www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - [OT] My Fellow Americans

reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
So you think the IRS is stupid and should die a swift death? Have you 
heard of the FairTax? Just found out about it last night. Read up here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax, and discuss!
Oct 19 2005
next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dj6hvd$e32$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
So you think the IRS is stupid and should die a swift death? Have you 
heard of the FairTax? Just found out about it last night. Read up here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax, and discuss!

It sounds like the proposal is an attempt to have individuals shoulder the corporate tax burden. And with the elimination of capital gains and inheritance taxes (not to mention the replacement of a scaled income tax percentage with a fixed sales tax percentage), the wealthy would benefit far more than the average American. That said, it's worth noting that, according to the Wiki, the FairTax proposal would not implicitly eliminate income tax--that would require repealing the 16th amendment to the Constitution. So we may just end up with a bizarre hybrid system that's even more confusing than what we've already got (which is confusing enough, particularly considering the Alternate Minimum Tax many folks have to pay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_Minimum_Tax). However this idea may fare in a hypothetical world, there's no way it will become law. There's simply too much knowledge and infrastructure built around the existing tax system to make it a worthwhile venture--I can't even imagine the changes this would require in the investment market sector, not to mention its potentially substantial impact on national lending rates. I would be interested to see the effect it would have on foreign investors however--imagine being able to trade US securities tax-free :-) Sean
Oct 19 2005
next sibling parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:
 In article <dj6hvd$e32$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
 
So you think the IRS is stupid and should die a swift death? Have you 
heard of the FairTax? Just found out about it last night. Read up here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax, and discuss!

It sounds like the proposal is an attempt to have individuals shoulder the corporate tax burden. And with the elimination of capital gains and inheritance taxes (not to mention the replacement of a scaled income tax percentage with a fixed sales tax percentage), the wealthy would benefit far more than the average American. That said, it's worth noting that, according to the Wiki, the FairTax proposal would not implicitly eliminate income tax--that would require repealing the 16th amendment to the Constitution. So we may just end up with a bizarre hybrid system that's even more confusing than what we've already got (which is confusing enough, particularly considering the Alternate Minimum Tax many folks have to pay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_Minimum_Tax). However this idea may fare in a hypothetical world, there's no way it will become law. There's simply too much knowledge and infrastructure built around the existing tax system to make it a worthwhile venture--I can't even imagine the changes this would require in the investment market sector, not to mention its potentially substantial impact on national lending rates. I would be interested to see the effect it would have on foreign investors however--imagine being able to trade US securities tax-free :-) Sean

The Fair Tax Act specifically repeals Subtitles A, B, and C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (Income, payroll, and estate and gift taxes respectively) So while it is true that Congress would still have the power to pass a bill to introduce new income taxes, after passing the FairTax, the current taxes listed above would cease to exist. In regard to individuals "shouldering" the corporate tax burden, didn't you read that there is a monthly rebate associated with the bill? Every household receives a check from the government each month equal to the amount of taxes paid on necessities that month. That number is calculated by using the current poverty level income. So under this system, the poor do not pay ANY taxes, and every American gets their necessities tax-free. Also, how is lifting the tax burden on corporations a bad thing? The economists which were part of the $22 million research effort that went into the bill estimated that the retail prices in the US are 22-25% higher because of the taxes and compliance costs forced on corporations and small businesses. Companies would be able to produce things much cheaper than before, allowing them to offer products at much more competitive prices. The same economists estimate that prices would adjust down by the same amount or more that they are inflated due to current taxes. Most of the dissenting opinions I have read have used a static argument to show discrepancies in the system. The problem with this approach is that it doesnt take into account the positive growth effect of allowing persons to keep their entire paycheck. It seems to me naive to base ones calculations on data projected forward as if still working under the same tax system.
Oct 19 2005
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dj6n99$1585$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
Sean Kelly wrote:
 In article <dj6hvd$e32$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
 
So you think the IRS is stupid and should die a swift death? Have you 
heard of the FairTax? Just found out about it last night. Read up here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax, and discuss!

It sounds like the proposal is an attempt to have individuals shoulder the corporate tax burden. And with the elimination of capital gains and inheritance taxes (not to mention the replacement of a scaled income tax percentage with a fixed sales tax percentage), the wealthy would benefit far more than the average American. That said, it's worth noting that, according to the Wiki, the FairTax proposal would not implicitly eliminate income tax--that would require repealing the 16th amendment to the Constitution. So we may just end up with a bizarre hybrid system that's even more confusing than what we've already got (which is confusing enough, particularly considering the Alternate Minimum Tax many folks have to pay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_Minimum_Tax). However this idea may fare in a hypothetical world, there's no way it will become law. There's simply too much knowledge and infrastructure built around the existing tax system to make it a worthwhile venture--I can't even imagine the changes this would require in the investment market sector, not to mention its potentially substantial impact on national lending rates. I would be interested to see the effect it would have on foreign investors however--imagine being able to trade US securities tax-free :-) Sean

The Fair Tax Act specifically repeals Subtitles A, B, and C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (Income, payroll, and estate and gift taxes respectively) So while it is true that Congress would still have the power to pass a bill to introduce new income taxes, after passing the FairTax, the current taxes listed above would cease to exist.

