and paying out almost half a trillion dollars in prebates, there will be no shortfall in Tax Revenue to the Government?

I have to say, you sure sound like a first class rube to me.

[Ozark]

The following is a list of professional and university economists, that endorse the FairTax Plan.

(Decker wants you to believe they are either stupid, or have an ulterior motive )

Donald L. Alexander
Professor of Economics
Western Michigan University
Wayne Angell
Angell Economics
Jim Araji
Professor of Agricultural
Economics
University of Idaho
Ray Ball
Graduate School of Business
University of Chicago
Roger J. Beck
Professor Emeritus
Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale
John J. Bethune
Kennedy Chair of Free
Enterprise
Barton College
David M. Brasington
Louisiana State University
Jack A. Chambless
Professor of Economics
Valencia College
Christopher K. Coombs
Louisiana State University
William J. Corcoran, Ph.D.
University of Nebraska at
Omaha
Eleanor D. Craig
Economics Department
University of Delaware
Susan Dadres, Ph.D.
Department of Economics
Southern Methodist University
Henry Demmert
Santa Clara University
Arthur De Vany
Professor Emeritus
Economics and Mathematical
Behavioral Sciences
University of California, Irvine
Pradeep Dubey
Leading Professor
Center for Game Theory
Dept. of Economics
SUNY at Stony Brook
Demissew Diro Ejara
William Paterson University of
New Jersey
Patricia J. Euzent
Department of Economics
University of Central Florida
John A. Flanders
Professor of Business and
Economics
Central Methodist University
Richard H. Fosberg, Ph.D.
William Paterson University
Gary L. French, Ph.D.
Senior Vice President
Nathan Associates Inc.
Professor James Frew
Economics Department
Willamette University
K. K. Fung
University of Memphis
Satya J. Gabriel, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics and
Finance
Mount Holyoke College
Dave Garthoff
Summit College
The University of Akron
Ronald D. Gilbert
Associate Professor of
Economics
Texas Tech University
Philip E. Graves
Department of Economics
University of Colorado
Bettina Bien Greaves, Retired
Foundation for Economic
Education
John Greenhut, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Finance & Business Economics
School of Global Management
and Leadership
Arizona State University
Darrin V. Gulla
Dept. of Economics
University of Georgia
Jon Halvorson
Assistant Professor of
Economics
Indiana University of
Pennsylvania
Reza G. Hamzaee, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics &
Applied Decision Sciences
Department of Economics
Missouri Western State College
James M. Hvidding
Professor of Economics
Kutztown University
F. Jerry Ingram, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics and
Finance
The University of Louisiana-
Monroe
Drew Johnson
Fellow
Davenport Institute for Public
Policy
Pepperdine University
Steven J. Jordan
Visiting Assistant Professor
Virginia Tech
Department of Economics
Richard E. Just
University of Maryland
Dr. Michael S. Kaylen
Associate Professor
University of Missouri
David L. Kendall
Professor of Economics and
Finance
University of Virginia's College
at Wise
Peter M. Kerr
Professor of Economics
Southeast Missouri State
University
Miles Spencer Kimball
Professor of Economics
University of Michigan
James V. Koch
Department of Economics
Old Dominion University
Laurence J. Kotlikoff
Professor of Economics
Boston University
Edward J. López
Assistant Professor
University of North Texas
Franklin Lopez
Tulane University
Salvador Lopez
University of West Georgia
Yuri N. Maltsev, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
Carthage College
Glenn MacDonald
John M. Olin Distinguished
Professor of Economics and
Strategy
Washington University in St.
Louis
Dr. John Merrifield,
Professor of Economics
University of Texas-San
Antonio
Dr. Matt Metzgar
Mount Union College
Carlisle Moody
Department of Economics
College of William and Mary
Andrew P. Morriss
Galen J. Roush Professor of
Business Law & Regulation
Case Western Reserve
University School of Law
Timothy Perri
Department of Economics
Appalachian State University
Mark J. Perry
School of Management and
Department of Economics
University of Michigan-Flint
Timothy Peterson
Assistant Professor
Economics and Management
Department
Gustavus Adolphus College
Ben Pierce
Central Missouri State
University
Michael K. Pippenger, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of
Economics
University of Alaska
Robert Piron
Professor of Economics
Oberlin College
Mattias Polborn
Department of Economics
University of Illinois
Joseph S. Pomykala, Ph.D.
Department of Economics
Towson University
Barry Popkin
University of North Carolina-
Chapel Hill
Steven W. Rick
Lecturer, University of
Wisconsin
Senior Economist, Credit Union
National Association
Paul H. Rubin
Samuel Candler Dobbs
Professor of Economics & Law
Department of Economics
Emory Univeristy
John Ruggiero
University of Dayton
Michael K. Salemi
Bowman and Gordon Gray
Professor of Economics
University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill
Dr. Carole E. Scott
Richards College of Business
State University of West
Georgia
Carlos Seiglie
Dept. of Economics
Rutgers University
John Semmens
Economist
Phoenix College
Arizona
Alan C. Shapiro
Ivadelle and Theodore Johnson
Professor of Banking and
Finance
Marshall School of Business
University of Southern
California
Dr. Stephen Shmanske
Professor of Economics
California State University,
Hayward
James F. Smith
University of North Carolina-
Chapel Hill
Vernon L. Smith
Economist
W. James Smith
Dean of Liberal Arts and
Sciences and Professor of
Economics
University of Colorado at
Denver
John C. Soper
Boler School of Business
John Carroll University
Roger Spencer
Professor of Economics
Trinity University
Daniel A. Sumner, Director,
University of California
Agricultural Issues Center
and the Frank H. Buck, Jr.,
Chair Professor,
Department of Agricultural and
Resource Economics,
University of California, Davis
Curtis R. Taylor
Professor of Economics and
Business
Duke University
Robert Vigil
Analysis Group, Inc.
John H. Wicks, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Department of Economics
University of Montana
F. Scott Wilson, Ph.D.
Canisius College
Mokhlis Y. Zaki
Professor of Economics
Emeritus
Northern Michigan University






Democrat Mike Gravel - On Fair Tax

Mike Gravel - Plan to Fix the Tax Structure

Ron Paul on taxes

Dave Ramsey Supports the Fair Tax

John Stossel speaks to the Fair Tax Rally

Ken Hoagland explains the Fair-Tax Initiative.

So which it is Decker Dummy, are these  people who endorse the Fair Tax idiots too ?




And dont forget,
  Decker is a bloodsucking Tax Lawyer, who makes a living out of people having  problems with the current tax code.

So Do any of you on GetBig really think Decker would be for a new Fair Tax system, that would do away with individuals and businesses having to file taxes, and needing his services ?

I think even the dumbest of the dumb can figure this one out, the answer is HELL NO ! ! ! 



Ron Paul

Yes      "I'll vote for the FairTax if it comes up.."  http://easylink.playstream.com/fairtax/RonPaul-FairTax.wvx

Vote for Ron Paul