Another day, another ignorant fairtaxer. Sheesh.

You are correct insofar as the United States imports most of its oil from Canada. Who sets the price of crude oil though? Hint: it's not the Canadians!!

The rest of your post details transport, refining and sales, all of which I included in my calculations, a fact that you in your zest to "prove" the efficiency of the "fairtax" by any means necessary seem to have overlooked. Most oil companies today do NOT own gas stations, for the simple fact that it is difficult to make a profit retailing gas. LINK

See this line in my post?
"The remaining 27% of the cost is lowered 22% due to "embedded taxes" ($1.00 * .27) * (1 - .22) = 21 cents"

That accounts for your so-called "fairtax" imbedded costs: yup, the price of a refined gallon of gas saves a whopping 6 cents a gallon for alllll those computers, paperwork and transport...and then the price gets jacked up 30% for the "fair tax".

In the future, I'd ask for you to try and figure out the math for yourself rather than criticize me for "poor math" just because you happen to disagree with my findings. If you have something that specifically disagrees with my cost calculations, let's discuss that.

I'd ask you to apologize for you erroneous characterization of my math as "poor" , but experience has shown me that you shiny-eyed fairtax zealots lack the class and character to admit when they are wrong.

FYI: "slander" is defamation through the spoken word. When its defaming in print its called "LIBEL".

In Liberty,

DarthDubious

"Libel" huh? Sue me, please! I'll put some of these "fairtax" snake oil salesmen under oath and we'll have a wonderful time!

you are a pitifully small minded, selfish, little dung slinger.

I was just informing the previous commenter he/she was erroneous in stating that you slandered them, something that you're uninformed television propaganda programmed brain failed to notice, and point out.

If you knew anything, you would know that all taxes on labor are Unconstitutional. Income is defined as PROFITS resulting from CORPORATE activity. Direct taxes are legal only if they are apportioned, this is all we need to know.

Every tax law stands or falls when seen through the lens of the CONSTITUTION as it is the law of the land, period.

In Liberty,

DarthDubious

I expose you and your fellow tinfoil hat libertarians for the frauds that you are, and get rewarded with "pitifully small minded, selfish, little dung slinger."?

I'm hurt.

No, wait...no, I'm not.

I suggest if the cold hard light of reality is more than you can bear, why not retreat back into your comfortable cocoon of fantasy. It'll be safe to come out again at your little tea party meeting in two weeks.

Stay safe until then.

"The author avoids acknowledging the fact that the Fair Tax does apply to item numbers 3 & 4. The refining and marketing/distribution costs are not part of the imports he uses as an example."

Rodriguez, they absolutely ARE part of the imports I use as an example.
The US imports crude oil, not gasoline. I SPECIFICALLY account for the refining cost "savings" (17%) and marketing cost "savings" (10%) in this line:

The remaining 27% of the cost is lowered 22% due to "embedded taxes" ($1.00 * .27) * (1 - .22) = 21 cents

Note: 10 + 17 = 27.

I'd ask you to apologize for you erroneous characterization of my math as "slanted" , but experience has shown me that you shiny-eyed fairtax zealots lack the class and character to admit when they are wrong.

Thank you for having the courage to admit that gasoline would be more expensive under the so-called "fairtax". Very few fairtax supporters seem able to concede that point.

I have been trying to show "real world" examples of the failings of the so-called "fairtax" (gas, health insurance, new homebuilding). It appears that every time I identify a specific subset, supporters want to change discussion from the micro- to macro-level economics.

The "prebate" will ameliorate some of the negative effects of this regressive tax at the expense of adding another government bureaucracy.

Please note that the 22 cents figure was PER GALLON, therefore your $264 figure is valid in the case of $1/gallon gas. As gasoline is currently roughly $2 a gallon, the out of pocket expenditure jumps to $528...and if gas reaches $4 per gallon as it did last summer, the tax on gas skyrockets to $1056.

Finally, I dispute your assumption that an "individual will have more money in their pocket to start with". Far from being a "fact", Jeff Carter has shown this is largely not the case in other posts on this forum. I urge you to engage him in discussion with regard to this matter.