Regarding this particular issue I was repeating a portion of the wiki you linked. Perhaps it should be corrected.
In regard to individuals "shouldering" the corporate tax burden, didn't 
you read that there is a monthly rebate associated with the bill? Every 
household receives a check from the government each month equal to the 
amount of taxes paid on necessities that month. That number is 
calculated by using the current poverty level income. So under this 
system, the poor do not pay ANY taxes, and every American gets their 
necessities tax-free.

The officially stated poverty level tends to be a good bit below the level required to live in most areas, particularly in regions with an abnormally high cost of living. Minimum wage numbers should be a sufficient testament to this. Also, low income households tend to spend all of their income on consumable goods, simply by necessity. Considering this, I am not convinced that the reimbursement amount will be sufficient to offset the increased living costs that a massive sales tax increase would create. I also wonder what would happen to regional tax laws. For example: some states tax food but not clothing, while others do the reverse. Would this law change things such that everything is taxed everywhere? If not, it might be substantially more affordable for poverty-level families to live in regions with favorable sales tax laws. As for my comment about individuals shouldering the corporate tax burden... If we assume that the government must receive the same dollar amount in tax revenues after the change as before the change then the impact on different sectors is simply a matter of determining how that obligation is distributed. Currently, corporations pay a substantial percentage of the national tax obligation through corporate and payroll taxes and through capital gains tax. Also, many corporations tend to spend relatively little on consumable goods. Since all of these taxes will be eliminated and replaced only by a fixed sales tax increase, it seems reasonable to conclude that this decreased corporate obligation will be made up for by revenue from individuals.
Also, how is lifting the tax burden on 
corporations a bad thing? The economists which were part of the $22 
million research effort that went into the bill estimated that the 
retail prices in the US are 22-25% higher because of the taxes and 
compliance costs forced on corporations and small businesses. Companies 
would be able to produce things much cheaper than before, allowing them 
to offer products at much more competitive prices. The same economists 
estimate that prices would adjust down by the same amount or more that 
they are inflated due to current taxes.

When was the last time you heard of a company lowering its prices simply because its expenses decreased? So long as the price is competitive with other offerings and the public is willing to pay for the product, decreased costs will simply mean increased profits. I am also skeptical that retail prices are 22-25% higher because of taxes--complaince costs shouldn't figure into the equation as they will remain with the new system (unless I'm misunderstanding what is meant by "compliance costs"). I do agree that prices would adjust down in the new system, but if so it would be no more than to keep post-tax prices constant. All of this has me wondering about the impact on multinational corporations as well. Under the new system, wouldn't it be more profitable to do all purchasing overseas where the tax per unit is typically far below 25%? How would this impact the ability of domestic manufacturers to remain competitive? I'll admit I know next to nothing about international business law so this question is not at all rhetorical.
Most of the dissenting opinions I have read have used a static argument 
to show discrepancies in the system. The problem with this approach is 
that it doesnt take into account the positive growth effect of allowing 
persons to keep their entire paycheck. It seems to me naive to base ones 
calculations on data projected forward as if still working under the 
same tax system.

I firmly believe that this new tax system would be quite nice for individuals with a decent disposable income. The elimination of capital gains tax alone is an incredible bonus--just look at how the wealthy profited from the slight capital gains tax decrease two years ago. And having met people who pay 60% or more of their yearly income in taxes (all of whom invest and spend only a small portion of their income on consumable goods), I can say with confidence that to replace this with only a 25% sales tax would have many of them dancing in the streets. But I have absolutely no confidence that such a change would be at all good for our currently horrendous national debt nor do I belive it would be good for those at the poverty-level. I also have no faith in the "trickle down" theory of economics, and while I expect that such a system would make the rich richer, I do not expect that the poor would fare quite so well. That said, I could easily be wrong. This is my initial reaction to what I read on the Wiki rather than an informed response. It's not a change that feels like it would work for the people. That it may work for me is immaterial in my opinion. Sean
Oct 19 2005
next sibling parent reply Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <dj6tc2$1ut2$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Sean Kelly says...
In article <dj6n99$1585$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
Sean Kelly wrote:
 In article <dj6hvd$e32$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
 
So you think the IRS is stupid and should die a swift death? Have you 
heard of the FairTax? Just found out about it last night. Read up here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax, and discuss!

It sounds like the proposal is an attempt to have individuals shoulder the corporate tax burden. And with the elimination of capital gains and inheritance taxes (not to mention the replacement of a scaled income tax percentage with a fixed sales tax percentage), the wealthy would benefit far more than the average American. That said, it's worth noting that, according to the Wiki, the FairTax proposal would not implicitly eliminate income tax--that would require repealing the 16th amendment to the Constitution. So we may just end up with a bizarre hybrid system that's even more confusing than what we've already got (which is confusing enough, particularly considering the Alternate Minimum Tax many folks have to pay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_Minimum_Tax). However this idea may fare in a hypothetical world, there's no way it will become law. There's simply too much knowledge and infrastructure built around the existing tax system to make it a worthwhile venture--I can't even imagine the changes this would require in the investment market sector, not to mention its potentially substantial impact on national lending rates. I would be interested to see the effect it would have on foreign investors however--imagine being able to trade US securities tax-free :-) Sean

The Fair Tax Act specifically repeals Subtitles A, B, and C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (Income, payroll, and estate and gift taxes respectively) So while it is true that Congress would still have the power to pass a bill to introduce new income taxes, after passing the FairTax, the current taxes listed above would cease to exist.

