Great local FairTax news coverage
Posted by BrianResponding to an email from a viewer, WHNT interviewed Huntsville’s own tireless FairTax advocate, Chuck Bailey, about, what else, the FairTax. It was a good interview with no editorializing or judicious cutting room antics to skew the message. Click on the link titled “Good Question: Issue of The Fair Tax” just above the image of Ben Franklin.
Related content:
February 7th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Noting that this is a television station in Alabama - one of the states that Gov. Huckabee won Super Tuesday. Is it any wonder? What with folks like these and Gov. Huckabee’s advocacy of the FairTax ( http://snipr.com/irsgone ).
The FairTax is THE single most important policy position in this election. Research findings explain why:
The FairTax rate of 23 percent on a total taxable consumption base of $11.244 trillion will generate $2.586 trillion dollars – $358 billion more than the taxes it replaces [BHKPT] ( http://snipurl.com/whatratewks ).
The FairTax has the broadest base and the lowest rate of any single-rate tax reform plan [THBP] ( http://snipurl.com/baserate ).
Real wages are 10.3 percent, 9.5 percent, and 9.2 percent higher in years 1, 10, and 25, respectively than would otherwise be the case [THBNP] ( http://snipurl.com/realwages ).
The economy as measured by GDP is 2.4 percent higher in the first year and 11.3 percent higher by the 10th year than it would otherwise be [ALM] ( http://snipurl.com/econbenes ).
Consumption benefits [ALM] ( http://snipurl.com/econbenes ) :
• Disposable personal income is higher than if the current tax system remains in place: 1.7 percent in year 1, 8.7 percent in year 5, and 11.8 percent in year 10.
• Consumption increases by 2.4 percent more in the first year, which grows to 11.7 percent more by the tenth 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 10th year, consumption increases by 11.7 percent over what it would be if the current tax system remained in place, and disposable income is up by 11.8 percent.
Over time, the FairTax benefits all income groups. Of 42 household types (classified by income, marital status, age), all have lower average remaining lifetime tax rates under the FairTax than they would experience under the current tax system [KR] ( http://snipurl.com/kotcomparetaxrates ).
Implementing the FairTax at a 23 percent rate gives the poorest members of the generation born in 1990 a 13.5 percent improvement in economic well-being; their middle class and rich contemporaries experience a 5 percent and 2 percent improvement, respectively [JK] ( http://snipurl.com/kotftmacromicro ).
Based on standard measures of tax burden, the FairTax is more progressive than the individual income tax, payroll tax, and the corporate income tax [THBPN] ( http://snipurl.com/lessregress ).
Charitable giving increases by $2.1 billion (about 1 percent) in the first year over what it would be if the current system remained in place, by 2.4 percent in year 10, and by 5 percent in year 20 [THPDB] ( http://snipurl.com/moregiving ).
On average, states could cut their sales tax rates by more than half, or 3.2 percentage points from 5.4 to 2.2 percent, if they conformed their state sales tax bases to the FairTax base [TBJ] ( http://snipurl.com/staterates ).
The FairTax provides the equivalent of a supercharged mortgage interest deduction, reducing the true cost of buying a home by 19 percent [WM] ( http://snipurl.com/homebenes ).
ALERT: Kotlikoff refutes Bruce Bartlett’s shabby critiques of the FairTax ( http://snipr.com/bbrebuke ).
February 12th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Actually, Fairtax does have some great points — if it worked. How wonderful it would be to not have and IRS!
The present system of IRS and FICA screws earned income — work — by taxing it almost 300% higher tax rates, than cap gains and dividends.
But what if Fairtax didn’t work? What if, for example, half of the money it says it can collect, is impossile to collect? WOuld then the fairtax have to be 46%?
And if so — if the Fairtax has to be much higher than 23% — what would a 46% sales tax do to new home sales? Would people still buy a 300K new home, if it taxes made it 450K? Would people still buy a new 30,000 car, if it cost them 45,000?
Do you know that fairtax taxes the federal government, to pay for the federal government?