I remain convinced that the so-called "fairtax" will result in higher taxes overall for the vast majority of Americans, those in the $30,000 to $200,000 per year income range.

that you can't explain barometric pressure to an idiot. I think this holds true here.

I assume you think the current system we are using is adequate? All you've done is throw stones at the Fairtax, without offering any alternative to what we currently have.

Once again, I'm under no obligation to offer any sort of alternative here. The Fairtaxers need to make a case as to why their system is superior to the existing system, I am of the opinion that they have absolutely failed to do so. Why should I replace an existing system with one that I will pay more taxes under?

Now the Fairtaxers will misrepresent my remarks to claim that I "love" the IRS, that I must be in an industry that makes a living off of tax preparation or something of the sort. Neither claim is true.

Bottom line: Simplicity and more taxes for the middle class under Fairtax. Complexity and less taxes under existing system. No contest.

I agree with you, Jim, federal excise taxes do no replace any taxes. I brought that up solely to disprove an assumption by SLindsey (whose daddy raised a coward and whose mother raised a liar) that excise taxes would "disappear" upon introduction of a so-called "fair tax".

You've identified one of the key flaws in the "fairtax" methodology...it presumes price elasticity.

Other Key Flaws:

1. In previously untaxed markets, such as surgery, there may very well be significant imbedded costs. However, given the price inelasticity due to a high cost of entry (i.e. it takes time and effort to become a surgeon), the surgeon has no impetus to pass the cost savings along to the consumer.

2. Since the "fair tax" only applies to new (as opposed to used) items, it creates a huge windfall for owners of big ticket used items, specifically housing. I can now sell my house for 30% cheaper than a developer building the exact same floor plan across the street.I am of the opinion the "fairtax" will DESTROY the new homebuilding industry.

3. In certain commodity markets (and that's why I used oil as an example), the price of imports and taxes cannot be reduced by "embedded costs" to any meaningful degree.

I am sure that the so-called "fairtax" will reduce the cost of the majority of retail items if implemented. However, "big ticket" items such as housing, inelastic pricing (hospitals/medical specialists) and needed commodities (such as oil and most likely food) will be significantly adversely affected by this tax. Many people shrug and presume some sort of exemption may be created for these items, however to remain largely "revenue neutral" the government must then increase the "fairtax" rate upwards of 40% to perhaps 60% depending on which economist you listen to.

Interesting comments. You have raised some other areas that the Fair Tax, in an oblique way, actually addresses.

Start with health care. There is one area of health care where the cost has actually declined - plastic surgery. The reason for that development is the absence of third-party payors. Cosmetic surgery is not covered by insurance, even though its providers are surgeons. The Fair Tax gets rid of the tax anomaly between employer-provided health care insurance and health care insurance that is individually purchased, and makes people better consumers.

True, some markets are less elastic than others. Jewelery, for example, has snob appeal, so to a degree the reverse of market logic can apply here. Jewelery will probably increase more than the 17% average under the Fair Tax. If wealthy people buy it, that's fine by me.

New houses is always a good conversation starter. A good portion of the builder's tax cost comes out under the Fair Tax because the builder gets a business use conversion credit for the land and the tear-down. The builder's costs are lower because that Fair Tax takes out the tax component. Finally, let me make an aggressive assumption here, the builder's real cost of credit - which is a significant cost component for builders - drops because the capital-generating characteristics of the Fair Tax make more credit available. It is conceivable that the cost of a new house under the Fair Tax will be only 3% higher than today, and people will have more money to pay for it.

Even if the cost increase under the Fair Tax is higher than 3%, any spike in the price of used houses in response is a short-term phenomenon that will adjust over time in the market. The real value of the Fair Tax is the favorable dynamic effect on the economy.

Imports will indeed cost more under the Fair Tax. But under the Fair Tax we are only making foreign products compete in our market fairly. Germany, for example, has lower business taxes than we do, and it extracts a VAT for domestic sales. The Siemens dishwasher sold in Hamburg, for example, carries a 19% VAT. But when Siemens exports the dishwasher to the US, Germany abates its VAT, and the Siemens dishwasher competes with the GE dishwasher in our market at an unfair tax advantage.

