Replace All Federal Taxes on Income with the Fair Tax Act , HR 25 and S 122

A John Stossel aaricle that mentions the FairTax!!

A John Stossel aaricle that mentions the FairTax!!http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/lower-and-simplify-taxes.html

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by norwegianwood on April 22, 2010 at 11:29pm

Wish he would have expounded a bit more, but thanks for sharing the article. Maybe as a result some people will decide to check out the details of the Fair Tax a bit further.

P

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Schaff on April 23, 2010 at 5:47am

norwegianwood, You can always enter comments and point out the benefits!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by norwegianwood on April 23, 2010 at 9:10pm

Ah! Did the site allow for comments? Let me go back and check it out. I can't believe I didn't even LOOK to see if they offered that.

Pati

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by norwegianwood on April 23, 2010 at 9:56pm

Done. Who is DH? Anybody know? They did an EXCELLENT job with regards to the Fair Tax in the comment section! Awesome!

Pati

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by norwegianwood on April 24, 2010 at 2:39pm

Simply want to bump this back up the column on the main page. Imagine if Stossel's site got hundreds, if not THOUSANDS, of responses from our 7400+ FTN members to that article! One would think he would HAVE to respond to such an onslaught in some fashion...come on people. Go to the link and respond! All those readers of Stossel's column ALONE should be insentive enough!

Pati

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nancy L. Gatchel on April 23, 2010 at 7:14pm

Good article. I believe John Stossel supports the Fair Tax. His primary concern is that other fed taxes wouldn't be eliminated. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's his thinking.

In my humble opinion, HR 25 needs to be passed with companion legislation abolishing the 16th and every other single form of federal taxation, enumerated. And it should be passed as stand alone bill, period. I know I'll hear "they won't do that!" ('you can't get there from here' response) But I believe that can happen, especially as our economic climate worsens.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by chiefcook on April 23, 2010 at 8:55pm

Have you read HR-25 The Fair Tax Act of 2009? The vast majority of the people are not aware of the change in this bill. The last Section was added. It puts in place a sunset clause. If the 16th amendment is not repealed within 7 years, the Fair Tax is repealed and the income tax code is put back in place.

The income taxes are all repealed with the Fair Tax. The repeal of the 16th amendment requires not only the Congress to pass a bill and Pres sign it, but it must also be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by norwegianwood on April 24, 2010 at 4:33pm

since you're the expert chiefcook, please examine my response to a poster who directed questions to me in the comment section on the above link. Please, if I have something wrong in my response, CORRECT me!

(I am norwegianwood there too. The poster's name was Dutchman3)

Here's my response to him:

Dutchman3
Yes I have read HR 25. With regards to the implicit tax in 801-806, currently the institutions providing such already 'impose' implicit taxes in their 'costs for services,' since they pay their employees managing said accounts and therefore, they pay the current 'embedded' FICA tax..which translates into the cost of their 'fees for services' anyway. The same is true with regards to your argument on paying double taxation for your social security. The fact of the matter is that because ALL businesses wrap their costs--to include FICA for their employees every step of the way--into the final price you pay at the register, you are already paying those taxes again! More to the point, since there is no 'lock-box' or 'special account' for the collection of SS or medicare revenue; it isn't as if you pay ONLY into that account ..it's ALL part of the 'general fund' and has always been treated as such. In either scenario, you are paying into the general fund and you are paying those FICA dollars every time you purchase an item because corporations do NOT pay those costs, but transfer them on as 'costs' to the consumer. IF it makes you feel better, given that Senior Citizens are only about 1/3 of the US population, consider YOUR actual dollars being applied ONLY to that 2/3 of the US budget NOT associated with SS/Medicare revenues. With regards to the costs to foreign companies doing business here in the US, again, those costs are CURRENTLY paid by those foreign businesses BUT at great cost for compliance officers and accountants with the current system of FICA on all of their employees...this eliminates those compliance costs from those businesses, so, again, you have no argument. With regards to your ridiculous claim that the amount in offshore accounts is in the 1.6 trillion range: The claim I made comes from the 2000 Merrill Lynch & Gemini Consulting Study World Wealth Report-cited in Boortz' book- "estimates that one third of the wealth of the world's 'high-net-worth- individuals is held in offshore accounts." And that is in the year 2000! The figure at that time was 11 trillion, so estimates now are in the 12 -13 trillion range. I did say 'back home' when I intended to say 'back here'...Otherwise, I did not state that it was all US wealth, but that HERE is where that money would come. I believe that to be the case. Given that the consumption tax basically replaces the current level of embedded FICA taxes on fees for maintaining these accounts here in the US, and there would be no ADDITIONAL taxes on top of those tax-embedded-fees, the result will be better tax advantages here. Add to that there will no longer be the lobbying and accountant fees associated with hiding/sheltering those monies..the savings will be remarkable! With regards to free-loaders and changes in spending habits, those are variables always in flux, but I will suggest to you that ONLY those with 'legal' documentation of citizenship will be getting the prebate, and it's based, again, on number in household, NOT income, meaning that the amount is not specifically geared toward any group of people with any particular 'tendencies'. The fact that illegals might find it less viable to come to the US illegal, since their cost of living WILL be adversely affected by the consumption tax, might limit the number willing to come illegally. And if not, at least those who do come illegally are participating to fund the infrastructure they strain. With regards to the intimation that the lower number of cosponsors this Congress versus last has ANYTHING to do with the legislation 'losing popular support', it's a bogus argument. It has MORE to do with the type of legislator that wants to return power back to the people and those who want to retain it in Washington, and the number of 'freshman' Congressional Reps who 'tend' to do what the 'party hardliners' tell them to do until they 'get their own legs,' than it does with popularity of the ACTUAL legislation. More importantly, it is US, the PEOPLE, who will MAKE it an issue TO support. I would argue IF legislators don't like it...it's likely because they don't want to give up their lobbyist monies or ability to manipulate the economy and the taxpayer at their whim.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by chiefcook on April 24, 2010 at 7:18pm

Great response!

You will note that Dutchman III tries to throw a bunch of unrelated thoughts into his posts. I believe I have had a number of posts with someone on another site in the past. He tries to overwhelm all the other posters by confusing the issue by going in multiple directions at the same time.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by norwegianwood on April 24, 2010 at 11:09pm

Yes. I was initially overwhelmed by the questions, but after I looked them up and then thought about them, it seemed to me that he MUST know this and is simply trying to confuse the reality with what 'appear' to be a LOT of separate issues, when they're not.

As long as I didn't get anything 'wrong' in my response. I don't want to provide him with an argument because I was incorrect in my argument.

P