Imagine receiving 100% of your paycheck!

f_rice

EFF GM AND CHRYSLER!!!!
Established Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2003
Messages
3,125
Location
SE MI, USSA
I have not posted much here lately so this is a couple months old. However it is extremely informative and I encourage everyone to read it.



Imagine receiving 100% of your paycheck!
Neal Boortz (archive)

August 27, 2004 | printer friendly version Print | email to a friend Send

Two weeks ago a man stood up at a George Bush campaign appearance in Florida to ask about a piece of legislation known as HR25. Many, including myself, were pleased to hear Bush respond with some positive thoughts about the Fair Tax plan, a movement to replace the federal income tax with a national retail sales tax.

Washington is a city of inertia, and right now the inertia belongs to our present method of funding the operations of our government, the income tax. Politicians will not easily surrender a funding mechanism that lends itself so well to political demagoguery and which can be used to reward political allies and punish enemies.

The Fair Tax plan deserves a thorough public examination and debate. John Kerry seems dedicated to making sure this doesn’t happen. Soon after Bush cited the national retail sales tax as something worthy of further exploration, Kerry stepped forward with the typical class warfare rhetoric of the left. Acting as if he actually knew what was he was talking about (he didn’t), Kerry announced that the Fair Tax would amount to the largest increase in the tax burden on poor and middle income Americans in our history.

John Kerry was wrong. He was either speaking out of ignorance, or he was deliberately lying about the Fair Tax proposal in order to gain a political advantage. A politician lying in order to gain political advantage --- imagine that.

This column is lengthier than the norm, but I promise you that if you will invest the time it takes to read it you will be well on your way to becoming yet another rabid supporter of the Fair Tax plan. You will know that the poor and middle income Americans would be the prime beneficiaries of the proposal. You may even organize your own neighborhood march on Washington to demand that HR25 receive a fair hearing. In the next two minutes I’m going to turn you into a HR25 Fair Tax zealot. Read on:

First … the briefest of overviews: Simply put, HR25 would provide for the repeal of the 16th Amendment (the income tax amendment) and the dismantling of the IRS. All personal and corporate income taxes would end, as would all payroll taxes. There would not be one cent of federal taxes of any nature taken out of your paychecks. No more Social Security taxes. No more Medicare taxes. You earn $2,000 a payday; you get $2,000 a payday. The federal government would be funded through a national sales tax on goods and services sold at the retail level. No taxes on investments. No taxes on savings. You only get taxed on what you spend at the retail level. Store your earnings in a shoebox if you wish. They won’t be taxed.

When originally proposed, calculations showed that the sales tax would have to be in the area of 23%. A complete economic study is now being completed that is expected to bring that total to under 20%. For the purposes of this column, we’ll stick with the 23% figure.

OK … let’s put on our sensitivity hats for a few minutes here and think of the consequences of the Fair Tax Act on our nation’s poor, poor, pitiful poor. After all, they can hardly afford a 23% sales tax when they’re living paycheck-to-paycheck in the first place, right?

Bear in mind that for the most part those whom we define as “poor” aren’t paying any income tax anyway. In fact, many of them are getting checks from the government; a form of outright income redistribution. The absurdly named Earned Income Tax Credit, for example. How can these people survive going from a no-tax situation to paying a 24% sales tax on all their retail purchases?

The implementation of the Fair Tax would fail in short order if, as the question presupposes, nothing were to change except that all of us would be paying today’s prices for a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread, plus a 23% sales tax. But … that’s would be far from the reality under the Fair Tax. Under the Fair Tax the poor won’t only survive, they’ll positively thrive! The Fair Tax could turn out to be the best poverty-fighting tool devised in this country since the concept of hard work.

Let’s begin by considering two realities.

First, remember, please, that the poor, along with everybody else, will no longer have Social Security taxes or Medicare taxes withheld from their paychecks. Whatever they earn, they get on payday. For the poor this means an immediate 12 to 15% increase in their earnings.

