You obviously have a lack of comprehension in this whole thing. ALL taxes would be gone, save for Social Security and Medicare, so instead of giving the government money at every turn of your head, it'll be only when you purchase an item. You pay taxes on, literally, everything. The government taxes you for working with the income tax! They get labor at a discount! Now, keep ALL of your money, without big bad government even getting a whiff of it, and go out and buy a hamburger. That hamburger is taxed, but since you still have all 100 cents of your dollar, you end up paying the same amount, but keep more of your money. [note, that $1.00 hamburger is NOT $1.23 with the tax, it's still about $1.02. Remember, all the imbedded taxes are gone now, so it can sell for a very good price and still make profit.] The same goes with your house. If you purchase a new home, that house is taxed, but since you keep all of your money from your job, you pay it off sooner, not to mention when it comes time to sell there aren't any Govt. taxes to snatch away profits.

And who, exactly, are the poor in this country? Less than one percent of the entire U.S. makes over 150,000$ a year. LESS THAN ONE PERCENT. The rest, my friend, are fair game for the 'poor' title. Actually, I myself am middle class, with barely 60 grand a year to my name, and the government classes me as 'rich'. If I'm rich, than what does that make you? Not to mention that the rich make/spend more, so they get taxed more. If you ratio it out, they end up paying almost double what we do. [Why is being rich bad? I wanna be rich. I wanna be FILTHY rich, so I can fly over to any country I want any time I want. Why is success bad? That's another topic...]

Whew, got off topic. Anyhoo, you make it sound like only the rich and famous get tax cuts, but that's wrong. EVERYONE would be taxed/not taxed fairly, whether they buy a stick of gum or a yacht. BTW, everyone, the tax is only 23%, not 30. Twenty-three is the number economists came up with for it to be revenue neutral, 30 is the one that the liberal media wants you scare you with. But who's going to keep it that low? Why, we are! Shoulder some responsibility, people, this is your country as much as mine, if it goes to hell in a hand basket because of the IRS part of it's on you. Read the book, if you want REAL info instead of second-hand word-of-mouth twisted facts.

If you go to Home Depot and purchase, say, a weed wacker for $100 and your total with tax is $130, how much would you say the tax rate is?

If you are like the vast majority of Americans, you'll say 30%

If you are one of those shiny-eyed Boortz fans, you'll say "23% tax inclusive". Which is technically correct but not applicable in the real world. (Don't believe me? look at page 84 in Boortz' book).

And this 30% is a bare minimum to remain revenue neutral. Exempt medical services, new homes and government-to-government transfers from the so-called "Fair Tax" and the rate spikes about 50%.

You claim "all" taxes would magically disappear with the adoption of the so-called "Fair Tax". This is not true...if you read Mullah Boortz' lawyerly pronouncement, he sez all "personal and corporate income taxes" would be gone. Those pesky state and federal excise taxes on gasoline, for example, would remain. We're on the road to $4.50 a gallon gasoline, baby!!

Some real world example
Suppose I make $100,000 a year and Neil Boortz makes a million a year.

Under the current IRS (I'm simplifying for deductions and such),
I pay $24,800 in federal income taxes
Neil pays $535,000 in federal taxes

Under the so-called "Fair Tax" plan
I pay $29,100 in federal sales taxes ($4,300 more a year)
Neil pays $459,000 in federal sales taxes ($76,000 LESS a year).

Read the presidential commission's report, if you want REAL info instead of second-hand "best case scenario" twisted facts

have your Bush cat eating picture up when agreeing with your president. I'm not even going to debate the fact with you that the free market economy is going to drop it's prices of products after the corporate and individual taxes are removed from those items. There's nothing that will change your mind even if most of the leading economist agree that this would happen. The bottom line with you is that you are a staunch defender of big government and their confiscatory powers and you would support that no matter what proof you had available to you.

CLICK HERE for a list of the blue-chip panel of experts selected by President George W. Bush to examine the so-called "FairTax".

This panel recommended REJECTING the so-called "FairTax".

Now why don't you supply a list of "leading economists" who support the so-called "FairTax"? If you can find one, that is.

