Replace All Federal Taxes on Income with the Fair Tax Act , HR 25
Our Best Opportunity for Promoting The FairTax is wasting away!
I am frustrated to the MAX! I've been promoting The FairTax ever since H.R. 25 was first introduced and immediately sent to committee to die. I've been writing articles explaining/promoting/defending or correcting mis-information about The FairTax on my own blog,* in letters to the newspapers, and in several Internet forums I post in for many months now. Since the advent of The Tea Party movement, I've posted in many of the individual Websites that have sprung up, associated with the conservative, Constitution-supporting groups who consider themselves part of the Tea Party Movement.
My frustration arises from the lack of interest I find among 'tea partyers' for The FairTax. As for me, I'm fully sold on the absolutely positive benefits to our economy, the political structure, personal standard of living, employment, business growth...you name it, enactment of The FairTax would be the single most marvelous, POSITIVE change that could be made to America. I know this, and have been trying to convince everyone I talk to how very desperately we NEED The FairTax. It kills me to hear national newscasters and commentators talking about changes in the tax code being considered, and they act as though they never heard of The FairTax! What's worse, is the relative silence about The FairTax coming from most of the Tea Party groups.
By this time--thanks to Mike Huckabee, Neil Boortz, John Linder and a handful of other significant personages, I think most Americans should have at least HEARD of The FairTax. What I don't understand is, WHY ISN'T THE ENTIRE COUNTRY ON FIRE FOR IT???! THEY CERTAINLY SHOULD BE! The Tea Party groups ought to be giving The FairTax their first priority after the selection and election of good candidates, but few of them are. WHY AREN'T THEY?!!! By now, there should be a groundswell so big demanding Congress at least seriously consider the merits of The FairTax that ALL the media could no longer ignore it. Demonstrations should be drawing thousands with signs and banners DEMANDING that Congress enact H.R. 25, The FairTax!!
It ought to be the MAIN topic of discussion in every home in America, and on all the "letters to the editor" columns across the land! The noise should be so LOUD that members of Congress would be compelled to hold substantive and serious debate about it. Mr Boortz and Mr. Linder and other articulate, knowledgeable spokespersons who are the most familiar with The FairTax should be on all the TV Network and Cable Network talk shows, answering questions and de-bunking the false information opponents are propagating. Why isn't any of this happening????!! It's driving me crazy! Wake up Tea Party!!! Time is a wastin, make some NOISE! The economy's in big trouble...people are out of work...and politicians are using the present tax code against America! There is no more important issue that you can get behind right now, so WHY AREN'T YOU??!!
At this point, I feel like throwing in a long line of curse words for emphasis, only, I don't curse...as a rule. As my wife would say, "Yeah! Right!"
Arthur Bruce Robertson
Lake Saint Louis, MO
* http://www.mywatch.blog.townhall.com
My frustration arises from the lack of interest I find among 'tea partyers' for The FairTax. As for me, I'm fully sold on the absolutely positive benefits to our economy, the political structure, personal standard of living, employment, business growth...you name it, enactment of The FairTax would be the single most marvelous, POSITIVE change that could be made to America. I know this, and have been trying to convince everyone I talk to how very desperately we NEED The FairTax. It kills me to hear national newscasters and commentators talking about changes in the tax code being considered, and they act as though they never heard of The FairTax! What's worse, is the relative silence about The FairTax coming from most of the Tea Party groups.
By this time--thanks to Mike Huckabee, Neil Boortz, John Linder and a handful of other significant personages, I think most Americans should have at least HEARD of The FairTax. What I don't understand is, WHY ISN'T THE ENTIRE COUNTRY ON FIRE FOR IT???! THEY CERTAINLY SHOULD BE! The Tea Party groups ought to be giving The FairTax their first priority after the selection and election of good candidates, but few of them are. WHY AREN'T THEY?!!! By now, there should be a groundswell so big demanding Congress at least seriously consider the merits of The FairTax that ALL the media could no longer ignore it. Demonstrations should be drawing thousands with signs and banners DEMANDING that Congress enact H.R. 25, The FairTax!!
It ought to be the MAIN topic of discussion in every home in America, and on all the "letters to the editor" columns across the land! The noise should be so LOUD that members of Congress would be compelled to hold substantive and serious debate about it. Mr Boortz and Mr. Linder and other articulate, knowledgeable spokespersons who are the most familiar with The FairTax should be on all the TV Network and Cable Network talk shows, answering questions and de-bunking the false information opponents are propagating. Why isn't any of this happening????!! It's driving me crazy! Wake up Tea Party!!! Time is a wastin, make some NOISE! The economy's in big trouble...people are out of work...and politicians are using the present tax code against America! There is no more important issue that you can get behind right now, so WHY AREN'T YOU??!!
At this point, I feel like throwing in a long line of curse words for emphasis, only, I don't curse...as a rule. As my wife would say, "Yeah! Right!"
Arthur Bruce Robertson
Lake Saint Louis, MO
* http://www.mywatch.blog.townhall.com
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Terry Warns on
-
It would be difficult to move any proposal forward under those circumstances.