Regarding this particular issue I was repeating a portion of the wiki you linked. Perhaps it should be corrected.
In regard to individuals "shouldering" the corporate tax burden, didn't 
you read that there is a monthly rebate associated with the bill? Every 
household receives a check from the government each month equal to the 
amount of taxes paid on necessities that month. That number is 
calculated by using the current poverty level income. So under this 
system, the poor do not pay ANY taxes, and every American gets their 
necessities tax-free.

The officially stated poverty level tends to be a good bit below the level required to live in most areas, particularly in regions with an abnormally high cost of living. Minimum wage numbers should be a sufficient testament to this. Also, low income households tend to spend all of their income on consumable goods, simply by necessity. Considering this, I am not convinced that the reimbursement amount will be sufficient to offset the increased living costs that a massive sales tax increase would create. I also wonder what would happen to regional tax laws. For example: some states tax food but not clothing, while others do the reverse. Would this law change things such that everything is taxed everywhere? If not, it might be substantially more affordable for poverty-level families to live in regions with favorable sales tax laws. As for my comment about individuals shouldering the corporate tax burden... If we assume that the government must receive the same dollar amount in tax revenues after the change as before the change then the impact on different sectors is simply a matter of determining how that obligation is distributed. Currently, corporations pay a substantial percentage of the national tax obligation through corporate and payroll taxes and through capital gains tax. Also, many corporations tend to spend relatively little on consumable goods. Since all of these taxes will be eliminated and replaced only by a fixed sales tax increase, it seems reasonable to conclude that this decreased corporate obligation will be made up for by revenue from individuals.
Also, how is lifting the tax burden on 
corporations a bad thing? The economists which were part of the $22 
million research effort that went into the bill estimated that the 
retail prices in the US are 22-25% higher because of the taxes and 
compliance costs forced on corporations and small businesses. Companies 
would be able to produce things much cheaper than before, allowing them 
to offer products at much more competitive prices. The same economists 
estimate that prices would adjust down by the same amount or more that 
they are inflated due to current taxes.

When was the last time you heard of a company lowering its prices simply because its expenses decreased? So long as the price is competitive with other offerings and the public is willing to pay for the product, decreased costs will simply mean increased profits. I am also skeptical that retail prices are 22-25% higher because of taxes--complaince costs shouldn't figure into the equation as they will remain with the new system (unless I'm misunderstanding what is meant by "compliance costs"). I do agree that prices would adjust down in the new system, but if so it would be no more than to keep post-tax prices constant. All of this has me wondering about the impact on multinational corporations as well. Under the new system, wouldn't it be more profitable to do all purchasing overseas where the tax per unit is typically far below 25%? How would this impact the ability of domestic manufacturers to remain competitive? I'll admit I know next to nothing about international business law so this question is not at all rhetorical.
Most of the dissenting opinions I have read have used a static argument 
to show discrepancies in the system. The problem with this approach is 
that it doesnt take into account the positive growth effect of allowing 
persons to keep their entire paycheck. It seems to me naive to base ones 
calculations on data projected forward as if still working under the 
same tax system.

I firmly believe that this new tax system would be quite nice for individuals with a decent disposable income. The elimination of capital gains tax alone is an incredible bonus--just look at how the wealthy profited from the slight capital gains tax decrease two years ago. And having met people who pay 60% or more of their yearly income in taxes (all of whom invest and spend only a small portion of their income on consumable goods), I can say with confidence that to replace this with only a 25% sales tax would have many of them dancing in the streets. But I have absolutely no confidence that such a change would be at all good for our currently horrendous national debt nor do I belive it would be good for those at the poverty-level. I also have no faith in the "trickle down" theory of economics, and while I expect that such a system would make the rich richer, I do not expect that the poor would fare quite so well. That said, I could easily be wrong. This is my initial reaction to what I read on the Wiki rather than an informed response. It's not a change that feels like it would work for the people. That it may work for me is immaterial in my opinion. Sean

I say let's go back to what the original framers of the constitution intended - raise all Federal revenue though indirect taxes (e.g.: tariffs) and get rid of the rest. Give all of the "responsibility" for welfare and the like back to the states and they can tax whatever they'd like to provide for that. That way we'd have 50 big experimental social science labs (one of the primary reasons behind having 'states' in the first place) and sooner or later they'd gravitate toward what works instead of continuing the failed Federal social policies initiated over the last century or so (most since that damned 16th Amendment was ratified - sponsored by a Republican no less!). Hmmm - a nutball, you say? Well, a century ago, when the U.S. first became a major player on the international stage despite also being a very young country, what I describe above was basically the way things worked. The authors or the U.S. Constitution got so much right that I find it hard to believe that they got the two most important issues - acceptable Federal tax policy on private citizens AND states rights and responsibilities - so wrong as to have needed so much change over the last 80 years of 230 years. If we don't get control of people and organizations suckling on one Federal Gov't teet or another, we will soon be finished as a Republic I'm afraid. It's funny - as other major economies (China, India) around the world move toward capitalism and decentralized Gov't to better provide for their citizens, the U.S. is moving more towards socialism and bigger Govt' (no matter which major party is in power). Seems kinda bass-ackward to me.
Oct 19 2005
parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Dave wrote:
 In article <dj6tc2$1ut2$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Sean Kelly says...
 
In article <dj6n99$1585$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...

Sean Kelly wrote:

In article <dj6hvd$e32$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...


So you think the IRS is stupid and should die a swift death? Have you 
heard of the FairTax? Just found out about it last night. Read up here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax, and discuss!

