If the Fair Tax Act were rewritten to include all the changes suggested in this discussion and beyond, then more people would object to those changes and demand further changes creating more disagreement and therefore would never pass. In the end it no longer would be the Fair Tax that has been written based on $22 million dollars of research by leading economists nationwide.
Continuous tinkering with The Fair Tax Act in an attempt to appease everyone will be as bad as the continuous tinkering that has occurred over the last nearly 98 years with the federal income tax code to appease the thousands of lobbyists on behalf of their big business clients. At some point that type of tinkering has to end before diluting the bill beyond its original purpose. That time is now.
I agree that we need to get the Fairtax passed AS IS as I said to Hank in my eariler post. It is SOOO much better than what we have now.
And that is "your " opnion on what might happen. It does not consider the $22 million opinions of those that conducted the FairTax study.
You didn't read my previous post carefully. I stated to make changes simply to appease those who demand changes will only result in never ending changes which eventually no one will be please. I specifically worded my comment in that manner so as not to include changes in accordance with changes in the law such as I posted in one of my other posts regarding children under two years of age being issued social security numbers.
You conveniently ignore the point in my previous post the Fair Tax Bill was the result of $22 million dollars in research over several years by leading economists throughout the nation and input from those involved in the political process, including the original sponsor John Linder. Are you seriously suggesting the combined knowledge of all these people have less of an understanding of the contents in The Fair Tax Act than you?
It's curious to me you claim to support The Fair Tax but constantly insist at the same time multiple fundamental changes must happen, that would basically gut the bill and be in stark contradiction of all those who conducted the research and wrote the bill, for you to support the legislation.
It has been the contention all along of AFFT not to make such fundamental changes you demand otherwise it is no longer The Fair Tax Act. Note the mission statement on the main page does not including changing the bill. To quote:
"Our mission is to create an online petition and consolidated presence of FairTax supporters/activists nationwide, allowing greater political visibility & strength, as well as networking & educational assistance for FairTax groups throughout the country".
The purpose of FairTaxNation is to advance the Fair Tax cause through networking and education. Your constant criticism of most if not every aspect of the bill does not accomplish these tasks. Clearly from your statements, you do not have the confidence in The Fair Tax required to fulfill the mission statement. Either support the bill or don't participate. It's your choice.
The FT has some serious flaws in areas that were not thought out very well. If you cannot accept proposals that do not change the premise of the FT to improve the product from people who sincerely want to improve the product, then those people will become your enemy and fight your proposal.
Look at the proposal with respect to insurance and how the FT taxes insurance. It taxes the full amount of the premium. However, you can ask for a rebate of those taxes for every insurance claim you filed. How many insurance claims are filed annually probably billions. To illustrate how ill conceived it is, there is no provision in the bill to provide any funding of any organization to administer those refunds. To illustrate how ill conceived it is, If I buy a $1M life insurance policy, then my heirs will get $1M from the insurance company and $300K from the US Government. I can get a term life policy for $1M for around $1000 per year. That would increase to $1300 per year. If I die after the policy is issued I get $300K from government even though I only paid $300.
If we cannot point out flaws in the FT and come up with some sensible solutions to get that passed because it is a take it or leave it. Then it will never be taken.
Anyone who is dissatisfied with significant portions of The Fair Tax after years and millions dollars of research by people who have extensive knowledge on the economics and the legalities is not an ally of The Fair Tax Act. People already fight the Fair Tax because they either also do not like significant portions of the bill or have not bothered to read the bill. They are becoming a decreasing minority. More people are becoming a growing majority of Fair Tax supporters with the bill as it is currently written.
This website's purpose is to network with each other to advance The Fair Tax cause. It is not Fair Tax Nation's purpose to change the bill and criticize otherwise that sentiment would have been reflected in the mission statement.
I can only reiterate the statement I made to Hank. Either support the bill by advancing the cause or don't participate. It's your choice.
I have developed computer systems for over 35 years and understand how they are developed and how they are implemented. I also have been doing taxes for nearly 40 years and understand the tax code well.