I would propose that doing the same thing for 15 years and getting very little headway and not changing your message is more of an hindrance.
What I have said to FAIRTAX.org is we should look at the criticisms, categorize them, and then work towards solutions that can meet those criticisms.
In addition, FAIRTAX should be active in explaining how real world problems today would be solved by FAIRTAX.
For instance, we know that the FAIRTAX would reduce business costs. We also know that health care is a large business cost and the current administration was able to enact reform. Where was FAIRTAX saying that we have a better solution. We can lower Health Care costs by 18-20%. We can penalize users of health care that do not use insurance.
On Social Security, we broaden the base and save Social Security.
On the auto industry, FT makes it more competitive both domestically and abroad and thus creates good middle class jobs.
On BP oil spill, BP cannot use the expenses for cleanup and fines to reduce their corporate taxes
Four of the most important topics in the news today, and FT is nowhere to be found. Why because the message is to eliminate the IRS and get rid of the income tax.
The economic message is far greater than the eliminate the IRS message.
We had the greatest economic calamity in our lifetime and the FT was not promoting we can get you out of this economic mess, instead all people hear is eliminate the IRS and tax returns.
I think the message is weak and that is why we get nowhere in Congress.
The criticisms I see are the following:
1. The rate is too high or unrealistic
2. It would be too easy to cheat
3. The Prebate would be the largest government entitlement program ever
4. the tax is not progressive enough
What do others think are the biggest criticisms?
-
-
I agree with your list except for 2. Imbedded in the current rate is SS tax of somebody already so retirees are paying SS by consuming.
1. I also think this is poor and the state and local governments and Federal government should be treated just like any other Fairtax B2B transaction. Except as part of the FT legislation, current contracts must be reduced by 20% since that is the imbedded tax in the goods and services.
3. I agree and think the Prebate should target the bottom 20% of US citizens. There are current Federal programs that do that and they can administer the prebate. This will reduce the FT requirement by $480B. Bill Gates does not need a prebate.
5. I never understood that at all. I think there are ways to fix it. For instance when you apply for a home loan the FT could be figured at that point. If you pay off the loan early, then you get a refund.
6. I agree and you would think not having to pay any income tax would offset this and businesses would be happy
7. I always state the FAIRTAX is 30%. The other is too confusing and open for criticism.
8. I understand the philosophical reasons but I do not think that is the solution. I have always felt the fairtax should be thought of as
12% for SS
18% for Federal Government Spending
Note the numbers could be different. Then you could choose to only prebate the Fed Government spending rather than the SS.
9. I agree that the wealthy gift/estate tax would reduce the FT and then address a number of concerns. The wealthy choose not to spend all their money, while the rest of us must spend our money. I think unspent money at the time of your death over $5M should be taxed at the FAIRTAX rate and would tax the few.
All these items address criticisms of FT and yet if addressed properly does not change the end result of the FT. JUst think if we who are for the FT cannot accept criticisms and develope solutions, then how does anyone expect a politician to accept the FT.
And if we developed this message of changes, I think our lobbyists could spend a lot more time with legislators and get feedback on what would be acceptable from more people.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Crane on
-
Hank,
My understanding was the consumption tax plan the commission considered was not tne Fairtax since they had exemptions for food and other things they assumed would be necessary to get congress to pass it. With the exemptions it would have been necessary to raise the rate much higher to get the same revenue.
I say ignore the 2005 Bush commission like any other opposition since it wasn't really the Fairtax.
-
-
> How then did they draw their conclusion that a consumption tax wouldn't work? It has since been shown by Kotlikoff and Tuerk that the FairTax would fund the government at current levels. If they used any part of the Fairtax, why didn't they do a full analysis of the plan as written and present the results. My guess is that their intent from the beginning was to maintain the system as is.
-
-
Hank,
So 5 years ago, a federal commission gave FAIRTAX some constructive criticisms. How did FAIRTAX respond?
I think each of those could have been addressed in some way. I believe FT punted and choose not to play ball.
So do you think that the environment is different now. Can we get support for FAIRTAX 2.0 or are we forever stuck with Version 1.