Neal Boortz wrote “The federal government itself will become a major taxpayer” (Page 148 in his Fair Tax Book,)
Tax the federal government to pay for the federal government. ??
Isn’t that a bit like me, pretending I can pay myself 10,000 to cut my own grass? I can write the check, I can even deposit the check. And I can do this every day. But at the end of the month, I don’t have 300,000 dollars.
Fair tax advoates want to claim the government “will become a major taxpayer” — but it can’t possibly be so. And the REASON fair tax has to pretend to tax the federal government —they need to show, on paper, that they can collect 2.3 trillion in taxes.
So Fair tax would have to be higher than 23% to remain revenue neutral, just for this one fallacy.
Are there any other fallacies?
Fairtax can only work IF it gets people to pay 460 billion in taxes — on their health care costs. People who get heart bypass surgery, cancer surgery — people who are in nursing home. Famlies fighting leukemia and other expensive illnesses will get incredily hard by the “fairtax”.
One family, who has a child with leukemia — could get a 40,000 SALES tax.
One nursing home patient, who gets by on her social securty — would get a sales tax of 25,000 a year — plus more tax for any other medical costs.
One cancer patient, with surgery, chemo, and radiation, could have 50,000 in “sales taxes”.
So you will have the absurdity of a person who is actually taxed MORE sales tax than they have income.
Therefore, one way or another — these patients will get exemptions, either defacto exemptions — by not paying it. Or dejure exemptions - by getting an official exemption.
EIther way, the Fairtax can’t possibly collect 460 billion-dollars from these folks.
Most likely, the outcry from even attempting to tax an 80 year old stroke victim in a nursing home, would result in Congress exempting all health care cost from the “fair” tax.
Fair tax has to get 150 billion in taxes — from people as a tax on their rent.
Fair tax has to get 150 billion by taxing people who buy new cars — and pretend that new car sales won’t drop because of the high taxes.
Fair tax has to pretend it can collet 200 billion by taxing people who buy new houses — and pretend the huge tax on new homes wont diminish sales.
Group after group will scream bloody murder — and get exemptions.
So with all these inevitable exemptions — Fairtax rate would have to be 60-80%.
February 18th, 2008 at 6:49 am
Good Job Mark,
Once again, you come to a website and throw numbers around like a teenager who was just given a new cell phone. Of course, once again you don’t address EMBEDDED TAXES, inclusive vs. exclusive, and to be quite honest sound much like most of the socialists running this country. A bit of advice for you Mark…..sometimes it’s better not to say anything about what you don’t know then open your mouth and remove all doubt.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Rob, funny how you didn’t, can’t dispute, the fact that Fairtax pretends that the federal government ITSELF will be a “major taxpayer”
If you don’t understand that the federal government by defintition, by the rule of math, can NOT pay itself 400 cents, much less 400-600 billion.
Fairtax is right — it says it several times — only people pay taxes. But then it conned you well meaning folks, and you didn’t notice the ace up their sleeve…
Neal Boortz wrote on page 148 “The federal government ITSELF will become a MAJOR taxpayer”.
Uh — tell us Boortz, aka the man behind the curtain in Oz, I thought you said only people pay taxes — duh - how comes you gotz da gubbmit payind de taxes?
NOte to Neal and his follower - sorry, your king has no clothes. And the government can’t pay itself 400 billion any more than I can.
And thats just the START of the absurdity.
That farce ALONE would make the real fairtax rate 35-40 percent.
Rob, why don’t you just focus your little mind on ONE question — just one. How the hello can Fairtax get the government to pay itself 400-600 billion? Duh? Don’t they have to WRITE the checks TO themselves?
And explain why Boortz says only PEOPLE pay taxes - but then says - “the federal government itself will become a MAJOR taxpayer” Page 148 Rob, near the bottom of page. Plus, he says many places the gov pays the tax. Thats just the most clearly articulated.
The people who claim there are these huge “savings” from embedded taxes are the same hucksters and that said you can tax the government to pay the government. Remember that.
