Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Fair Tax package eliminates all Personal and Business income taxes, payroll taxes, AMT, and Death taxes. Due to these eliminations, prices will drop 22 to 25% and then the Fair Tax replaces them all with a revenue neutral federal retail sales tax on new products and services. Consumers will pay about the same as they do now.
American business and American labor should take strong note of the fact that exports are not taxed; thus the Fair Tax will provide a boom to American manufacturing because American products will be 22% lower in price for sale overseas. We can't compete with low wage countries but we can compete with lower taxes on business, products and services made in America. The result is a boom to the economy and a boom to better paying manufacturing jobs in America.
The Fair Tax Legislative package has been well researched and is well supported in the research section of their web site - www.fairtax.org.
Dr. Dale Jorgensen of Harvard University has researched the economic impact of the Fair Tax. Dr. Jorgensen calculates a 10.5% growth in the economy in the first year of the Fair Tax.
http://merrill-bender.redstate.org/story/2005/8/16/102255/046
Mr. P said:I've been supporting this for years, it is simple and FAIR.
1. People will still have to keep records, file income-tax returns, and get audited as the states and some cities will continue to have income taxes. There is no reason whatsoever to think that the states will get rid of their income taxes if the federal income tax is abolished. Quite the contrary, they are likely to view the federal government as co-opting their traditional tax base — the general sales tax. Therefore, the states will just take over the tax base being given up by the federal government — the income tax — and abolish their state sales taxes, which would otherwise come on top of the NRST.
The only way this can be prevented is if the federal government prohibits the states from imposing income taxes at the same time it abolishes the federal income tax, which is probably impossible constitutionally. And if the states keep their sales taxes, the federal government will have to force them to conform to its tax base. Right now, no two states have exactly the same sales-tax systems and none come anywhere close to taxing sales as broadly as contemplated by the NRST.
2. There is a very severe problem of taxing business inputs under a sales tax. These must be exempt from tax in order to avoid cascading — taxes being levied on taxes — which creates serious economic distortions. To avoid this under a NRST, every business, no matter how small, would need some sort of exemption certificate, which would create unlimited opportunities for evasion, or businesses will have to be extensively audited in ways at least as onerous as under the income tax.
3. Services are by their nature much more difficult to tax than goods. For this reason, no state makes any effort to tax more than a few of them. Yet the NRST would tax 100 percent of services, including medical services and government services. Every time you go to the hospital you will have to pay 30 percent on top to the federal government. And local governments will also be taxed by the federal government on services they provide, which will sharply raise property taxes.
4. In order to offset the regressivity of the NRST, it would establish a massive new government entitlement program costing hundreds of billions of dollars that would send rebate checks to every American on a monthly basis. This system would be based on the poverty-level income established by the Census Bureau. People would get 23 percent of this amount annually in 12 monthly installments based on their family status. Quite apart from the massive complexity of this proposal, it would clearly require an enormous enforcement mechanism to avoid fraud and would undoubtedly be manipulated by politicians. It would be very tempting to change the formula to aid the poor and penalize the rich, just as the current tax code does.
5. Every serious analysis has concluded that a NRST would bring about massive evasion. Taxing the spending of drug dealers and others not currently paying income taxes will not come close to compensating for the new evasion opportunities that will be created. Since it is not in the interest of either retailers or consumers to pay the tax, and because all of the revenue is collected at the point of final sale, it will be too easy for tax-free deals to be made with producers and wholesalers.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200505050838.asp
ScreamingEagle said:How would you answer these 5 objections about the Fair Tax?
Hobbit said:I don't have enough room here to deal with all of those objections, which is why Neil Boortz wrote a book called "The Fair Tax Plan." It addresses all these issues and more. You should read it.
There are no short answers to the convoluted questions you posted. The link below will probably answer them all for you though.ScreamingEagle said:I'm just looking for some short version answers. If all you can say is "go read a book" for the answers, then maybe this program is not so simple as it claims and I suspect it will not sell well to the public either.
You'll find many if not all answers here....Dorothy Jubon, the store's manager, said more than 500 people came through the Chapter 11, buying up most of the 700 copies of the book they had ordered. A handful of people were even camped out at the front door when she arrived to open the store at 9 a.m., Jubon said.
ScreamingEagle said:The Fair Tax (HR25, S25) seems to have some advantages over Forbe's Flat tax idea. "The original Sponsor of the Legislation Congressman John Linder of Georgia started in the 106th Congress and has included the Bill in the 109th Congress as HR25. Support continues to grow as more people know the facts about the Fair Tax."
Kathianne said:
The national sales tax would dramatically raise prices of many goods and services. Imagine a couple buying a new house costing, say, $200,000, coughing up an extra $60,000 in sales taxes.
rtwngAvngr said:Of course, many of the anti human communists in our nation will never go for this, because the taxes collected by government are directly tied to consumption and hence, economic growth. Their aim is to destroy our economy and keep power at the same time, quite a pickle in a democratic country, where people care about their jobs, and jobs for their children. Hmm. what to do? What to do?
Mr. P said:Mr. Forbes doesn't seem to understand the Fair Tax either. That $200,000 home includes the
$60,000 dollar tax now and then some. These are called imbedded taxes, it's like that sauce Prego,
it's in there. So, in fact, we wouldn't spend more that $200k for this home and very likely less with the retail sales tax, because the cost of taxes from everyone that touches the home would not be passed on to the final consumer.
ScreamingEagle said:Quite a quandry for the Left alright...since there are TWO proposals on the table to get rid of the old IRS system that chokes our country financially...and BOTH proposals are bound to create a surging economy.
What to do? Probably block them both, be negative, and run another "anti-" campaign as per usual. :coffee3:
However, between the two, I could possibly see some on the left going for the Fair Tax plan because, not only does it have a more PC-friendly name, it will create a new government bureacracy that has the govt handing out checks every month to everybody. I'm sure this is something they could relate to.
Check #1 and #17USViking said:I do not follow this.
If a tax is levied on the contracor's "service",
rather than his "income", what is to keep the
price of this levy from being footed by the
buyer in the end?
rtwngAvngr said:My only concern is that the fair tax will necessitate ironclad government tracking of all retail purchases. Here comes the rf chip inserted into our hands or our heads. The mark of the beast. BOO!
USViking said:I do not follow this.
If a tax is levied on the contracor's "service",
rather than his "income", what is to keep the
price of this levy from being footed by the
buyer in the end?
ScreamingEagle said:Absolutely. Not to mention the tracking of you as well on a monthly basis. And think of the potential for managing society by holding back that rebate check. Buying cigarettes, french fries, or SUVs? No rebate for you sucka.
The Fair tax is fair and it's not a misnomer, you pay tax on what you buy, your choice. Don't buy don't pay, buy little pay little, buy alot pay alot. Pretty simple and very Fair.elephant said:Which one is lower? Which one involves less government in my life?
Also, "Fair Tax" is a terrible misnomer. The only fair tax is an optional one. Just because the government is doing the stealing does not make it fair.
ScreamingEagle said:Absolutely. Not to mention the tracking of you as well on a monthly basis. And think of the potential for managing society by holding back that rebate check. Buying cigarettes, french fries, or SUVs? No rebate for you sucka.
Please.