-
Permalink Reply by Arthur Bruce Robertson on
-
Hank,
Although I don't disagree with Mr. Martin's analysis, or the Congressman he quotes above, I come down on the side of blaming the Congress as chief obstructionists to The FairTax. Lobbyists are really only incidental to their obstructionism. There is still tremendous political capital at stake for them if they lose their present ability to control and manipulate the tax code. They would rather fight to maintain that control than to see the many good things happen to the economy the FairTax would make possible. I was around and champing at the bit when the Bush Commission issued their report, and I have to agree with Mark: those who 'assessed' the FairTax for the Commission and made their recommendations were biased against it. Their 'report' was a subtle ploy to discourage any further consideration by the Commission, and limit any additional testimony about it directly to the Commission. I agree with you and Terry that there may be some specific areas within HR 25 that could be 'tweaked' to our advantage, and certainly, those directly involved with pushing the legislation in Congress should be willing to hold conferences with the rest of us to address the concerns that are presently causing so much criticism and resistance. I also agree with you, and have for a long time believed that an 'incremental' approach would work better. A couple of thoughts I've tried to share with Linder/Boortz which they've never acknowledged are the incremental idea in a couple of forms, and to state that I think they were way too conservative when they tried to calculate the revenue TFT would produce. When you include all those who are regularly dodging paying taxes on INCOME, and suddenly add them to those who would be subject to a NRST, I'm convinced the revenue produced would prove to be revenue-neutral with a FairTax rate of more like 12-15%. Not knowing for sure, is another justification for an incremental approach. For instance, I think a good starting place would be to reduce by 50% in the first year ALL taxes on income and initiate NRST at 6% and see what happens. Such an experiment IMHO would prove to be very revealing, and probably would provide a completely new set of parameters for forging a permanent transition from income to consumption taxes for funding government. Doing this as an experiment for only a year, surely could do no real damage to Federal financial solvency, since that's shot to hell already anyway. Besides, I think it would teach the 'stimulus' idiots how to give the Economy a real shot of crystal meth, so to speak. Talk about starting a recovery!! Your thoughts?
-
-
> I don't like the idea of a phased replacement over time. It might be possible by region. I think we need to look at the implementation of value added taxes for a methodology. Were they sudden or phased in? The VATs do actually prove that the FairTax will work. I'm not saying that a VAT is a good idea at all, just that they prove the consumption tax is viable.
-
Permalink Reply by Jerry Fowler on
-
We had an economist from the University of Kansas (I believe) who spoke at our FairTaxKC meeting with his studies on the FairTax and he recommends what he calls the "glide path" approach to implementing the FairTax at both the State and Federal Level. I have spoken to both our Missouri State Senator and Representative and they agree that it was a lot more palatable once the bill was revised to implement a phased approach with a corresponding reduction in income taxes. Their concern with the "big bang" approach is that the reality of the implementation and projection of the implementation may differ widely and cause a budget crisis.
In my eagerness to abolish the IRS (which doesn't really happen, but it is significantly reduced) I was all for the "big bang" approach, but afte considering the alternative, I am warming to the idea of the "glide path".
How about pre-defining that rate at the current 23% and phasing it on over a 5-year plan with a corresponding phased reduction of the income tax rate to 0 in the 5th year?
-
-
Hank,
I think that is a great idea, at the Missouri level, it wasn't palatable with the "big bang" approach but with the "glide path" it passed the Missouri House and looked to be ready to pass the Missouri Senate this year but the Minority leader threatened a filibuster during the last week of the general session.
Next year we may be able to get it onto to the ballot. It is looking promising.
-
-
Jerry;
I'm not one who wants to see a phase-in of the FT although I'd take whatever will eventually get us out from under the thumb of the Fed. Whenever I consider all the FT will accomplish when fully implemented I get very anxious about wholesale changes that would delay things even further. For example, how would a phasing-in effect abolishing the 16th amendment? I just fear that things might collapse before it gets implemented. Then where will we be?
Also, I have always felt it silly to refer to ending the IRS. I mean there HAS to be an agency that will insure taxes are properly collected doesn't there? However, the FOCUS of the IRS would change from going after individuals and companies to making sure that those responsible for COLLECTING the tax are doing their job. I have spoken to many folks about the FT and if the subject about eliminating the IRS comes up they say "yeah, right".
-
-
Mark,
You are exactly right in saying there will always need to be an agency to enforce the tax laws of the Nation, of whatever kind. Therefore, to place wording in HR 25 to immediately 'abolish' the IRS and repeal the 16th Amendment is unrealistic. Redefining its mission, yes and reassigning many of its employees to National Security, where there is a greater need on the borders and at the ports. The resolution to repeal the 16th Amendment could be in the revised H.R. 25, indicating to the entire country of that intent, but it's my understanding that such a repeal would have to be ratified by two thirds of the States before it could be declared a done deal. This is one reason for a 'Public Hearing' before Congress to work through some of these impracticalities. However, I believe that the foibles we've acknowledged can be ironed out, and that the 'glide path' approach to phasing in the National Retail Sales Tax as the exclusive taxing mechanism for funding the Federal government is the most 'palatable', as Jerry Fowler says. I do fear that if Missouri or any state attempts to institute a similar income to consumption tax scenario FIRST, this could badly damage the chances of getting it done at the Federal level. I was cringing the whole time the Missouri State Legislature was considering it. I think it would be much better for the individual states to hold off until FT is law at the Federal level before they start instituting it at the state level.
-
-
> If I'm correct, the reasoning behind the cold turkey (crash) implementation method is this. The current version of the FairTax bill eliminates the taxing provisions of the 1986 internal revenue code. Therefore Congress would have to write a whole new set of income tax rules. There would be no laws on the books with which to collect any income tax. I believe this was done to prevent us from ending up with both forms of taxation, which is what a phased in method would be. I fear that if we allow that to happen Congress will just decide to keep both taxes and we will be worse off than we are now.
-
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Marilyn Rickert.
Powered by
