Comments (15)

• Bill

  Would you expect crowds of tax payers to show their support for the continued theft of 3 trillion per year and growing? Tax payers know that all you are doing is dressing up the hog (The federal budge is way beyond a pig.).

  And tax payers know that it is only going to get worse.

  Published: April 17, 2007 10:12 PM

• billwald

  Recent IRS release noted that over 40% of income is off the books thus if the fair tax was fair then the govt's take would double? I don't want a fair tax if I can keep half my income off the books.

  Under the fair tax, would it be easier or harder to keep transactions off the books? Would not the black market grow?

  Published: April 19, 2007 7:01 PM

• Mark Brabson

  Seems to be plenty of support for it over in the ranks of the LP. Makes me sick the mindless fawning over this tax that is going on in Libertarian ranks.

  If you are going to have one single tax, make it an income tax, one proportional rate from $0.00 to infinite. Tax earned income, interest, accrued capital gains and dividends, don't tax estates, inheritances and gifts. Everybody would pay tax quarterly, due dates being April 15th, July 15th, October 15th and January 15th. It would be a truly painful process, just like paying taxes should be.

  Published: April 19, 2007 8:18 PM

• jedge

  Perhaps you missed the huge rallies in Atlanta (4500 filled the Gwinnett Convention Center,over 2,000 couldnt get in). Or the Orlando Rally approximately 10,000 by some counts(or 7,000 according to the police) in front of City Hall. Next we have the upcoming rallies in SC on May 15th and in Iowa on August 10th. The FT grassroots is only growing.

  Published: April 21, 2007 3:41 PM

• John

  How would you like to pay double Income taxes and triple Social Security and Medicare taxes? If you enact the Fair Tax, we all will.

  The Fair Tax Act creates a double Income taxation on all the savings of the entire population of people who worked and accumulated after-tax savings under the current tax code, then retire and spend under the Fair Tax. It is true for the Roth savers and it is true for any other after-tax accounts. This issue involves millions of people and billions of dollars potentially making the Fair Tax fair only to those who never worked or saved under the current code.

  Under the current system, after-tax savings accounts have already paid Income, Social Security (SS), and Medicare tax so no additional tax is due on funds spent from those savings. No SS and Medicare tax is due on unearned income from pension and SS payments, dividends, or interest, or upon spending funds from after-tax savings accounts. Many people have planned asset accumulation requirements and committed to retirement on such a scenario.

  When switching to the Fair Tax, many people have already worked for years and paid Income, SS, and Medicare taxes under the old code and on nearly all the funds in their after-tax savings accounts. Everyone in this situation will pay these taxes once again on funds spent from those savings. This is not peculiar to a Roth account, as many are quick to point out; it is true for any after-tax account such as brokerages, CDs, checking, savings bonds, money markets, mutual funds, and even money in the piggy bank on the dresser. These are all after-tax dollars that will be fully taxed for Income, SS, and Medicare for the second time at a 30% add-on rate when spent, creating double taxation for people in this situation – nearly the entire population.

  Funds in a 401k, Traditional IRA, or dollars in any pre-tax account were not subject to Income tax when deposited in the account, but the individual paid SS and Medicare taxes on these funds before they were deposited. People spending funds from these accounts under the Fair Tax will fairly pay Income tax included in the 30% rate as the funds are spent. They will also pay SS and Medicare taxes for the second time, but at a higher rate including both the employee and employer’s portion, thus creating, in effect, triple taxation. Again, this applies only to those folks who saved under the current plan and then spend under the Fair Tax – a fair number of folks

  The double and triple taxation issue will unfairly affect only a subset of the population. The largest effect is on the retirees and Baby Boomers who are currently in or approaching retirement. It will similarly affect any younger person who has accumulated any amount of savings under the current system who then spends it under the Fair Tax system. Only the people who have no savings and have not worked before the time of transition will be unscathed by this issue.

  In addition, it is important to realize that the Fair Tax imposes Income tax, SS tax, and Medicare tax on every dollar spent from pensions, SS payments, and any savings. The SS and Medicare tax on these funds is a completely new tax not currently collected. Income tax, not currently collected on a portion of SS payments and the after-tax portion of pensions, is also a new tax. While this is an ongoing new tax under the Fair Tax plan that applies to everyone, it places a sudden and dramatic tax increase on those who enter retirement near the time of transition.
  