The so-called "FairTax" is nothing more than yet another tax cut for the very wealthy ($200K+ a year). The supporters of the so-called "FairTax" hope people hate the IRS enough to vote themselves a tax increase and the very rich a tax cut.

http://www.fairtax.org/pdfs/Open_Letter_President_Endorsements.pdf

Basmati,

This link is a letter to your favorite president from economist around the country that support the Fair Tax. And they are not from Liberty University. They are from the more liberal establishments that you would tend to cherish. 84 of em total to be exact. Need more?

You actually followed through when challenged to back up your claim. I am impressed.

PTC Guy could learn from your example.

So, it seems we're at an impasse here on this particular point: you have your panel of experts, and I have my panel of experts. I suppose it boils down to whose experts you trust more. Fair enough.

On to the next point of contention about the so-called "Fair Tax" then?

You mean like you and your buds rambling on about Deists and the links I gave showing you didn't know what you guys were talking about?

Don't try to salvage any victory out of getting shot down again.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Give me a bit. Work is getting in the way of my fun.

We can't even issue a simple medicine card discount without the prices actually increasing, and numerous unfair practices going on. If it cost too much tax to buy things, we simply won't buy things---at least us poor un's. Do away with IRS and also forget "fair tax," just get the feds money at the border for all those TVs coming in. Also, tax the billions sent to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries to come (Israel included). Also, sell our natural resources to feriggnerrs at a stiff price---have a huge army to fight them off when they invade to get our resources for free.

Let me see if I got this straight: When no taxes, except maybe eventually 30% for SS and medicare, aren't deducted from my paycheck, I'll get more money (cash) but pay less for a hamburger? That ought to tell everyone what a farce it is.

Great and very accurate comments. Welcome to the site. I might become one of you before it's all said and done.

The CPA's I know support the fair tax idea and contrary to urban myth, they won't be out of work. They have plenty to do and would welcome the removal of March and April's frantic activity from their schedule.

The way this is going to get passed is if voters in November send a clear message to the obstructionist anti-war, anti-American,anti-achievement liberals in Washington by voting Republican in a couple of those blue states and give Republicans a supermajority in both the house and Senate. Then first item up in 2007 will be the Fair Tax. Slam dunk!

I hope some of the blue-state candidates have the gumption to make Fair Tax a campaign issue - then their liberal opponents are shown as tax and spenders and lovers of big government.
meow

Of course they do. Just ask them. Just like government employees like reduced taxes.

CPA's that see the negative effects that the current system has on our businesses and economy are truly in favor of the change. Mine tells me he would rather concentrate his efforts on helping folks grow their business rather than fighting and complying with rules that get made up constantly as we go along. As for me I tell people that it is not the competition I fear but the government. I run a clean ship but no doubt if some jealous IRS hack comes through my door it has the ability to find some obscure tax law that could probably sink me. All they have to do is target you. I say let's get rid of the largest enforcement agency in the United States. SUPPORT THE FAIR TAX.

The so called CPA's that oppose the Fair Tax are the paper pushers like H & R Block and the other hacks (apparently like Mr. CPA Outlaw) who make their livings from tax code compliance. Heck...if that's all they do then we can convert their jobs into pine straw spreaders and that should help with the illegals problem.

Just another way to raise tax on everyone but those high earners, (they don't all earn it, however). Wouldn't be 3 months till congress started revising the "fair tax" to make it even more fair---to some. Check out some of the Scandanavian countries--fair tax there 65%--and nobody except the Kings is gettin noooowheree.

According to this line of thinking, all of those children born to the folks that came on the Mayflower to New England, back in the 1600s, were illegals. Nobody invited them here, they crossed a border, had children and later, actually invaded this land.

Borders are imaginary lines set up by the current powers. In the future, when Globalization takes full hold, they will no longer exist. In fact, the southern border "crossed" the Mexicans when the US grabbed California, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada and Texas. The Mexicans seem to be getting success in their own subtle way to reclaim those lands and beyond.

Multiculturalism is the future. Europe is far ahead of us in this process, but the US will follow suit, regardless of the attempts of nativists living in bubbles.