It sounds like the proposal is an attempt to have individuals shoulder the corporate tax burden. And with the elimination of capital gains and inheritance taxes (not to mention the replacement of a scaled income tax percentage with a fixed sales tax percentage), the wealthy would benefit far more than the average American. That said, it's worth noting that, according to the Wiki, the FairTax proposal would not implicitly eliminate income tax--that would require repealing the 16th amendment to the Constitution. So we may just end up with a bizarre hybrid system that's even more confusing than what we've already got (which is confusing enough, particularly considering the Alternate Minimum Tax many folks have to pay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_Minimum_Tax). However this idea may fare in a hypothetical world, there's no way it will become law. There's simply too much knowledge and infrastructure built around the existing tax system to make it a worthwhile venture--I can't even imagine the changes this would require in the investment market sector, not to mention its potentially substantial impact on national lending rates. I would be interested to see the effect it would have on foreign investors however--imagine being able to trade US securities tax-free :-) Sean

The Fair Tax Act specifically repeals Subtitles A, B, and C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (Income, payroll, and estate and gift taxes respectively) So while it is true that Congress would still have the power to pass a bill to introduce new income taxes, after passing the FairTax, the current taxes listed above would cease to exist.

Regarding this particular issue I was repeating a portion of the wiki you linked. Perhaps it should be corrected.
In regard to individuals "shouldering" the corporate tax burden, didn't 
you read that there is a monthly rebate associated with the bill? Every 
household receives a check from the government each month equal to the 
amount of taxes paid on necessities that month. That number is 
calculated by using the current poverty level income. So under this 
system, the poor do not pay ANY taxes, and every American gets their 
necessities tax-free.

The officially stated poverty level tends to be a good bit below the level required to live in most areas, particularly in regions with an abnormally high cost of living. Minimum wage numbers should be a sufficient testament to this. Also, low income households tend to spend all of their income on consumable goods, simply by necessity. Considering this, I am not convinced that the reimbursement amount will be sufficient to offset the increased living costs that a massive sales tax increase would create. I also wonder what would happen to regional tax laws. For example: some states tax food but not clothing, while others do the reverse. Would this law change things such that everything is taxed everywhere? If not, it might be substantially more affordable for poverty-level families to live in regions with favorable sales tax laws. As for my comment about individuals shouldering the corporate tax burden... If we assume that the government must receive the same dollar amount in tax revenues after the change as before the change then the impact on different sectors is simply a matter of determining how that obligation is distributed. Currently, corporations pay a substantial percentage of the national tax obligation through corporate and payroll taxes and through capital gains tax. Also, many corporations tend to spend relatively little on consumable goods. Since all of these taxes will be eliminated and replaced only by a fixed sales tax increase, it seems reasonable to conclude that this decreased corporate obligation will be made up for by revenue from individuals.
Also, how is lifting the tax burden on 
corporations a bad thing? The economists which were part of the $22 
million research effort that went into the bill estimated that the 
retail prices in the US are 22-25% higher because of the taxes and 
compliance costs forced on corporations and small businesses. Companies 
would be able to produce things much cheaper than before, allowing them 
to offer products at much more competitive prices. The same economists 
estimate that prices would adjust down by the same amount or more that 
they are inflated due to current taxes.

When was the last time you heard of a company lowering its prices simply because its expenses decreased? So long as the price is competitive with other offerings and the public is willing to pay for the product, decreased costs will simply mean increased profits. I am also skeptical that retail prices are 22-25% higher because of taxes--complaince costs shouldn't figure into the equation as they will remain with the new system (unless I'm misunderstanding what is meant by "compliance costs"). I do agree that prices would adjust down in the new system, but if so it would be no more than to keep post-tax prices constant. All of this has me wondering about the impact on multinational corporations as well. Under the new system, wouldn't it be more profitable to do all purchasing overseas where the tax per unit is typically far below 25%? How would this impact the ability of domestic manufacturers to remain competitive? I'll admit I know next to nothing about international business law so this question is not at all rhetorical.
Most of the dissenting opinions I have read have used a static argument 
to show discrepancies in the system. The problem with this approach is 
that it doesnt take into account the positive growth effect of allowing 
persons to keep their entire paycheck. It seems to me naive to base ones 
calculations on data projected forward as if still working under the 
same tax system.

I firmly believe that this new tax system would be quite nice for individuals with a decent disposable income. The elimination of capital gains tax alone is an incredible bonus--just look at how the wealthy profited from the slight capital gains tax decrease two years ago. And having met people who pay 60% or more of their yearly income in taxes (all of whom invest and spend only a small portion of their income on consumable goods), I can say with confidence that to replace this with only a 25% sales tax would have many of them dancing in the streets. But I have absolutely no confidence that such a change would be at all good for our currently horrendous national debt nor do I belive it would be good for those at the poverty-level. I also have no faith in the "trickle down" theory of economics, and while I expect that such a system would make the rich richer, I do not expect that the poor would fare quite so well. That said, I could easily be wrong. This is my initial reaction to what I read on the Wiki rather than an informed response. It's not a change that feels like it would work for the people. That it may work for me is immaterial in my opinion. Sean