~Jim

You Said..
"to disprove an assumption by SLindsey (whose daddy raised a coward and whose mother raised a liar"

You sir have just gone to far.. I am not Darth so Lets see how much a man you are.. PLease oh Please tell ME where I can find you.. Go ahead.. Lets have that Coffee NOW!!!

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

Come on lets find out who that COWARD is.. PLAAAESE tell me where I can find you to have that coffee..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

I know your lurking waiting for me to log off.. COME ON.. YOUR ARE SO BAD ON HERE AND I NEED A CUP REAL BAD RIGHT NOW...

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

Maybe at the next "Coffee" meeting you will grace us with your presence.. I surely hope so.. I would just love to meet you.. Please lets do so soon.. I can hardly contain myself..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

Online threats are not a good thing and don't look for any coffee meetings under these circumstances. I thought that tough guys could take some name calling without resorting to physical intimidation; I know I can.

It's not easy being the carbonunit

however several times Sniff has taken it upon himself to make it personal.. He even created an entire blog to just slam both my ethics and crediability.. I take personal attacks very seriously.. I ignored most but he has crossed a line he should not have..If given a chance I would love to meet and have that coffee I offered to have with him as a peace offering several weeks ago.. now however I don't think he would enjoy it as much..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

Now you are seeing the downside of blogging under your real name, as a few on here have. Now, if you say something derogatory about the carbonunit, it would have nowhere near the sting as it would if someone said something about Theodore D Bear, prince of the woods (and yes, I do sh*t there).

It's not easy being the carbonunit

the risk I took.. using my real name, but if you have the belief of your convictions then using an alias just was not for me.. I agree it is often easy to hide behind that alias and post whatever you want without having to face the results of your post..however that does not give ANYONE the right to personally attack someone just because they do not agree with anothers view.
This is a habit with Sniffles.. I have read over the past year post by him and he tends to get personal and attack everything and anything he can.. Some how this boasters his arguments?? The old if you can't beat them then just insult them??

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

After cups of Joe (foo foo lattes on my part), all who desire can follow me to a friendly neighborhood gym with matts, gloves, and headgear. No one goes to jail. No one gets sued. And, being my guests, if you breaks the rules of the gym, ya gots to go.

At any rate, Lindsey, I'd love to share coffee with you. Hopefully the usual suspects can come too. We've got some who's pretty faces will be impossible to match with their posts .

Cheers, and I hope to meet you tomorrow.

ps. No pancakes, leg straps, mid-backs, fanny packs, or any other concealed equipment in the gym

will stand up and be counted. Hopefully i can get out and get some mowing done before hand so i can get REAL aromatic. Stay upwind and keep the faith.

Democracy is NOT a spectator sport

I wish I could come and see them pretty faces but I made a commitment to be somewhere else at 0900. Happy trails to everyone.

It's not easy being the carbonunit

No "counterfeit fred."

No Lindsey.

No Sniffles.

No opportunity to see grown men channel anger born from typed words into punches to the face, rear naked chokes, or slams of well-aged bodies to the ground. Sigh.........

I guess, some dreams are never truly fulfilled, but I sure hope to meet you some day Lindsey. I BET YOU TEN BUCKS we will be upset at how much we like each other, having to go off the boards to plan our fishing trips and target practice sessions so as not to let anyone know that liberals and conservatives can actually play well together .

I DO love it when folks register just to take a poke at me!

You are correct, I had a single line in my example that referred to "Revenue Neutrality" that was incorrect in its usage. I've removed the line from my argument. I do not think that single line negated my argument. You are correct in terms of your definition and I thank you for calling it to my attention.

I chose to focus on crude oil/gasoline imports because there is sufficient research breaking down pricing components of finished products. I think it is valid as a distinct identifiable subset of American imports. You are correct, there may be other classes of American imports (computers, clothes, toys, strategic minerals, etc) that may or may not offset the 20+% rise in gasoline. It was not my intent to be "all inclusive", to the contrary, I think it would have been self-defeating to load up my argument with unknown costing and hypothetical breakdowns.