It is nonsense to talk of legality or illegality of people. There is not such thing (an "illegal human being"). This is backwards thinking. We, as a country, need to find an effective system to facilitate integration of immigrants, but respecting their culture. Efforts to overule their culture is based on the false premise that American popular culture (heavy rock, abortion, pornography, religions, Hollywood, meritocracy, etc, etc) is better, which is not.

-----------------------------------
Making you think twice......

You said:

Borders are imaginary lines set up by the current powers.

By this logic, the "border" around your house is also an imaginary line, and people should be free to cross it and move into your basement or living room if they so desire. We have a cooperative society based on laws, and those laws include the enforcement of property rights. All border and property rights, whether at the national or individual level, are conceptual in nature. We enforce them nevertheless so that people can live peacefully with one another.

Multiculturalism is the future. Europe is far ahead of us in this process, but the US will follow suit

Two things: First, America is already a pluralistic, multicultural society. Whites are no longer an absolute majority in this country, and plenty of different cultures peacefully coexist in America. Just visit the Italian, Mexican, Vietnamese, Chinese, or German sections of any major American city. If you don't realize that America is more multicultural than Europe, you must be living in a bubble. Secondly, I have no desire to emulate Europe, with their 25% unemployment and 45% tax rates (not to mention gasoline at $6 a gallon, state-sponsored religions, endless ethnic wars, etc.)

It is nonsense to talk of legality or illegality of people. There is not such thing (an "illegal human being"). This is backwards thinking.

We don't call them "illegal human beings," we call them "illegal aliens," just as you would call someone who moved into your house without permission an "illegal trespasser."

We, as a country, need to find an effective system to facilitate integration of immigrants, but respecting their culture.

You're right -- and we already have such a system that welcomes tens of thousands of immigrants each year, without requiring them to renounce their home culture.

You're confusing peaches with apples. Countries have established borders, houses do not. Immigrants would only come to your house to actually build it, mow your lawn, wash your car or babysit your kids.

"Aliens"is an awful word, reflective of our arrogance of considering anybody else (but us) "alien". In the past, similar tags were used to put down people (i.e. negro)

You're right, Caucasian Americans will no longer be the majority in the USA, thank God for that. Diversity and multiculturalism is the way ahead. The sooner everybody realize this, the better we will integrate.

Europe has its problems, no doubt. But I was referring to their more civilized view of the world, less bully-oriented and more global-conscious.

In any case, whether we like it or not, immigration is a worldwide trend that will continue regardless whatever measure, and our only hope is to get the best out of it. Obviously, the current system is not working, as 12 million of them knew better on how to get here, get jobs, prosper and contribute to our great nation. They are not going back and more are coming in as we speak.

-----------------------------------
Making you think twice......

Just for the benefit of corporations and upper class. Government should get their revenue from tariffs of in and out trade, and ownership of critical natural resources. Also charging developers who use these resources a high fee. It is that simple. Also, people who accumulate too much cash by hook or crook should be forced to provide jobs to others.

highgreen

You’re simply going to tax the consumer. Corporations don’t pay taxes, people do. It’s factored into their cost of doing business.

If corporations don't pay taxes then nobody does and the whole issue is moot. The argument that consumers pay the tax for the corporations through higher prices could be extended to say that employers/corporations pay our income tax through higher salaries/wages which are negotiated with the mutual knowledge that part of that money will go to Uncle Sam. The whole argument is circular illogic.

The biggest problem I have with the Fair Tax is that it double-taxes retirees who have paid income tax for decades and would then have to pay a 30 percent tax on every dollar spent in retirement. Even tax deferred money will be taxed at 30% instead of a much lower rate if the current income tax were applied.

Another problem is it creates millions of additonal tax collectors, many of whom are children. Kids who mow lawns or earn money in other informal ways (i.e. not at a "job") will have to collect and remit the tax. While not an insurmountable obstacle, it is a nuissance for them and their parents.