  The poverty level rebate provided in the Fair Tax plan and the market related offsets, often mentioned in support of this plan, might compensate those who work, save, retire, and spend entirely under the new system since they will pay taxes only one time, when they spend. The Act does not guarantee the market offsets argued by proponents of the Act. Only the taxes are guaranteed.

  In contrast, there is no provision to compensate for double and triple taxation on some or the new taxes as described above that will be imposed by enacting the Fair Tax. Millions, including the people who might cause this tax code change, will have worked and saved under the old plan, accumulating billions, and then will retire and spend under the new plan. They, and only they, will pay taxes multiple times. The government will love them for it.
  

  Published: April 22, 2007 12:46 PM

• Steven Smith

  Why is Neal Boortz, the alleged "FairTax"'s biggest booster, so avid for it instead of straight-forward income tax repeal per his fall 2003 revelation of then recently reading Frank Chodorov's 1954 book The Income Tax: Root of All Evil for the first time? & why is he so blithely unconcerned about the consequences of 1 tax netting the federal government the same revenue all its taxes now take from the over burdened private domestic economy? specially considering the new complex bureaucracy integral to administering the tax.

  Published: April 22, 2007 9:45 PM

• David Chester

  The only fair tax is not really a tax at all but instead it is a return for the occupation of a part of our national heritage, the land and the national infrastructure that is invested in it. Anyone who has hold of the opportunities offered by valuable land should pay for the privilidge whether he is using the land or not.

  
  Every other kind of tax is an insult to normal livelihood of those who pay it. With income and purchase and property tax (except for the part on the land) the person who pays for it has less to consume or invest in other benefical parts of the nation. This is like the robin hood situation where some people still think that he was a benefactor because he helped poor people at the cost of the wealthy. But he stole the money to do it in the same way tha uncle sam does today.

  
  There is no fair tax only a fairer way of allowing equal oportunity to be felt and that is by the collection of the rent from the occupation of the ground which is sometimes called LVT or land value taxation which strictly it is not.

  
  Regards, David Chester

  Published: April 23, 2007 9:23 AM

• Ryan

  While I'm in staunch support of the FairTax, I understand and I am concerned about the tax which would be effectively created on (tax-shielded) retirement savings, 401k, wroths, etc. A point in particular however which assuages those concerns is that the price increase on goods and services should be minimal, offset by the elimination of corporate taxes. My retirement plans will change only if the cost of goods increases too much. Mostly, I'm excited about what this plan could do for my children and grandchildren who won't have to suffer this penalty.
  
  
  
  To answer the black market question: under the FairTax I believe something like 5 or 6% of businesses will collect more than 95% of the sales tax. I would imagine its a lot easier to scrutinize and ensure the tax collection of these than a hundred million income earners. Of course no system is perfect and there will always be a black market, but I believe the fear of an unchecked black market is unsubstantiated.
  
  
  
  The argument between sales vs. income vs. property tax is philosophical. Personally I believe any involuntary tax collection (income or property) is evil. It is a penalty against success from hard work. No entity should be able to force someone to surrender their livelihood but a sales tax is voluntary (read Ayn Rand?). You can choose to buy an expensive flat screen television and pay the government lots of money or not.
  
  
  
  Obviously the system isn't perfect. It will still have to be controlled by bureaucracy and corruptible men. However, I think that many detractors to the fair tax want something that is perfect, but can't see the forest for the trees. I mean, are you really ready to defend the current system?

  Published: April 26, 2007 4:56 PM

• johnwk

  Since Neal Boortz is a primary advocate of H.R. 25, the alleged fair tax, I thought it would be interesting to post some of my disagreements with his proposal.

  BOORTZ agrees with a proposal, the alleged fair tax, which proposes to expand Congress’s taxing powers to reach property, real and personal, with a 23 percent tax, while keeping alive Congress’s powers to calculate taxes from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”.

  johnwk disagrees with such an expansion of government’s taxing powers and proposes to limit Congress’s taxing powers as follows:

  “The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money``

  BOORTZ agrees with a proposal, the alleged fair tax, which would create a family consumption allowance.

  The allowance would create a massive and dangerous voting block which would dwarf our existing social security voting block and would likewise be dependent upon a monthly government check for its subsistence. The allowance would open the door for our socialists in Congress like Senator Ted socialist Kennedy, to bribe voters during election time with a promise to increase the allowance to keep themselves in power!

  The family consumption entitlement is also projected to cost approximately $600 BILLION a year, making Hillary Health Care look like chicken feed and would be the largest redistribution program ever created by our government.