I was trying to correct the Citizen chucklehead-in-residence SLindsey's gross oversimplication of the cost of imports (His position continues to remain that any and all imports will cost 22% less by definition) and judged against that admittedly narrow criteria, I sucessfully disproved his specious contention.

I would also add that there is nothing nebulous ("appear to cost more") about this particular price rise in a commodity, it is a virtual certainty under the proposed fairtax legislation. I'll stand by my assertation until you can show me verifiable numbers specifically refuting my claims.

In any event, welcome to the Citizen blogs!

I wasn't necessarily taking a poke at you, but I felt strongly enough that the last line was inappropriate that I needed to mention it, especially given the fact that comments made mention of it as well but didn't correct it.

Now to get down to the bare facts of the math. The math does not take into account the lowering of the cost of gas due to the lowering of the cost of doing business under the fair tax. While I do not have the time to figure out the exact reduction in operating costs for a company the size of ExxonMobil due to the elimination of corporate taxes, etc.. The fact remains that there will be a change in the operating costs and daily operating expenses due to the elimination of these taxes on the business.

Once again, due to the time issue, I have not done any math to see how much of those (let's be realistic) very large amounts of money that the company won't be paying in corporate taxes would be worth in a "per gallon" discount. But it's more than $0.000 at the very least. That's enough to make your mathematical equations false.

It's possible that in the end, even factoring the things I've mentioned, that gas may still cost more than beforehand. But even with that mentioned, you have to take into account 100% of everything mathematically, otherwise you are selling an article that is inherently false.

I think I have said all that I was thinking in response to this article. I still believe in the end that 99% of Americans will be better off than they were beforehand if the FairTax were to take effect. Not only does it give us more control of our money (we have to be realistic and know we don't have 100% control of it), but it allows us to begin to fix federal spending. Americans can see that by eliminating X,Y,Z that equals so much spending, we can pay W amount towards our federal debt. By making the tax code inherently simple, the average person doesn't feel encumbered by not having the knowledge necessary to make an informed vote on fiscal issues on a ballot.

to the firing line..or firing squad... One thing you need to know.. Sniffle is always RIGHT.. Just ask him..but don't worry he will tell you if you don't.. Don't waste time proving your arguments he will just come back with the same argument you just proved.. deny you did.. claim victory and demand you admit his intelligence(sic) is greater.. don't even try to link to research papers written by people holding PHDs he will just ignore them all.. Good Luck though I pass the torch.. Have fun.. that is until you are ready to pull the plug on him..

This explains Sniffles link
I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

Didn't you totally ignore the link I gave you to the PhD testimony by the creator of the fairtax showing that your income will be reduced to your present take home pay before you start receiving that "100% of your paycheck"?

And the link I gave you to Boortz's web site explaining that very same thing?

How about that Constitutional Amendment that does away with the IRS? Think that's in the legislation? Its not. I've actually read the bill.

Here's another logic question: The FairTax was introduced in the late 80's early 90's? That's when all those PhDs came up with the 22% figure to be revenue neutral. Now, after Bush almost doubled the government and national debt while GDP remained essentially flat after inflation, how can that 22% number required to be revenue neutral possibly still be valid?

These are simple questions. The FairTaxers cannot possibly hope to avoid answering them if they expect their proposal to be taken seriously which I don't think they really do.

BTW, did you know the FairTax is imposed on the interest on your credit card, student load, car loan and mortgage debt? Anything over the prime rate is defined as a financial service. A tax on people's debt! They might balance the budget after all.

I saw it refuted it over and over.. Just because you still diagree or try to show you are right still does not break the argument..Remember your point is only valid if a counter point can not be offered with at least as much weight as the original point..I linked to research documents.. I gave you examples.. I showed you and sniff that Boortz agreed that the take home pay would go up.. You can not just take a couple of excerpts and say see there and expect me to roll over.. ain't gonna happen.. You have to read the whole thing Jeff you know that.. I don't need to tell you this.. Don't fall into the same pit sniffle finds himself in on a regular basis..I got a "I glanced at it" from you.. so like Sniffle says here I am under no obligation to prove your negatives.. Look at the post here.. Jeff you and Sniffle are in the minority on this issue.. That alone should tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree ..
Face it .. the Democrats most effective weapon to control wealth the IRS is coming under attack and it is intresting to see how hard you two are fighting for it.. You attack the fairtax but say almost nothing about the current tax cheats and the system that allows it.. WHY?