Second. Don’t forget the 22% in imbedded taxes. These embedded taxes exist in virtually everything poor Americans or any other Americans have to buy. These embedded taxes represent all of the corporate and business income taxes and payroll taxes that the companies involved in the production, manufacture, marketing, distribution and sale of the goods and services must pay in the course of business. As soon as these taxes are gone, and after the competitive forces of the free market work their magic consumers, including the poor, will be paying at least 20% less for virtually everything they buy. This includes such basics as food, clothing, shelter and transportation. Yes... they’ll have to pay the new national sales tax, but when you factor in the lower prices caused by the disappearance of the embedded taxes you’ll see that the total price paid for consumer goods in terms of real dollars will fall or will remain very nearly the same.

So … just considering these factors, the Fair Tax delivers a winning hand to people living in or near to what we call poverty. They get every penny they earn on payday, amounting to a 12 to 15% pay raise, and when you factor in the Fair Tax and the lower prices, they’re actually end up spending less of their money for a retail purchase than before. What John Kerry calls the greatest increase in the tax burden on the poor in the history of our country is, in reality, their greatest tax reduction.

You need a clearer picture? Pull out your calculator. Let’s say that a single mother with two children spends $45 a week on groceries. The removal of the 22% embedded tax would bring the price of those groceries down to $35.10. The sales tax at 23% would be $8.07. This brings the total price to $43.17. That’s less than would have paid under today’s tax system. This single mother, whom we’ll consider “poor,” has just received a 12% to 15% increase in her weekly paychecks, and she’s paying less at the grocery story for her basic necessities.

So far, so good. At this point you should be thoroughly convinced that the Fair Tax would actually benefit, rather than harm the poor. But, then again, maybe not. Here’s the convincer. Brace yourself for the knockout punch.

The Rebate

Under the Fair Tax plan every consumer, rich and poor alike, will receive a check or an electronic credit to their bank account from the federal government every single month equal to the sales tax that person or that family would be expected to pay on the purchase of the basic necessities of life for that month. The size of the monthly payment will be based on the government’s published poverty levels for various sized households.

Here’s an example of how the rebate payments would have worked in 2003.

Let’s say you’re a married couple with two children. The Fair Tax Act sets forth a formula for computing the poverty level, based on government figures, which negates any marriage penalty. If the Fair Tax Act had been law in 2003 you would have been granted an annual consumption allowance of $24,240. This is what the government would assume you would have had to spend during that one year to buy the basic necessities of life for your family. The sales tax on this amount would equal $5,575. The government would have rebated this amount to you in 12 equal monthly installments of $465. What about a single woman with one child? Her monthly rebate in 2003 would have been $232. The lowest payment would be to a single person with no dependents. That person would have received $172 per month.

Now … bear in mind, this rebate isn’t only paid to the poor. It is paid to everyone, rich and poor alike. The purpose here is to make sure that no American has to pay the Fair Tax sales tax on the basic necessities of life. Unlike the present income tax system, the Fair Tax treats each and every person in this country exactly the same. This, of course, presents somewhat of a problem to politicians who like to use the tax code to foment class distrust or outright warfare.

OK … let’s add it up for America’s lower income citizens:

1. They get their entire paycheck.
2. Even with the sales tax, and considering the drop in prices, they’ll be paying essentially the same or less for everything they buy.
3. They get a check from the federal government every month to rebate any sales taxes they had to pay on life’s basic necessities.

Are you beginning to see just how far off-base John Kerry was with his intemperate criticisms?

Though most of the poor don’t have what we would call complex tax returns, let’s also include the time these they (all of us, really) will save by not having to keep tax records or file tax returns.

If you’re looking for some reason to oppose the Fair Tax plan, you’re going to have to find a better excuse than its effect on the poor. John Kerry might find it politically expedient to demagogue the issue for votes, but now you know enough to know what he’s up to.