Another problem is one of enforcement. Since the IRS will be eliminated (which makes me wonder how the taxes not eliminated under H.R. 25 would be collected), who will enforce the bill? Even if it is enforced at the state level, who will ensure that the states remit the revenue to the federal government? We already know that evasion rates skyrocket with tax rates above 10%, so with the rate at 30% they could be astronomical. As with the income tax, there is great incentive for evasion. I am all for putting the tax code on a crash diet, but I'm skeptical of the simplicity and ease of implementation and enforcement of the Fair Tax. I can't help but wonder just how fair is the Fair Tax to everyone.

They set a % they want to earn as profit. That includes taxes as an overhead expense.

You pay the corp. taxes.

Saying they pay your taxes by increased wages in simply false. The last real wage increase, adjusted for cost of living, was in 1973.

Your pay check number may go up. but its overyall buying power is down. And has been down for 33 years.

Why do you think the gap between corp. and executive and workers has grown so huge since 73?

They get the adjustments for buying power you do not.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Corporations pay little of the whole. Retired people, and there will be many soon, would get screwed. Then the exceptions start and soon we would have a bigger mess than we have now. Let the feds collect at the ports for federal needs as they did in 1700.

Can't disagree with you on that one.

Why not exempt medical expenses and food items?

Four reasons: (1) Food is not exempt from taxes today -- you buy all your food with after-tax dollars. (2) The rich spend way more money on food and medicine than the poor. An exemption would mostly benefit the rich. (3) The Fair Tax includes a built-in rebate paid in fixed monthly amounts to all American taxpayers, to cover the taxes paid on essential goods and services. (4) If you start allowing lawmakers to exempt specific classes of goods and services, there will be no end to how complicated and costly they will make the tax code, even with a national retail sales tax.

Send every taxpayer a check! Why? Just charge less sales tax at the counter. It is a stupid plan, originated by stupid, greedy people.

The rebate check is designed to make the Fair Tax progressive -- that is, people who have less money to spend will not only pay fewer tax dollars, they will get taxed at a lower RATE than everybody else, thanks to the rebate.

And how is the plan stupid? And why would you call its originators stupid and greedy? The people behind this plan want to allow taxpayers to keep more of their money, earn interest on it faster, eliminate payroll taxes on the poor, force criminals to pay taxes, and stop requiring Americans to spend millions of hours and millions of dollars figuring out their income taxes every year. How is that greedy?

Do you really think Boortz would want a tax system where he would pay more instead of less taxes? If he doesn't pay as much, then who would make up the difference? You know, and I know. That crap about those who cheat not paying taxes is mostly those who make a lot of money, not poor people. Anyway with any system the crooks will be there.

the so called poor in this country then everyone would complain that the "less fortunate" would have to pay taxes. I'm with you. Let's eliminate the rebate altogether and lower the rate. But then the people on the left (your side) would complain that the so called poor would have to pay a tax. Heaven forbid they should have to pay. But the dirty little secret is that they already do in the hidden taxes built into the products they currently buy. You know....cigarettes, beer, sneakers, bling, dvd's, backward bill caps, and Big Macs.

What a stupid idea. Have the dumbos pay the tax, then give them a check. They will think they got something for nothing. Sounds like organized religion. republicans philosophy, and dudes with tons of money trying to get more.

will organized religion benefit when the deduction is lost and believers give because they believe and not because they'll get a tax deduction. And the dudes with tons of money would be you and me and any other working stiff out there. Republican philosophy? They've fought this system for years because it will eliminate the ability to target certain people groups through taxation. Congress would lose alot of control and power they have over the people. We know you hate to be controlled Highgreen. This will get our Congress and the IRS out of our lives.It

Thanks for the info.

I'd think you guys would be able to at least get the Social Security thing straight before printing this information. Also, One point not being made here is that the new system would tax everyone. No body would be able to cheat the system as they do now, thereby placing more burden on honest taxpayers. So can I assume that you prefer the current system to HR25 ?

I'm sure you were at the Republican breakfast. What happened?

The Fairytale Tax supporters are known to have a short attention span and a short fuse.

"The Fairytale Tax supporters are known to have a short attention span and a short fuse."

Apparently you are above that huh ?