  Finally, the family consumption entitlement would be available to people who do not work for a living and are already on the public dole and would be paid for by hard working Americans who are having a hard time meeting their own economic needs.

  johnwk disagrees with the proposed family consumption allowance which is nothing more than a massive and blatant socialistic concept.

  
  BOORTZ agrees with a proposal, the alleged fair tax, which is unconstitutional on its face and would subjugate the intentions for which the rule of apportionment was made part of our Constitution.

  The intentions for which the rule of apportionment was made part of our Constitution are that if imposts, duties [external taxes] and miscellaneous internal excise taxes including those laid upon specifically chosen articles of consumption, which Congress was authorized to lay, were found insufficient to fill the national treasury, and a general tax among the states was found necessary to meet Congress’s exigencies, and especially in a wealth based tax being used as a primary source to fill the national treasury, those states carrying the lion’s share of such a tax would be compensated by a vote in Congress Assembled proportionately equal to their financial contribution___ a vote to be exercised in determining how their money would be spent by Congress ___ representation with proportional obligation, a concept which socialists and our Washington Establishment’s political plum job empire dreads with a passion!

  johnwk disagrees with a proposal, proposing to subjugate the rule of apportionment and further undermine federalism and state’s rights with regard to taxation.

  BOORTZ agrees with a proposal, the alleged fair tax, which is intended to raise existing levels of revenue without any provision to extinguish deficits created by borrowing and make every member of Congress immediately accountable for deficits when they are created. The alleged fair tax, which CIGuy agrees with, is intentionally designed with its revenue neutral feature to protect the existing Washington Establishment’s political plum job empire which is there to redistribute tax revenue taken from tax payers, redistributing that money to tax getters [Congress‘s numerous dependent voting blocks], and in the process those holding these political plum jobs live quite well with their six figure salaries, extravagant heath care benefits and outrageous retirement pensions ___ all paid for by the tax payers __ many of whom can only dream of such benefits and have become the tax slaves for the Washington Establishment and tax getters!

  
  johnwk disagrees with a proposal which is specifically intended to perpetuate the American Taxpayer being kept as a tax slave for a Washington Establishment political plum job empire.

  JWK

  "To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [the H.R. 25 tax] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

  Published: May 4, 2007 8:57 PM

• spfldFT

  The rally last night was a huge success! did anyone notice that the Fair Tax was described by Gov Huckabee during the debate and that if elected that would be one the 1st things he would do.

  Published: May 16, 2007 8:06 AM

• Paul S. Barnes

  Those who oppose the fair tax definitely have not read the fair tax book and must like giving their hard earned money to the politicians to squander on their favorite porkbarrel projects, or giving it to countries who wouldn't wet on America if it were on fire. Wake up folks and smell the roses. would you be against taking your full paycheck home,or would you rather give it to the politicians to squander. I for one would rather keep my money out of the hands of the criminals in Washington. But, I guess, Since your mommy and daddy were liberal Democrats then that makes you a liberal Democrat. Yeah, cannot make a decision on your own. Good luck in life, because you are going to need it.

  Published: May 16, 2007 1:50 PM

• Paul S. Barnes

  Those who oppose the fair tax definitely have not read the fair tax book and must like giving their hard earned money to the politicians to squander on their favorite porkbarrel projects, or giving it to countries who wouldn't wet on America if it were on fire. Wake up folks and smell the roses. would you be against taking your full paycheck home,or would you rather give it to the politicians to squander. I for one would rather keep my money out of the hands of the criminals in Washington. But, I guess, Since your mommy and daddy were liberal Democrats then that makes you a liberal Democrat. Yeah, cannot make a decision on your own. Good luck in life, because you are going to need it.

  Published: May 16, 2007 1:50 PM

• scott

  what if we just go to across the board lottery funding for all government services. much of the lotto infrastructure is in place and has been up and running in many states for years. specific lottos could exist for highway funding, social services education etc. - if lotto funding proved to be inadequate in one area then that would reflect the values of the population and the private sector could then either take over or purhcase the particualar state asset and do whatever with it. there wouldnt be any double or triple taxation, no penalty for a man trying to live and no 'emergency consumption tax increases'.

  the lure of big payouts would keep many people buying the tickets while contribiuting to their favorite government services.

  Published: May 16, 2007 2:17 PM

• scott

  Paul S. Barnes writes....."Those who oppose the fair tax definitely have not read the fair tax book and must like giving their hard earned money to the politicians to squander on their favorite porkbarrel projects,"

  I havent read the fair tax book. I guess you are referring the book that Boortz authored?