For more comprehensive information on The Fair Tax you can visit http://www.fairtax.org.

Neal Boortz is a lawyer and nationally syndicated radio talk show host.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/nealboortz/nb20040827.shtml
 

05 Roush

Roushcharged
Established Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
16,685
Location
Front Range
Good info. :beer:

You can make it easier on yourself by becoming a Sovereign Citizen. :thumbsup:
 

sohowcome

Captain Obvious
Joined
Jul 17, 2001
Messages
23,945
Location
Taylor Ridge, IL
Originally posted by PlatinumCobra
Good info. :beer:

You can make it easier on yourself by becoming a Sovereign Citizen. :thumbsup:
Is that possible?



Also is HR25 ever going to happen??? I would love to see it happen and just pay taxes on what you actually buy.
 

05 Roush

Roushcharged
Established Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
16,685
Location
Front Range
Originally posted by sohowcome
Is that possible?



Also is HR25 ever going to happen??? I would love to see it happen and just pay taxes on what you actually buy.

If you signed the SS Act before your 18'th birthday, yes. The Social Security Act is fraudulent, and all you need to do is to go in front of a judge with an Attorney and revoke it. That is unless you want that WHOPPING SS check when you're older. :lol:

Then there's the revokation of your citizenship. Since you were born in the U.S. you can be a resident alien.

I knew a few guys back in PA that did this and they were like diplomats on their own soil. One paid NO taxes. The other paid NO taxes and had none of his vehicles registered. He also had a Costa Rican company that owned his house, cars, you name it. His home was International Soil and only the FBI could step foot on the grounds. :lol1:
 

sohowcome

Captain Obvious
Joined
Jul 17, 2001
Messages
23,945
Location
Taylor Ridge, IL
Originally posted by PlatinumCobra
If you signed the SS Act before your 18'th birthday, yes. The Social Security Act is fraudulent, and all you need to do is to go in front of a judge with an Attorney and revoke it. That is unless you want that WHOPPING SS check when you're older. :lol:

Then there's the revokation of your citizenship. Since you were born in the U.S. you can be a resident alien.

I knew a few guys back in PA that did this and they were like diplomats on their own soil. One paid NO taxes. The other paid NO taxes and had none of his vehicles registered. He also had a Costa Rican company that owned his house, cars, you name it. His home was International Soil and only the FBI could step foot on the grounds. :lol1:

I wonder if that is really viable? Have you done it? I really don't like paying taxes and I don't hope or expect SSI to be around when I am old. What are the consequences? I eventually want to start my own business, would it be hard to get a loan? What about future employment, and stuff like that. Very intersting stuff. :beer: :beer:
 

05 Roush

Roushcharged
Established Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
16,685
Location
Front Range
Originally posted by sohowcome
I wonder if that is really viable? Have you done it? I really don't like paying taxes and I don't hope or expect SSI to be around when I am old. What are the consequences? I eventually want to start my own business, would it be hard to get a loan? What about future employment, and stuff like that. Very intersting stuff. :beer: :beer:

I had all the details worked out, then I wound up being employed by a bank so it fizzled out. Contemplating going back to it and finishing the process since I'm self employed.

It's extremely difficult to get loans. That's one of the drawbacks. You also have troubles getting cell phones and other items. There are workarounds to this if you have a business, however, since you are assigned a Tax ID. The company pays taxes but you don't. :beer:
 

JoeNashville

Ghostrider
Established Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
3,339
Location
On Two Wheels

jazzkiller34

The West is the Best
Established Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2004
Messages
916
Location
L.A.
Originally posted by CarpetCityCobra
I looked at the article. I also looked at other things on the website and this is what I found:

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i13grope.htm

It appears with trash like that article, that site is nothing but a hollow satire.