There might BE embedded taxes — but getting rid of them can’t lower the price by 22 percent.
The embedded taxes are FICA and CORP taxes. My family business is typical, it pays LESS than 2 percent of total sales toward FICA. Actually less than 1 percent.
But its not 22, not anything close.
We don’t pay corp income taxes. We don’t save on compliance cost — our book keeper is way busy anyway.
You math wizards have said “well your employees don’t have to pay income tax anymore, look at the money you will save.
Hello — THEY save it. Not us. We the business have to pay them just the same. So thats not embedded to us. We can’t pass on savings we didn’t get.
You claim the employees “keep their whole paycheck” — well good. But if you pass along THEIR income tax and FICA savings — they don’t get to keep it, do they?
Either the employee keeps their paycheck, or not. Make up your mind. Don’t give those savings to the employee - and then give it to the customer too.
And your math is way off anyway. The employee would have to give ALMOST ALL THEIR PAY to the customer to save 22 percent, not just their FICA. Its just goofy as heck
Thats the fallacy of the embedded cost — you folks are counting (and exagerrating) the cost, and saying prices can drop by that much. But then you are saying the government will be a major taxpayer, so Im not surprised./
A presidental commission has looked into a consumption tax and said it would have to be 57 percent — not 23.
Want to know WHY the presidental commission came up with 57?
Here is a clue — they didnt PRETEND to tax the government to PAY for the government. Thats why.
And the Presidental Commission didn’t even study what crazy impact the 57 percent sales tax would have. But anyone should figure out that a new house which sold for 400,000 would now have to charge 650,000.
You would pretty much destroy the new home market. Not many people want to pay or finance 650K for a house that would cost 400K.
And what happens as you destroy markets? To keep the same revenue — the tax rate WOULD HAVE TO GO UP.
SO a 57 percent sales tax — IS OPTIMISTIC START
. After that idiot high tax destroys the new home market, the tax rate would have to be 65 percent. Then a 65 precent sales tax would destroy the new car market.
That would make the tax rate 80 percent on what ever is left.
How do you charge renters an 80 percent sales tax?
How do you charge cancer patients an 80 percent sales tax?
ANsewr — you dont. SO the rate would have to go up on everything else.
Im not kidding, if this absurdity were passed, there would have to be exemptions upon exemptions — just to save the economy. And the tax rate would have to be absurdly high.
Fairtax won’t pass, darn it. I really wish it would, I would LOVE to see the above take place. I would laugh my head off.
But the people who lead this movement know its a crock, and aren’t about to have real hearings on it — or try to get it to pass.
This is something Boortz and Norquist have dreamed up to get money and attention. THe LAST thing they want is for it to pass, and be exposed. They don’t even want real hearings on it. They know that business men would be called and the whole thing exposed as utter nonsense.
You folks have fun playing with your magic beans.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Damn Mark, how about pulling up your skirt and really showing us what you’re made of? Geez, where to start, okay….. Who is Boortz? You sound like you may have some deep seeded love for this person or persons. As I can see, you didn’t adress any of my questions, just more babble and bedwetting, someday you will want to go change your sheets, then you will realize their is already a way to collect “federal taxes”. Retailers do it everyday through state taxes. So, in closing, I could only hope you would have a rectal cranial inversion and begin to see the light…….till then, you might want to start wearing depends……
March 20th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
You ask me who Boortz is — are you mental? He wrote “The Fairtax Book” which caused 99% of the attention this farce has gotten so far.
Who is Boortz?
Boortz is the Pied Piper of a bunch of fools, playing his double talk in his book and radio show.
Boortz is the guy that wrote “The federal government itself will become A MAJOR taxpayer”.
The government CAN pay a major part - or ANY part — of its own taxes to itself. Thats just a farce. When the government writes itself a check — it has to cover the check, SO its not INCOME to the government — its a FARCE.
Yet Fairtax has this absurdity - THATS how it can say the tax rate is 23%. Without taxing the government (which is a farce) a sales tax rate would have to be over 50&