I say let's go back to what the original framers of the constitution intended - raise all Federal revenue though indirect taxes (e.g.: tariffs) and get rid of the rest. Give all of the "responsibility" for welfare and the like back to the states and they can tax whatever they'd like to provide for that. That way we'd have 50 big experimental social science labs (one of the primary reasons behind having 'states' in the first place) and sooner or later they'd gravitate toward what works instead of continuing the failed Federal social policies initiated over the last century or so (most since that damned 16th Amendment was ratified - sponsored by a Republican no less!). Hmmm - a nutball, you say? Well, a century ago, when the U.S. first became a major player on the international stage despite also being a very young country, what I describe above was basically the way things worked. The authors or the U.S. Constitution got so much right that I find it hard to believe that they got the two most important issues - acceptable Federal tax policy on private citizens AND states rights and responsibilities - so wrong as to have needed so much change over the last 80 years of 230 years. If we don't get control of people and organizations suckling on one Federal Gov't teet or another, we will soon be finished as a Republic I'm afraid. It's funny - as other major economies (China, India) around the world move toward capitalism and decentralized Gov't to better provide for their citizens, the U.S. is moving more towards socialism and bigger Govt' (no matter which major party is in power). Seems kinda bass-ackward to me.

I completely agree with your analysis. IMHO, the FairTax is a step in this direction. BTW, these sort of ideas which you are expounding are part of the Libertarian argument. (To which I am strongly sympathetic) Its no supprise that the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think-tank, strongly supports this bill.
Oct 19 2005
parent Trevor Parscal <Trevor_member pathlink.com> writes:
Kyle and Dave - I see things from your perspective as well...

I think its called Jeffersonian....

Thanks,
Trevor Parscal
Oct 19 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:
 In article <dj6n99$1585$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
 
Sean Kelly wrote:

In article <dj6hvd$e32$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...


So you think the IRS is stupid and should die a swift death? Have you 
heard of the FairTax? Just found out about it last night. Read up here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax, and discuss!

It sounds like the proposal is an attempt to have individuals shoulder the corporate tax burden. And with the elimination of capital gains and inheritance taxes (not to mention the replacement of a scaled income tax percentage with a fixed sales tax percentage), the wealthy would benefit far more than the average American. That said, it's worth noting that, according to the Wiki, the FairTax proposal would not implicitly eliminate income tax--that would require repealing the 16th amendment to the Constitution. So we may just end up with a bizarre hybrid system that's even more confusing than what we've already got (which is confusing enough, particularly considering the Alternate Minimum Tax many folks have to pay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_Minimum_Tax). However this idea may fare in a hypothetical world, there's no way it will become law. There's simply too much knowledge and infrastructure built around the existing tax system to make it a worthwhile venture--I can't even imagine the changes this would require in the investment market sector, not to mention its potentially substantial impact on national lending rates. I would be interested to see the effect it would have on foreign investors however--imagine being able to trade US securities tax-free :-) Sean

The Fair Tax Act specifically repeals Subtitles A, B, and C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (Income, payroll, and estate and gift taxes respectively) So while it is true that Congress would still have the power to pass a bill to introduce new income taxes, after passing the FairTax, the current taxes listed above would cease to exist.

Regarding this particular issue I was repeating a portion of the wiki you linked. Perhaps it should be corrected.

The wiki article I linked to I read as my first introduction to the bill, I have since read the bill itself in its entirety, and have found that the wiki contains a load of factual errors. :-P
 
In regard to individuals "shouldering" the corporate tax burden, didn't 
you read that there is a monthly rebate associated with the bill? Every 
household receives a check from the government each month equal to the 
amount of taxes paid on necessities that month. That number is 
calculated by using the current poverty level income. So under this 
system, the poor do not pay ANY taxes, and every American gets their 
necessities tax-free.

The officially stated poverty level tends to be a good bit below the level required to live in most areas, particularly in regions with an abnormally high cost of living. Minimum wage numbers should be a sufficient testament to this. Also, low income households tend to spend all of their income on consumable goods, simply by necessity. Considering this, I am not convinced that the reimbursement amount will be sufficient to offset the increased living costs that a massive sales tax increase would create. I also wonder what would happen to regional tax laws. For example: some states tax food but not clothing, while others do the reverse. Would this law change things such that everything is taxed everywhere? If not, it might be substantially more affordable for poverty-level families to live in regions with favorable sales tax laws.

Regarding the poor and the rebate. I believe the poverty level income figures published by the Department of Health and Human Services are basically the maximum of the incomes of the areas of the country considered to be poverty level. In addition to this the department publishes different figures for different states. That being the case, my assertion that the poor wont pay taxes stands. The national sales tax would not affect any state taxes at all, it simply adds onto the base price of the good or service 23%. (30% exclusive)
 
 As for my comment about individuals shouldering the corporate tax burden...  If
 we assume that the government must receive the same dollar amount in tax
 revenues after the change as before the change then the impact on different
 sectors is simply a matter of determining how that obligation is distributed.
 Currently, corporations pay a substantial percentage of the national tax
 obligation through corporate and payroll taxes and through capital gains tax.
 Also, many corporations tend to spend relatively little on consumable goods.
 Since all of these taxes will be eliminated and replaced only by a fixed sales
 tax increase, it seems reasonable to conclude that this decreased corporate
 obligation will be made up for by revenue from individuals.
 

