I read with interest Ed Outlaw’s article on June 21 in The Citizen relating to the Fair Tax plan. I found it particularly interesting that, while criticizing the concept of a consumption tax, Mr. Outlaw failed to mention that his “tax credit” consulting firm would be put out of business by a simplified tax code that no longer required tax credits to reduce corporate and personal tax liability.

The fact of the matter is that the Fair Tax is both fundamentally fair and progressive, and a welcome change to the over-complicated, ever-changing and unwieldy system currently in place.

As presented, the Fair Tax bill would abolish all federal income taxes, death taxes, capital gains taxes, and payroll taxes and replace them with a national retail sales tax.

It would also solve some of the problems associated with illegal immigrants using services in this country without paying the taxes necessary to support them, by capturing those taxes as they pay for goods and services in this country.

It will also allow people at all economic levels to determine how they’re going to use their hard-earned money. They may decide to spend or save it. They may decide to invest it. The most important element here is that they get to determine what they do with their money.

The fact that higher income earners would pay less tax, based on the fact that they’re spending less relative to the higher income they’re receiving, would probably result in those tax savings being reinvested in the business sector, resulting in rapid job growth, creating more demand for a multitude of occupations, and thereby raising the compensation associated with those positions. How this can be anything other than beneficial to the United States’ work force escapes me.

I’m sure that Mr. Outlaw was sincere in stating that “The ability to make money in our society is predicated on good government,” but this is mostly, if not entirely, untrue. Federal and state regulation serve constructive roles in protecting the environment and our citizens, but do very little to aid in the generation of capital.

Most people realize that public schools in general fall far short of preparing students for entry into today’s workforce. This burden typically falls upon the company that hires these graduates, then spends six to 12 months training them on the jobs they’ll actually be doing.

Smaller government is always better government, and a consumption tax will ensure that there’s plenty of revenue to keep all of these government institutions running, without penalizing the innovators and entrepreneurs in today’s society.

Attributing the federal debt (currently at over $8 trillion) to “trickle down economics” is disingenuous. This debt was caused by rampant, consumptive social spending over the past 30 years.

The poverty rate in the United States in 1983 was 15.2 percent, versus 12.7 percent for 2004, so the division of wealth between the “rich” and the “poor” has actually decreased. It would seem that the “poor” have actually gotten richer during this time period.

Most reasonable people will conclude that the Fair Tax is much better than our current system, and should be voted on in Congress.

Andy Joiner
Tyrone, Ga.

login to post comments