  If the 'fair tax' that you are referring to is the tax discussed in the book Boortz authored, how is that going to prevent politicians from squandering hard earned money on porkbarrel
  projects?

  Spending reductions could occur no matter what type of tax is levied.

  And I guess politicians have read the U.S. Constitution over the years.

  Has that prevented unconstitutional legislation or action in the past?

  And as far as the 'Fair' label is concerned, in an earlier post, John states...."it is true for any after-tax account such as brokerages, CDs, checking, savings bonds, money markets, mutual funds, and even money in the piggy bank on the dresser. These are all after-tax dollars that will be fully taxed for Income, SS, and Medicare for the second time at a 30% add-on rate when spent, creating double taxation for people in this situation..."

  If the above is true, does double taxation sound "Fair"?

  Published: May 16, 2007 3:15 PM

• johnwk

  Paul S. Barnes writes....."Those who oppose the fair tax definitely have not read the fair tax book and must like giving their hard earned money to the politicians to squander on their favorite porkbarrel projects,"

  And those who have read the actual text of H.R. 25 know the book panhandles a fairy tale version of H.R.25.

  1) The alleged fair tax does not get rid of taxes calculated from profits, gains salaries, and other “incomes”.

  
  2) The alleged fair tax does not propose to get rid of taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”.

  
  3) None of the co-sponsors of H.R. 25 propose to get rid of taxes calculated from profits, gains salaries and other “incomes”.

  The architects of H.R. 25 have left a very clever loophole in the language of H.R. 25 allowing Congress to continue calculating taxes from profits, gains and other "incomes". This of course would also allow a continuance of the existing misery of record keeping under taxes laid upon “incomes“.

  H.R.25 stipulates the following:

  SEC. 101. INCOME TAXES REPEALED.
  
  SEC. 102. PAYROLL TAXES REPEALED.
  
  SEC. 103. ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES

  Well, isn’t that peachy? But, there is no language in H.R. 25 suggesting to repeal all taxes which may be calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”! Why is this pertinent and ought to cause alarm? To understand this one must study FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), a case decided prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment! The Court upheld an excise tax, the corporation tax law of 1909, which was laid upon the privilege of being a Corporation, and the amount of tax to be paid was calculated from profits and gains realized under the corporate charter granted by government. Although such a tax looks like and quacks like the Marxist “income tax”, it is not a generic “income tax” and is not even suggested to be repealed by the language of H.R. 25!

  If H.R. 25 were adopted, our socialist Congress would have no difficulty gaining public support to use its “excise” taxing power to enact a small excise tax on the “windfall profits” of those evil corporations and then calculate the amount of tax to be paid from their profits, or, how about also laying a windfall profits tax on those evil and wealthy scoundrels in America who make millions of dollars a year in profits by bleeding the poor working people, such as was alleged about Leona Helmsley who they sent to jail for an alleged tax fraud, but who actually contributed more in federal taxes than any twenty average working people in New York!

  .

  If the architects of H.R. 25 were really sincere and determined about ending Marxist taxes calculated from income, then they would have said so in crystal clear language such as:

  “The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money”

  But as it turns out, not one of the co-sponsors of H.R.25 have proposed a companion bill to H.R. 25 with specific language proposing a constitutional amendment to forbid Congress from calculating any tax or burden from “profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money”, and would be necessary to end the misery which now occurs under “income taxation”. What has been proposed is the following clever and empty language:

  
  

  109th CONGRESS
  
  1st Session
  
  H. J. RES. 16
  

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment.

  Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

  
  
  `Article --

  
  `The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.'.

  And what do the architects of H.R. 25 propose within the language of H.R. 25? The language of H.R. 25 merely says that the 16th Amendment “should be repealed”. But if H.R. 25 were adopted, and 10 or 15 years down the road the 16th Amendment by some remote chance is finally repealed by the above proposed language in H. J. RES. 16, Congress still maintains the power to calculate Marxist taxes from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes” under its excise taxing powers, and, the SCOTUS has already upheld such a tax in the FLINT CASE mentioned above!

  H.R. 25 appears to be a clever way to divide the people and distract them from real tax reform such as:

  “The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money”

  The above wording would bring us back to our FOUNDING FATHER’S ORIGINAL TAX PLAN which was created by tax rebels and designed to control the actions of Congress, rather than having Congress control the people

  Regards,

  JWK

  Published: May 20, 2007 11:01 PM