Yes, you are right, individuals would bear more of the tax burden.
Also, how is lifting the tax burden on 
corporations a bad thing? The economists which were part of the $22 
million research effort that went into the bill estimated that the 
retail prices in the US are 22-25% higher because of the taxes and 
compliance costs forced on corporations and small businesses. Companies 
would be able to produce things much cheaper than before, allowing them 
to offer products at much more competitive prices. The same economists 
estimate that prices would adjust down by the same amount or more that 
they are inflated due to current taxes.

When was the last time you heard of a company lowering its prices simply because its expenses decreased? So long as the price is competitive with other offerings and the public is willing to pay for the product, decreased costs will simply mean increased profits. I am also skeptical that retail prices are 22-25% higher because of taxes--complaince costs shouldn't figure into the equation as they will remain with the new system (unless I'm misunderstanding what is meant by "compliance costs"). I do agree that prices would adjust down in the new system, but if so it would be no more than to keep post-tax prices constant.

Even if companies dont offer goods at lower prices, (which they would, in order to get an edge on the competition) think of stock options and dividends. With earnings sky rocketing, that money would find its way back into shareholder's pockets (read - your 401(k)). I think that by eliminating the built-in welfare of the income tax (lower incomes having a negative tax rate) the government even saves at least some money on the bargain.
 All of this has me wondering about the impact on multinational corporations as
 well.  Under the new system, wouldn't it be more profitable to do all
purchasing
 overseas where the tax per unit is typically far below 25%?  How would this
 impact the ability of domestic manufacturers to remain competitive?  I'll admit
 I know next to nothing about international business law so this question is not
 at all rhetorical.
 

In Title II, Section 905 of the bill, it states: " (a)In General- All persons, in whatever capacity acting (including lessees or mortgagors or real or personal property, fiduciaries, employers, and all officers and employees of the United States) having control, receipt, custody, disposal, or payment of any income to the extent such income constitutes gross income from sources within the United States of any nonresident alien individual, foreign partnership, or foreign corporation shall deduct and withhold from that income a tax equal to 23 percent thereof. (b) Exception- No tax shall be required to be deducted from interest on portfolio debt investments. (c) Treaty Countries- In the case of payments to nonresident alien individuals, foreign partnerships, or foreign corporations that have a residence in (or the nationality of a country) that has entered into a tax treaty with the United States, then the rate of withholding tax prescribed by the treaty shall govern.'." In Title II, Section 102(a): "(a) In General- For purposes of this subtitle-- (1) BUSINESS AND EXPORT PURPOSES- No tax shall be imposed under section 101 on any taxable property or service for-- (A) a business purpose in a trade or business, or (B) export from the United States for use or consumption outside the United States, if, the purchaser provided the seller with a registration certificate, and the seller was a wholesale seller."
 
Most of the dissenting opinions I have read have used a static argument 
to show discrepancies in the system. The problem with this approach is 
that it doesnt take into account the positive growth effect of allowing 
persons to keep their entire paycheck. It seems to me naive to base ones 
calculations on data projected forward as if still working under the 
same tax system.

I firmly believe that this new tax system would be quite nice for individuals with a decent disposable income. The elimination of capital gains tax alone is an incredible bonus--just look at how the wealthy profited from the slight capital gains tax decrease two years ago. And having met people who pay 60% or more of their yearly income in taxes (all of whom invest and spend only a small portion of their income on consumable goods), I can say with confidence that to replace this with only a 25% sales tax would have many of them dancing in the streets. But I have absolutely no confidence that such a change would be at all good for our currently horrendous national debt nor do I belive it would be good for those at the poverty-level. I also have no faith in the "trickle down" theory of economics, and while I expect that such a system would make the rich richer, I do not expect that the poor would fare quite so well. That said, I could easily be wrong. This is my initial reaction to what I read on the Wiki rather than an informed response. It's not a change that feels like it would work for the people. That it may work for me is immaterial in my opinion. Sean

The sales tax is calculated to be revenue-neutral, i.e. would bring in the same amount as the income and other taxes. If you dont believe in "trickle down" then this isnt for you. But it is proven to work. Kyle
Oct 19 2005
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dj7b2f$ac3$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
The national sales tax would not affect any state taxes at all, it 
simply adds onto the base price of the good or service 23%. (30% exclusive)

One reason I mentioned this particular issue is that differing state sales tax laws have an odd impact on sales in some border areas--Manhattan and NJ being a prime example. There, it is so common for New Yorkers to take the subway to New Jersey to go clothes shopping that NYC regularly has tax-free weekends to encourage its residents to shop locally. If their sales tax went from 8% to 33% this effect would be even more pronounced. This possibly isn't a reason in itselt not to have the new tax law, however, so much as it is an interesting fact.
Even if companies dont offer goods at lower prices, (which they would, 
in order to get an edge on the competition) think of stock options and 
dividends. With earnings sky rocketing, that money would find its way 
back into shareholder's pockets (read - your 401(k)). I think that by 
eliminating the built-in welfare of the income tax (lower incomes having 
a negative tax rate) the government even saves at least some money on 
the bargain.

The shareholder's pockets perhaps, but how far above the poverty line do folks have to be before they have acces to a 401k? I grant that the new system would encourage people to save so perhaps things would improve, but I think this largely supports my argument that the law would be better for the wealthy than the poor. That said, its sheer simplicitly is definately appealing. I'll have to find some time to read the bill today. Sean
Oct 20 2005
parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:
 In article <dj7b2f$ac3$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
 
The national sales tax would not affect any state taxes at all, it 
simply adds onto the base price of the good or service 23%. (30% exclusive)

One reason I mentioned this particular issue is that differing state sales tax laws have an odd impact on sales in some border areas--Manhattan and NJ being a prime example. There, it is so common for New Yorkers to take the subway to New Jersey to go clothes shopping that NYC regularly has tax-free weekends to encourage its residents to shop locally. If their sales tax went from 8% to 33% this effect would be even more pronounced. This possibly isn't a reason in itselt not to have the new tax law, however, so much as it is an interesting fact.