Even if it's not, they now have no credibility by posting outright falsehood. Tripe.

what did you think of the original article?
 

hunterp

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2002
Messages
1,499
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah
A couple of issues with this idea. I'm not opposed to the idea necessarily, but a couple of thoughts:

1) The author is assuming as fact that businesses will lower their prices once they no longer have corporate income or payroll taxes. I'm not sure this will actually happen. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of businesses will see this as an infusion of cash and keep prices the same to keep the extra money rolling in.

2) The author mentions having no more IRS. However, who is going to administer the rebate program?

Whoever wrote that other article must have had a bad hit of acid before they started typing. The article is so full of outrageous examples and speculation it's a wonder anyone takes it seriously.
 

FordSVTFan

Oh, the humanity of it all.
Established Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2001
Messages
27,759
Location
West Florida
The nice thing about a national sales tax replacing income tax is that we are taking hold of the underground economy. We finally get a portion of the money made from illegal endeavors, such as drug sales, gambling, prostitution, etc. The tax money paid on the underground economy alone would fully vest social security as well and make medicare completely solvent with full drug benefits and we wouldnt have national debt.

It is really simple, you save your money and you pay no taxes on it until you decide to use it.

The downfall is the rate would have to be between 20-25% conservatively, which is on top of sales tax.

The other downfall is who will make sure the taxes are collected on all taxable merchandise and that those merchants will forward that tax in an appropriate fashion to the Dept of the Treasury?
 
Last edited:

carrrnuttt

My shit don't stink
Established Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2003
Messages
7,676
Location
Phoenix, AZ...hot sun, hotter girls
August 18, 2004, 8:54 a.m.
National Sales-Tax Silliness . . .
. . . and the need for tax-reform seriousness.

It’s a sign of how issueless the presidential campaign has been that voters and reporters alike pounce upon the slightest sign of a new idea from either candidate. Thus, a seemingly offhand remark by President Bush at a Florida campaign rally last week about a national retail sales tax set off two days of fireworks before the White House disowned it. But is the idea really dead?


At first glance, it appears that Bush was not saying anything significant about tax reform at a rally at Okaloosa-Walton College on August 10. He was asked by someone from the audience if he supports H.R. 25. He replied, “It’s an interesting idea. … That’s an interesting idea that we ought to explore.”

One could interpret Bush’s comment as simple politeness toward one of his supporters. But I think it is revealing that although the questioner referred to the proposal only by its bill number, Bush was clearly familiar with its specifics. Obviously, he has a good deal of knowledge about the national retail sales-tax bill sponsored by Rep. John Linder, Republican of Georgia.

Furthermore, Bush made reference at the rally to Rep. Jeff Miller, Republican of Florida, suggesting that he could “explain it all to us.” Indeed, he could have. Miller is a co-sponsor of H.R. 25, something that Bush apparently knew.

My point is that Bush certainly seems to know a lot about a rather obscure bill that has absolutely no support among reputable tax experts. I recently did a thorough review of the academic literature on this issue and could not find a single article in a peer-reviewed journal that did not reject the sales-tax proposal as utterly unworkable.

As I explained in a recent column, the tax rate would have to be prohibitively high to replace all federal taxes. Its own supporters admit that it would have to be 30 percent when compared to state sales taxes. And a new analysis by economist Bill Gale of the Brookings Institution estimates that it would actually take a rate of 60.7 percent.

Linder responded to my earlier column by saying that Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson had signed off on the 23 percent rate in H.R. 25 and supported the legislation. So I asked Prof. Jorgenson if this was the case. He referred me to several publications of his on this topic. One is testimony given to the House Ways and Means Committee on May 9, 2002. In it, Jorgenson calculated a necessary sales tax rate of 28.5 percent, not 23 percent.

It is also clear that Prof. Jorgenson can’t really be considered a supporter of the Linder plan because he has his own plan, which would impose a flat 10.9 percent tax rate on labor income and a 30.8 percent rate on capital, combined with a tax credit on new investment. Jorgenson says he personally presented Linder with a copy of his recent book, Lifting the Burden (MIT Press), in which he explains why his plan is superior to Linder’s. The congressman cannot claim ignorance.