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

Slindsey:You attack the fairtax but say almost nothing about the current tax cheats and the system that allows it.. WHY?

Very simple answer here: I, and everyone else making between $30K and $200K a year, will pay more in taxes under the so-called "Fair Tax" than under the current system.

Factcheck.org summarizes the flaws of the so-called "fair tax" nicely:
We stand behind our earlier analysis of the FairTax. The proposal to which Gov. Huckabee referred is not a 23 percent tax, but rather a 30 percent tax. And it is revenue-neutral only through an accounting trick. It will collect more money from those earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year and less from those earning more than $200,000 per year. It is possible that the FairTax would make most people better off, but much of that gain would be a direct result of making the tax code less fair.

LINK:Unspinning the Fairtax

Spin that. Tell me why I should want to pay MORE in taxes.

What exactly is fairness? It seems to me that the absolutely fairest way to apportion taxes is to set a percentage for everyone. That would be a flat tax. Of course, we can argue again and again that fairness is really about an equalization of outcomes, but that smacks of totalitarianism. So what we have is called Progressive Taxation. It isn't the most fair, but it is fairer than confiscation of wealth at a certain point. The problem with Progressive Taxation is that it is fluid depending on the mood of the populace. And more and more of the populace are opting out of federal taxes. But in the end, it is going to come to this. Even if we confiscated all wealth beyond some arbitrary point--lets say $500,000, there isn't enough money to pay for all of the governments obligations within the next 50 years. Then what are we going to do? Print more money? Have Oceania war against Eurasia and Eastasia? Have circuses in the Hippodrome?

“With the rebate taken into consideration, the FairTax would be progressive on consumption,[3] but would also be regressive on income at higher income levels (as consumption falls as a percentage of income).[5][6] Opponents argue this would accordingly decrease the tax burden on high income earners and increase it on the middle class.[4][7] Supporters contend that the plan would decrease tax burdens by broadening the tax base, effectively taxing wealth, and increasing purchasing power.[8][9] The plan's supporters also argue that a consumption tax would have a positive effect on savings and investment, that it would ease tax compliance, and that the tax would result in increased economic growth, incentives for international business to locate in the U.S., and increased U.S. competitiveness in international trade.[10][11][12] “

Fair Tax Info
(A non-partisan site that explains it sniff. Not someone from CNN)

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

But it is an interesting issue never the less.. Taxes have been used by our Goverment as a means of controlling wealth for years.. Control the Wealth and you control business and its consumers.. Democrats hate tax cuts and God help you if you might mention getting rid of the IRS..their weapon of choice to control the wealth thus the people..
OBAMA IS RIGHT... CHANGE IS COMING

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

Take a look at the actual legislation...NOT the book, NOT the propaganda website, the actual HR 25 legislation.

It states categorically that Federal Excise Taxes will remain in place. Other taxes (Soc Security, Estate taxes) for example will go away but Federal Excise taxes will remain in the interests of being "revenue neutral".

Pay attention here: The Fairtax legislation that abolishes the IRS SPECIFICALLY CREATES AN EXCISE TAX BUREAU to handle this taxation.

Therefore, it is not *I* who am "assuming" anything...it is YOU who assumed that federal excise taxes would magically disappear.

Now be a man and admit you were wrong. Make your daddy proud.

"The FairTax proposal, which awaits Congressional passage as H.R. Bill 25, would greatly
rectify this intra- and inter-generational inequity and do marvelous things for our
economy. The FairTax (details at www.FairTax.org) replaces not just the federal and
corporate income taxes, but also the federal estate and gift taxes, and the highly
regressive FICA payroll tax with one simple and fully transparent federal retail sales tax.
In addition, the FairTax provides a highly progressive rebate to each household of their
sales tax payments on consumption expenditures up to the poverty line.
Assume H.R. 25 becomes law. Overnight, people would move from paying, to the feds
and states, roughly 50 cents per dollar earned on their supplies of labor and capital to
roughly 30 cents. Because the relationship between tax rates and economic distortions is
non-linear, this would reduce the excess burden of our tax system by roughly two-thirds!
A very conservative estimate of this annual saving is 2% of GDP or about $250 billion
for the coming year. Add in the aforementioned $250 billion in wasteful tax compliance,
and we're talking big bucks."