Actually the opposite would be true. New Jersey would now have a 23% sales tax, so people would be less inclined to make the trip.
 
Even if companies dont offer goods at lower prices, (which they would, 
in order to get an edge on the competition) think of stock options and 
dividends. With earnings sky rocketing, that money would find its way 
back into shareholder's pockets (read - your 401(k)). I think that by 
eliminating the built-in welfare of the income tax (lower incomes having 
a negative tax rate) the government even saves at least some money on 
the bargain.

The shareholder's pockets perhaps, but how far above the poverty line do folks have to be before they have acces to a 401k? I grant that the new system would encourage people to save so perhaps things would improve, but I think this largely supports my argument that the law would be better for the wealthy than the poor. That said, its sheer simplicitly is definately appealing. I'll have to find some time to read the bill today. Sean

Like I said, if you dont believe in supply-side economics, this bill is not for you.
Oct 20 2005
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dj907a$46s$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
Sean Kelly wrote:
 In article <dj7b2f$ac3$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
 
The national sales tax would not affect any state taxes at all, it 
simply adds onto the base price of the good or service 23%. (30% exclusive)

One reason I mentioned this particular issue is that differing state sales tax laws have an odd impact on sales in some border areas--Manhattan and NJ being a prime example. There, it is so common for New Yorkers to take the subway to New Jersey to go clothes shopping that NYC regularly has tax-free weekends to encourage its residents to shop locally. If their sales tax went from 8% to 33% this effect would be even more pronounced. This possibly isn't a reason in itselt not to have the new tax law, however, so much as it is an interesting fact.

Actually the opposite would be true. New Jersey would now have a 23% sales tax, so people would be less inclined to make the trip.

You misunderstand me. The 8% sales tax is a NYC law. NJ has no sales tax on clothing at all: http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/ssutanotice.pdf It's worth noting that NJ also does not tax the sale of groceries--only prepared foods.
Like I said, if you dont believe in supply-side economics, this bill is 
not for you.

I believe in it to a point, but I think there's a bit of slippage between theory and practice. What happened when the US currency was floated off the Gold standard is sufficient testament to that IMO. Sean
Oct 20 2005
parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:
 In article <dj907a$46s$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
 
Sean Kelly wrote:

In article <dj7b2f$ac3$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...


The national sales tax would not affect any state taxes at all, it 
simply adds onto the base price of the good or service 23%. (30% exclusive)

One reason I mentioned this particular issue is that differing state sales tax laws have an odd impact on sales in some border areas--Manhattan and NJ being a prime example. There, it is so common for New Yorkers to take the subway to New Jersey to go clothes shopping that NYC regularly has tax-free weekends to encourage its residents to shop locally. If their sales tax went from 8% to 33% this effect would be even more pronounced. This possibly isn't a reason in itselt not to have the new tax law, however, so much as it is an interesting fact.

Actually the opposite would be true. New Jersey would now have a 23% sales tax, so people would be less inclined to make the trip.

You misunderstand me. The 8% sales tax is a NYC law. NJ has no sales tax on clothing at all: http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/ssutanotice.pdf It's worth noting that NJ also does not tax the sale of groceries--only prepared foods.

No, I dont misunderstand you. Before NST: NJ = 0% NY = 8% After NST: NJ = 23% NY = 31% The difference percentage-wise after the NST is much much less than before the NST.
 
Like I said, if you dont believe in supply-side economics, this bill is 
not for you.

I believe in it to a point, but I think there's a bit of slippage between theory and practice. What happened when the US currency was floated off the Gold standard is sufficient testament to that IMO. Sean

Oct 20 2005
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dj9i6l$jaa$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
Sean Kelly wrote:
 
 You misunderstand me.  The 8% sales tax is a NYC law.  NJ has no sales tax on
 clothing at all:
 
 http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/ssutanotice.pdf
 
 It's worth noting that NJ also does not tax the sale of groceries--only
prepared
 foods.

No, I dont misunderstand you. Before NST: NJ = 0% NY = 8% After NST: NJ = 23% NY = 31% The difference percentage-wise after the NST is much much less than before the NST.

Oops, I misunderstood. You had said before that this bill would not alter state tax law, and I took that to mean that NJ state tax on clothing would remain at 0%. That it would be raised to 23% is a substantial difference. Sean
Oct 20 2005
parent Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:
 In article <dj9i6l$jaa$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
 
Sean Kelly wrote:

You misunderstand me.  The 8% sales tax is a NYC law.  NJ has no sales tax on
clothing at all:

http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/ssutanotice.pdf

It's worth noting that NJ also does not tax the sale of groceries--only prepared
foods.

No, I dont misunderstand you. Before NST: NJ = 0% NY = 8% After NST: NJ = 23% NY = 31% The difference percentage-wise after the NST is much much less than before the NST.