Unfortunately, aggressive ignorance is largely what drives sales-tax advocates and keeps it alive as an issue. It sounds so simple to get rid of the income tax and the IRS and just pay your taxes when you buy things at the store. But even at the deceptively low rate claimed by the legislation, there would be massive problems with evasion and erosion of the tax base. For example, collecting sales taxes on services is extraordinarily difficult, which is why no state even tries to collect sales taxes on all services.

A bigger problem identified by economists, but ignored by sales-tax supporters, is how to make sure that none of the tax applies to business inputs. Unless the tax falls solely on final consumption, it is partly a tax on capital, which erodes much of the economic benefit of the sales tax, leads to cascading (taxes being levied on taxes), and distorts investment.

Again, the experience of the states is instructive. Studies have shown that about 40 percent of all state sales taxes fall on business inputs that ought to be exempt. At the low sales-tax rates imposed in most states, this doesn’t create too much of an economic problem. But at a rate necessary to replace all federal taxes, it would be very severe.

The problems of properly taxing businesses and avoiding evasion are what led every country that has ever studied the matter to conclude that a value-added tax is much superior to a national retail sales tax.

There is no question that the Treasury Department will oppose a retail sales tax if President Bush asks it to study the issue. I hope he does, so that serious tax-reform debate can move forward.

— Bruce Bartlett is senior fellow for the National Center for Policy Analysis. Write to him here
 

sohowcome

Captain Obvious
Joined
Jul 17, 2001
Messages
23,945
Location
Taylor Ridge, IL
Originally posted by FordSVTFan
The nice thing about a national sales tax replacing income tax is that we are taking hold of the underground economy. We finally get a portion of the money made from illegal endeavors, such as drug sales, gambling, prostitution, etc. The tax money paid on the underground economy alone would fully vest social security as well and make medicare completely solvent with full drug benefits and we wouldnt have national debt.

It is really simple, you save your money and you pay no taxes on it until you decide to use it.

The downfall is the rate would have to be between 20-25% conservatively, which is on top of sales tax.

The other downfall is who will make sure the taxes are collected on all taxable merchandise and that those merchants will forward that tax in an appropriate fashion to the Dept of the Treasury?
Exactly how I feel about it, especially the part where you only get taxed when you decide you want something, its really helpful for people like me who don't purchase a lot of things and save up for bigger items, it will allow people with lesser incomes build greater wealth, that is if they want to.
 

tvguy

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2003
Messages
2,303
Location
socal
If ANYONE thinks the tax situation is going to change ANY time soon, they are crazy. Lot's of suggestions out there, NONE taken seriously by our elected officials. It's a messed up system for sure. But MAJOR changes just aren't on the horizon. I don't care which political figure brings it up. It will be status quo for years to come.
pacotaco

Oh, and for that "sovereign citizen" crap, you think your friend will NEVER pay taxes in his/her lifetime? You are crazy. The IRS WILL come, make no mistake. And when they do, good luck to your buddy. Just the penalties will be hell to pay. There have been tons of ways to try and thwart the IRS system over the years. NONE have worked. Just because they haven't paid taxes doesn't mean they won't. Their day will come. The IRS doesn't play around. Never has, never will.
pacotaco
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TO_04Cobra

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
246
Location
Toronto, Ontario
Move to Bermuda. I worked and lived there a while. No payroll deductions whatsoever.

Downside. Everything is 2-3 times more expensive than you are used to, as gov't revenues are raised via import taxes on incoming goods (virtually everything).

Also, if you purchase a home (non-residents primarily), you pay a 20% tax on your home.

In Canada we have a 7% Goods and Services national tax (value added tax) plus provincial taxes (Ontario 8%). When I purchased my 04 Cobra, I thus paid 15% tax on the car (from my after-tax pay cheque).

Government is still short of money... "if we collect it, we'll spend it!"
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top