People may have spent millions of dollars in the economics and legalities of FT, but it is obvious that they have spent no money and the economists had no background in systems design and what makes a system work.
The reporting of the fairtax to the state as described by the FT video is to add one line on every state tax return to report the FT. From a systems point of view that is completely unauditable. And it only covers 90% of the country.
Not only that, if audit came, then it would need to be done by the state since that is where it is reported. There would be 50 different solutions, not 1 and a business would be responsible to fill out 50 returns probably monthly or 600 tax returns annually.
One of the stated goals of the FT is to reduce compliance costs. How does filing 600 tax returns with 50 sets of rules and potential audits reduce compliance costs. It simply does not.
The authors just did not understand how systems work. They obviously never designed a system and if they did they would have failed the most elementary walkthru of their design.
On the other hand, I pointed out years ago a system design in a 20 page paper that would have one set of rules and that your deposits automatically remove the tax from it and would simplify reporting to almost nothing with easy auditing for over 99% of all businesses and reduce the FT tax rate by .5%.
I did nothing about the FT implementation except using accepted system design principles to reduce cost and complexity and 21st century technologies. In general when presented to my state legislature people, they liked the idea and actually helped to move along the states FT group in that it rebutted one of the major concerns of the opposition that of compliance.
Compliance for the FT is a huge criticism because the real opposition uses that to inflate the FT rate. And when they inflate the FT rate, you lose more and more potential supporters. But you have no argument about compliance because compliance is not addressed in the book or the bill.
So instead of the FT saying let's strengthen compliance, collection and auditing so we can show that indeed we can collect 99% of the tax expected and thus provide a credible argument about why the 23% rate is correct and that the arguments for 50% are false, instead you refuse to accept the criticism. In order to advance FT, you have to be honest about its shortcomings and fix it so the FT is better.
FT is a great idea, with some sound economic reasoning behind it. Its potential to transform the US economy is enormous. But if you refuse to strengthen the bill, address the legitimate criticisms, then FT will only remain an idea.
I am interested in advancing the FT that can pass, not a bill that cannot pass. The biggest hurdle to FT is FT supporters who refuse to admit that there are better ways to implement certain areas of the FT. The next biggest hurdle to FT is FT supporters who thinks it is wrong to design changes that will reduce the FT rate.
So Dan, I must ask. Does it make sense to you to receive a $300K check from the government for when your $1M life insurance policy is cashed? Explain to me as a person advocating to a Congressman why this part of the FT bill makes sense and is reasonable.
I say you have a choice to go blindly forward with no improvements and alienate people who see the problem differently but like the idea or listen to the change proposals and work to strengthen the bill, make it better, to find common ground. It's your choice.
You claim the Fair Tax is a great idea. What have you done to advance the bill? Have you joined a local Fair Tax group to educate people in your community? Have you become a District, State or Regional Director? Have you conducted meeting or seminars for those who are not familiar with The Fair Tax? Do you network with other Fair Tax supporters from other parts of your state or the country to exchange ideas to grow Fair Tax support? These methods are the purpose of The FairTaxNation website. Do you expect the thousands who are registered at this website not to advance the Fair Tax cause simply because of your criticisms?
FairTaxNation is the wrong venue for citing what you believe to be flaws in the bill. You are wasting your's and everyone else's time at this website by continually pointing out what flaws you perceive in the bill. No one at FairTaxNation can help you work to rewrite the bill since it is not the function of this website! What part of this basic concept don't you understand?
Instead you should contact Aaron Schutte at the Americans For Fair Taxation headquarters or contact the FairTax America Support Team(FAST) to discuss your concerns and make the changes you believe are necessary. Go to the Fairtax.org website to find AFFT leaders who can listen to your concerns, address this issue and have the authority to work with Congressman Woodall to make the necessary changes.
I have. I sent the paper into Fairtax.org And I have talked to Aaron Schutte.
The tax collection process costs $10B a year as defined in the FT bill.
I have provided information that would eliminate that cost and reduce the FT rate by .5% and increase compliance significantly, thus potentially deflecting a major criticism from the detractors of FT.
What do I get for my trouble? I am accused of being an against FT.
That cannot be further from the truth.