Prove me wrong .. BREAK THE ARGUMENT
I'm Right your Wrong.. END OF STORY

The Facts on the Excise Tax THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

Snif is right. You keep relying on FairTax.org and we keep telling you its propaganda.

The only thing your article said about excise taxes was that if you add them to other taxes you get a big amount of taxes. Well, duh… It doesn’t say excise taxes will be repealed because they are not. Sure, its cleverly worded to make you infer that but it doesn’t actually say that.

Look at the legislation SL not the propaganda. Not only are excise taxes not repealed, a new tax authority is created to handle them.

HR 25, Title III, Sec. 302, (d): Tax Bureau - There shall be in the Department of the Treasury an Excise Tax Bureau to administer those excise taxes not administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

Does citing the actual legislation qualify as proof?

You call it a propaganda site but what or who do you call all the Researchers., Colleges and Unversities etc.. that worked on this.. Are they all in the tank too..? Look at all the post for it and the few that were against it.. it has a certain appeal..
Look I understand you don't believe.. I GET IT.. it is ok.. I am not out to sway you are sniff.. I don't really care if it is a flat or fair tax change, but a change is nescersary and is coming..
and yet as hard as you two have tried you still have not broken the argument for it.. Is it perfect no.. will it require tweaking yes.. will it be 100% fair to everyone.. I doubt it.. but is it a better option then what we currently suffer under??? YES and that is all it needs to be.

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

The FairTax isn't really a serious proposal. Its fatally flawed and if implemented would be a massive shift of taxes from the wealthy to the middle class. I'm not trying to change your opinion either. The FairTax people are running an industry based on fraud but that's okay with me. I'm just trying to show it for what it is. The FairTax people blog here and can't address my simple questions but continue to pretend that they can somehow radically revise the tax code and implement a Constitutional amendment without having to address the most basic questions.

Bush's Treasury people studied it led by Lindsey Gramm and they totally trashed it. When I bring that up the FairTaxers fall back on some vast conspiracy theory involving the Treasury, Democrats, Republicans, the IRS, Bush and on and on. Its not my obligation to prove the conspirators wrong. When people of this caliber challenge the tax it seems to me that it is the obligation of the FairTax proponents to address the President's Advisory Panel's conclusions. They don't. They don't really care one way or the other. They just want you to buy their books and donate to the cause. Seems to me that at some point you have to ask why this wonderful magic tax has never and will never get out of committee, why serious legislators aren't screaming it out during their campaigns firing up the people. But go for it, by all means. You're convinced by the FairTax industry. I don't mind.

Here's what the Treasury, Bush's Treasury, said about it. From my point of view, the burden is on the FairTax people to answer stuff like this but they won't. They know what's real and they just don't care as long as the money rolls in.

The President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform

The Prebate-type program would cost approximately $600 billion in 2006 alone. This amount is equivalent to 23 percent of projected total federal government spending and 42 percent of projected total federal entitlement program spending, exceeding the size of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The Prebate program would cost more than all budgeted spending in 2006 on the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior combined.

Replacing the current income tax with a stand-alone retail sales tax would increase the tax burden on the lower 80 percent of American families, as ranked by cash income, by approximately $250 billion per year. Such families would pay 34.9 percent of all federal retail sales taxes, more than double the 15.8 percent of federal income taxes they pay today. The top 20 percent of American taxpayers would see their tax burden fall by approximately $250 billion per year. Such families would pay 65.1 percent of all federal retail sales taxes, compared to the 84.2 percent of federal income taxes they pay today.
Lower- and middle-income families would be especially hard hit by a stand alone retail sales tax.

