The FairTax arguments are not logical. To do away with all corporate taxes, shifting them to people with jobs as required to maintain revenue neutrality, and at the same time expecting your taxes to go down strikes me as contradictory on the face of it. Yet go to the FT website and plug in your numbers. You will get a tax cut. It doesn't matter what numbers you put in, it will show you getting a tax cut.

Its a fraud but that is irrelevant.

My argument is that tax will never, ever be considered.

This last week showed me the real deal about all the candidates and now I see a landslide for McCain. The stealth voters/pollers for Obama are even fading and now McCain wins 64%. Ok, 54% is more realistic.

Add to that the fact that many voters are now discovering the Dem's fraud upon America with the FannieMae FreddiMac execs who now work for Obama and have contributed millions to him one way or another.

Even the dumbest follower of "Change" can figure out who does not need to be President - that would be the Obama dude.

Then they may figure out the Dems don't need to be in Congress either. Control of the House is all we need - then the Fair Tax gets a vote.

What say you JeffC??>??

If the Fairtax ever comes up for a vote in committee I will donate $100 to the charity of your choice. If it ever comes up for a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives I'll make it $500. If in 10 years neither of these happen, you give an extra $50 to your church. Deal?

in my humble opinion. They collect said taxes from consumers and pass them on to the govt.

I will say that our current system is WAY too complicated, and needs to be overhauled. At some point, that will happen. Who knows when/how?

I agree 100%.

You explained this many many weeks, maybe years ago. I wonder what word they don't understand in, It WILL NOT WORK. Those two authors of this book must love these people. Cha Ching Cha Ching...

How much did Boortz take home from writing both of the books?

All I can say, is Cha-Ching!!

He certainly had motive to write both of them!

Boortz donated the proceeds to charity.

The motive for him is to get something good for America done.

What have you done lately?

Did you enjoy your dinner at Taco Bell?

and taste like mud without the seasoned, browned corn meal on it!

Your defense of the idiot now occupying the White House and Boortze crumb put you into the same category as the stinkin fish!

I remember people who defended President Hoover, also. Plain dumb and non-mind changing crazies!

How about telling us how good the bankers are for us?

You really are a simple individual...

I'm one of the few FT supporters who has been able to refute one of Mr. C's points (Insurance payouts). Perhaps you should look up a poster's history before flaming, eh???

Boortz and Linder never made a dime off of their FT efforts.

Nice pseudo flame, BTW. You certainly know how to get additional folks behind the cause of the fairtax. At least Jeff C does his research before responding, perhaps you should do the same.

You earn $1000, you get $1000. Plus you get a prebate each month of $480 to reimburse you for the Fair Tax charged on your Granola and Birkinstocks and Metamucil and whatever essentials you liberal dopes buy.

So, $1480. How's that sound?

I really think we can get this done now. Obama is toast and I think the McCain/Palin coatails will get the House of Representatives a Republican majority.

That's all we need to get the Fair Tax passed. Can't wait.

Because it is.

As usual here, supporters of the FairTax have no clue as to what they are talking about. See the bottom of the post here for links to all of these statements from the FairTax people and Boortz.

Your gross pay will be reduced to your net pay amount under the FairTax.

Here it is; believe whatever you wish:

As you may know, much of the FairTax concept came from the work of Dr. Dale Jorgenson, then chairman of the Harvard Economics Department, who is quoted extensively in the FairTax book.

Dr. Jorgenson was asked specifically about the question of whether or not people’s paychecks would be reduced from their gross pay amount to their net pay amount.

Dr. Jorgenson replied: “A more reasonable interpretation of my 1996 testimony is that workers would keep that after-tax pay; producers' prices would fall, but retail prices would be increased by the national retail sales tax.”

AFTER TAX PAY!

Asked to further clarify so that there could be no misinterpretation as to the specific question: “when you say "workers would keep that after-tax pay" are you saying that if they are making $1000 a week now, and paying $200 payroll+income taxes now, that under the FairTax you were assuming that workers would get paid $800 and keep all of that? Or are you saying that you meant they would make $1000 under the FairTax?”

Dr Jorgenson responded: “I am saying that the worker would continue to receive the after-tax amount of $800.”

Here is Boortz on the FairTax Blog:

We write in The FairTax Book that the competitive pressures of the marketplace will force prices down when embedded taxes disappear from the cost of retail goods and services, and we cite 22% as the average amount of those embedded taxes. Does this 22% include the income and payroll taxes that are paid by employees? Yes, it does. So ... what does this mean to your paycheck after the FairTax becomes law? When the FairTax is implemented… He (your employer) will either take some or the entire amount he had been withholding for federal income and payroll taxes and add it to your weekly check, or he will readjust your pay figures so that your entire paycheck will be equal to what you used to call “take home pay” before the FairTax.

To reach that magic 22% in embedded taxes by which the cost of products are to be reduced, paychecks will be reduced from gross pay to net pay because, according to the prople over at FairTax 2007: “If businesses paid employees with gross pay, production costs would decrease by 11.55%” not the advertised 22%.

When Michael Graetz dissed the FairTax during a debate, FairTax.org issued a rebuttal defending Dr. Dale Jorgenson’s work (which Mr. Graetz had misrepresented on the issue of compliance cost) saying, referring to Dr. Jorgenson,: “His study assumed that all of the tax cost savings (not including the reduction in compliance costs, however) would be passed on in lower prices and that workers would be getting their current net pay once the FairTax goes into effect.”

Giving up on the FairTax argument

It is the same garbage as you propose!!!

The problem with the $1000 salary currently being a $1000 take home pay with a "fair" tax, is that it would not be your salary very quickly after the law was implemented!

Most jobs have pay scales. They would be adjusted down, especially with new hires to the $800 take home pay!
You can bet on it!

Businesses must contribute 7.65% of Medicare and Social Security and report and administer the employee's 7.65% contribution. Therefore, the business would immediately realize that 7.65% reduction in payroll expense not the mention the cost necessary to administer the funds and handle the reporting. Immediate savings, less paperwork and it is still a mystery why social security is going broke considering 12.4% of everyone's pay is being contributed to that fund. I am in my 40s now and will most likely never see a penny of this contribution. I am sorry, but this is wrong!! And the sad thing about it is that most people don't miss it because the government takes it off the top.

I was a businessman for 44 years! 14 as the soul owner!

I know what will happen!

Stuff sold would not go down, wholesale wise, and the retail would simply go up 30%!

And a "SOLE" proprietor must contribute the entire 15.3% himself. An immediate savings for him. And believe me, most of them are not rich by any means.

Getting scary as people become more educated, isn't it Nitpicker!!