Taxes

[xrayzebra]

Well what are your idea's. Think this will ever happen. I don't.



The FairTax Book
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Last year, talk-show host Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder co-authored "The FairTax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS." It turned out to be a No. 1 New York Times Best Seller. In 2005, the Fair Tax bill was introduced in both the U.S. House of Representatives as H.R. 25 and the U.S. Senate as S.25. Rep. Linder plans to re-introduce the bill next year.

If enacted, the Fair Tax would eliminate: the federal individual income tax, alternative minimum tax, corporate and business taxes, capital gains tax, Social Security and Medicare taxes, and estate and gift taxes. These taxes would be replaced by a 23 percent sales tax on all goods and services sold at the retail level. The Fair Tax would be revenue-neutral in the sense that it would replace the revenue from current federal taxes; thus, it would change the way government is funded.

Our current tax code is an abomination, and we desperately need that change. The time Americans spend simply complying with our tax code comes to 5.8 billion hours of record-keeping, filing taxes, consulting, legal and accounting services. Breaking those hours down to a 40-hour work week, it translates into a workforce of 2.77 million people. That's more than the workforce of our auto, aircraft, computer and steel manufacturing industries combined.

The Fair Tax has much to recommend in its favor, such as being a more efficient form of taxation. It would go a long way toward protecting our privacy and preventing Congress from using the tax code to micromanage our lives. The Fair Tax is an excellent idea, but only under three conditions: first, the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment that created the income tax; second, a provision fixing the tax at, say, 23 percent; and third, a cons utional amendment mandating that a tax increase requires a three-fourths vote of Congress. Notwithstanding any provisions within the Fair Tax, if the Sixteenth Amendment weren't repealed, down the road we'd find ourselves with a national sales tax and an income tax.

You say, "Williams, it sounds as if you don't trust Congress." I don't trust Congress any farther than I can toss an elephant. During the debate prior to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, congressmen said that only the rich would ever pay income taxes. In 1917, only one-half of one percent of income earners paid income taxes. Those earning $250,000 a year in today's dollars paid one percent, and those earning $6 million in today's dollars paid 7 percent. The lie that only the rich would ever pay income taxes was simply propaganda to dupe Americans into ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment.

Here's my prediction: The Fair Tax will never become law. The two most powerful congressional committees are the House Ways and Means and the Senate Finance committees. These committees write tax law, and as such they are able to confer tax privileges on some Americans at the expense of other Americans. The Fair Tax would reduce or eliminate this form of congressional privilege-granting power and, subsequently, campaign contributions from the beneficiaries would dwindle.

The method used to finance the federal government is very important, but I've always argued that government spending is the true measure of its impact on our lives. If there were a Fair Tax, what's to stop Congress from deficit spending or inflating the currency? Deficit spending and inflation are simply alternative forms, albeit less obvious, of taxation.

You say, "What's Williams' solution?" My solution is an amendment limiting federal spending to a fixed percentage, say, 10 percent of the gross domestic product. You say, "Why 10 percent?" If 10 percent is good enough for the Baptist Church, it certainly ought to be good enough for Congress.

Really interesting about when income taxes were first introduced, isn't
it. Sounds a lot like what happened on SOC. My, how times do
change.

[Drive Like Jehu]

It won't pass. Sales tax allows the citizen to see how much the government is actually taking on a daily basis. The citizen never sees the money leave their possession with an income tax unless they owe money on tax day. Look at how many people are excited to get some of their money back with a refund. They think it's free money when it was actually an interest free loan to the government.

It's a s game, By the proposal's estimates, each citizen is basically paying 23 cents on the dollar right now. How many posters in this forum realize this?

Allowing the citizen to see how much money the government takes on a daily basis would cause a lot more citizens to vote against big government. The status quo is not going to allow this to happen regardless of party affiliation.

[101A]

... each citizen is basically paying 23 cents on the dollar right now....

Nope. SOME citizens are paying roughly 23 cents on the dollar at the national level,

SOME are paying quite a bit more than that,

MANY are hardly paying any at all.

[spurster]

I would be for a simpler income tax. No tax on the first $X/person. Thereafter, whatever percentage would replace the current income tax. No separate % for capital gains. The only deductions would be medical costs and cash donations to charity.

[xrayzebra]

elpimpo paid negative taxes last year

You didn't buy anything, anywhere in the United States I take it.
Because if you did, even drink a beer or get a shot or go to the
movies, you paid taxes.

[Drive Like Jehu]

Nope. SOME citizens are paying roughly 23 cents on the dollar at the national level,

SOME are paying quite a bit more than that,

MANY are hardly paying any at all.

"By the proposal's estimates, each citizen is basically paying 23 cents on the dollar right now."

Selectively removing parts of sentences in a quote can quickly cause things to be taken out of context.

[Bob Lanier]

I like how you've stopped posting links to the articles you copy.

[xrayzebra]

Well Bob, you can go to Walter Williams website or google him. The whole
article is posted so, giving a link would really serve no purpose. But since it
seems to bother you.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/

[ChumpDumper]

Good luck with that one.

[xrayzebra]

Okay lazy try this one:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/w.../archive.shtml

[101A]

"By the proposal's estimates, each citizen is basically paying 23 cents on the dollar right now."

Selectively removing parts of sentences in a quote can quickly cause things to be taken out of context.

The proposal is using an average figure; we have a "progressive" income tax - the tax the sales tax would replace.

Most people's taxes, since most people pay very little actual income tax, would rise. In a democracy, no matter how fair that may be - it won't happen. My original statement was accurate.

[Yonivore]

The proposal is using an average figure; we have a "progressive" income tax - the tax the sales tax would replace.

Most people's taxes, since most people pay very little actual income tax, would rise. In a democracy, no matter how fair that may be - it won't happen. My original statement was accurate.

What's not being mentioned is that the Fair Tax Act would rebate everyone -- Rich and Poor alike -- in an amount (and I'm not sure if it's annually or monthly) equal to the sales tax paid on necessities each month. The premise being that the poorest among us would pay no taxes since, presumably, all their meager income would be spent on necessities.

Alas, I believe beer, cigarettes, and spirits don't meet the criteria.

[Drive Like Jehu]

The proposal is using an average figure; we have a "progressive" income tax - the tax the sales tax would replace.

Most people's taxes, since most people pay very little actual income tax, would rise. In a democracy, no matter how fair that may be - it won't happen. My original statement was accurate.

I'm not disputing your statement. I was only suggesting you use the full sentence in a quote.

I could quote your previous post by stating "SOME citizens are paying roughly 23 cents". Leaving off the the prepositional phrase "at the national level" changes the meaning of your statement.

If I wanted to dispute your statement, I'd raise the issue, that the economics would not change much for your identified group of "most people". The only difference would be "most peoples" money would go directly to the government.

While most partisans can argue the merits of trickle down theory econmomics, I feel most would agree the idea of trickle down taxes are real. A previous poster stated he paid a negative amount of federal tax, and directly that is true. However, I am sure the poster paid a lot of federal tax as a cost of business that has been added to the price of a good or service they purchased.

For example, does a citizen renting an apartment avoid paying local property tax? Directly, he or she does avoid it. The tax is assessed on the owner of the property. But in reality they do pay it. The property tax is passed on to the renter because the tax is factored into the rent of the property.