page 213

Figures 9.3 and 9.4 show that low-income and high-income Americans would benefit from the retail sales tax with a Prebate, while middle-income Americans would pay a larger share of the federal tax burden. Separate figures with distributional estimates for 2015 law are not provided because the distribution of the retail sales tax burden in these estimates was identical to the distribution shown in Figures 9.3 and 9.4. American families with the lowest 20 percent of cash incomes currently pay negative 0.5 percent of total federal income taxes because the tax credits they claim exceed their total positive tax liability. Under the retail sales tax with a Prebate, this group would pay negative 5.6 percent of the federal sales tax burden because the amount they would receive in monthly checks from the government would exceed what they would pay in retail sales tax at the cash register. In total, the bottom quintile would bear 5.1 percentage points less of the tax burden. Families with the top 10 percent of cash incomes would also benefit substantially from the retail sales tax. Their share of the tax burden would fall by 5.3 percentage points – from 70.8 percent to 65.5 percent.

Middle-income Americans, however, would bear more of the federal tax burden under the retail sales tax with a Prebate. The Treasury Department’s analysis of hypothetical taxpayers shows that married couples at the bottom 25th percentile, 50th percentile, and 75th percentile of the income distribution for married taxpayers would see substantial tax increases under a full replacement retail sales tax. A typical married couple at the bottom 25th percentile of the income distribution earns $39,300 per year and would pay $5,625 dollars in federal taxes in 2006. Under the retail sales tax with a Prebate, the same family would pay $7,997 in net federal taxes after subtracting the Prebate of $6,694, resulting in a tax increase of $2,372, or 42 percent. A typical married couple at the 50th percentile of the income distribution making $66,200 would pay an additional $4,791, a tax increase of 36 percent, and a typical married couple in the 75th percentile, making $99,600 would pay an additional $6,789, a 29 percent tax increase. A typical single mother at the bottom 25th percentile of the income distribution for head of household taxpayers has $23,100 of income per year and, compared to current law, would pay $5,866 more under the retail sales tax with a Prebate.

There's lots more. You're being duped. Support the tax if you want too but don't give them your money.

and I also appreciate your civility in our "arguments"...
and while I can't say I know everything about the fairtax or for that matter the flat tax.. You may indeed be correct.. I do however feel we have to try something else.. maybe it's because I just came from my CPA yesterday and I am still having problems sitting down..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

Truly.

I'm waiting for my CPA to call. Cringing when the phone rings. I'm not saying the present system isn't outrageous and incomprehensible. I want to buy a car for my son going off to college. Guess where that much money is going?

I could probably do my own taxes. Know why I don't? I'm scared of the IRS. I might make a mistake (or not make a mistake) and be audited again and have to spend thousand and thousands of dollars defending myself again.

I very, very, very rarely bring up who I'm related to (I know y'all know) but the fact is that when even I feel like that about the IRS then somethings very, very wrong.

I don't want to disparage blood sucking vampires so I won't make the comparison.

blood sucking vampires..I think they have a better rep right now..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

1 Adam-12, 1 Adam-12...be on the look out for one S.Lindsey, last seen headed for the bloggers coffee this morning, failed to report...can only be a kidnapping, SLindsey would NEVER avoid an outright confrontation with such a group of astute observers of the human condition. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport

You've always seemed to stay above the classless and sometimes even vile comments of several of the bloggers on this site. I rarely agree with your political ideals, but I've always admired your class and smooth delivery. Please don't be tempted to join the childish bloggers and lower your standards to their level. This post isn't really up to your standards. Keep YOUR faith my brutha.

just chalk it up to the fever...i will have recovered by tomorrow. Keep the faith

Even a dead fish can go with the flow

Don't get carried away. I do hope you feel better soon..Ha.

the pollen stops. keep the faith

Democracy is not a spectator sport

You call it a propaganda site but what or who do you call all the Researchers., Colleges and Unversities etc.. that worked on this.. Are they all in the tank too..?

The Fallacy of Appeal To Authority

Look at all the post for it and the few that were against it.. it has a certain appeal..

The Fallacy of Appeal to Bandwagon, The Fallacy of Hasty Generalization (Small Sample)

...is it a better option then what we currently suffer under??? YES

That's your opinion.

You are absolutley correct it is MY OPINION..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link