Oops, I misunderstood. You had said before that this bill would not alter state tax law, and I took that to mean that NJ state tax on clothing would remain at 0%. That it would be raised to 23% is a substantial difference. Sean

What I meant was that it would not override any existing sales tax, they would just add. I think you understand. :-)
Oct 21 2005
prev sibling parent reply Trevor Parscal <Trevor_member pathlink.com> writes:
I don't care to debate politics here - but...

Sean wrote...

When was the last time you heard of a company lowering its prices simply because
its expenses decreased?  So long as the price is competitive with other
offerings and the public is willing to pay for the product, decreased costs will
simply mean increased profits.  

This is sort of silly. Have you ever heard of a Hundai? They can make thing cheaper, cause its from Korea and labor is cheap, and they sell their cars for less money... And you know, modern Hundai cars are pretty high quality... Trevor Parscal
Oct 19 2005
next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dj7ere$m0o$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Trevor Parscal says...
I don't care to debate politics here - but...

Sean wrote...

When was the last time you heard of a company lowering its prices simply because
its expenses decreased?  So long as the price is competitive with other
offerings and the public is willing to pay for the product, decreased costs will
simply mean increased profits.  

This is sort of silly. Have you ever heard of a Hundai? They can make thing cheaper, cause its from Korea and labor is cheap, and they sell their cars for less money... And you know, modern Hundai cars are pretty high quality...

So why don't other car manufacturers feel the need to be price competitive with Hyundai? :-) Sean
Oct 20 2005
prev sibling parent Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <dj7ere$m0o$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Trevor Parscal says...
I don't care to debate politics here - but...

Sean wrote...

When was the last time you heard of a company lowering its prices simply because
its expenses decreased?  So long as the price is competitive with other
offerings and the public is willing to pay for the product, decreased costs will
simply mean increased profits.  

This is sort of silly. Have you ever heard of a Hundai? They can make thing cheaper, cause its from Korea and labor is cheap, and they sell their cars for less money... And you know, modern Hundai cars are pretty high quality... Trevor Parscal

Just had to add that a huge part of the cost of labor difference can be accounted for by taxes and Gov't regulation. In other words, one of the primary reasons that U.S. citizens need such relatively high pay to maintain our std. of living is because of the tax and regulatory burden of the Federal Gov't.
Oct 20 2005
prev sibling parent J C Calvarese <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:
In article <dj6kpf$q58$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Sean Kelly says...
In article <dj6hvd$e32$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
So you think the IRS is stupid and should die a swift death? Have you 
heard of the FairTax? Just found out about it last night. Read up here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax, and discuss!

It sounds like the proposal is an attempt to have individuals shoulder the corporate tax burden.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way to look at it is that individuals are already paying the taxes of corporations. Corporates just add their tax burden to the costs of the goods that they sell. When you buy anything from a corporation, a portion of the price goes to pay their tax bill. They don't itemize it on the receipt, but the it's certainly part of the price of doing business with them. Part of the idea behind the FairTax is that we could expect the base price of goods to go down if we changed from a national income tax to a national sales tax. In competive markets, the business with the best price can sell the most product. It makes sense to me. jcc7
Oct 20 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent "Ben Hinkle" <ben.hinkle gmail.com> writes:
on a related OT topic I'm still wishing for some serious calendar reform:
http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/calendar-reform.html
and http://www.theworldcalendar.org/


"Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:dj6hvd$e32$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 So you think the IRS is stupid and should die a swift death? Have you 
 heard of the FairTax? Just found out about it last night. Read up here: 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax, and discuss! 

Oct 19 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Craig Black" <cblack ara.com> writes:
This is an incredibly radical change to the tax code.  What are the chances 
of this actually passing?  I would guess its not likely at all.

-Craig 
Oct 19 2005
next sibling parent Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Craig Black wrote:
 This is an incredibly radical change to the tax code.  What are the chances 
 of this actually passing?  I would guess its not likely at all.
 
 -Craig 
 
 

www.fairtaxblog.com The bill is now supported by almost 50 congressmen. Detailed stats here: http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/scorecards/
Oct 19 2005
prev sibling parent reply JT <jtd514 ameritech.net> writes:
Yeah its not going to happen. First of all the current federal 
government is closer to organized crime than politics, the IRS is a 
private entity and we dont even know who owns the trust which controls 
it.  Most likely its the private owners of the federal reserve. The 
legal definition of "income" is "profit from a business" - a man trading 
labor is not taxable. Somewhere along the way they suckered us into 
paying the corporate tax burden. They also suckered us into establishing 
an illegal central bank - by calling it a federal reserve. Now they 
actually confiscate our wealth and hand it over to the owners of the fed 
- not the government - at the tune of $40 million an hour. All for the 
benifit of using their fancy (yet worthless) green paper. But hey, they 
have guns n stuff.

What is going to happen is a national point of sale tax on top of the 
income tax. This national sales tax will result in a federal ID card and 
federal terminals at all points of sale. This will be the road to their 
orwellian promised land. It will take a major revelation to turn the tax 
burden back upon the corporations. A revelation that turns the entire 
illegal system that is the federal reserve and IRS onto its ass as 
exactly what its is: the greatest scam of all time. I believe the 
awakening is happening, so we shall see...

Im glad people want real tax reform - the awakening is afoot! But we 
need to go deeper and abolish the federal reserve itself or we are doing 
is throwing a bucket of paint over it.


Craig Black wrote:
 This is an incredibly radical change to the tax code.  What are the chances 
 of this actually passing?  I would guess its not likely at all.
 
 -Craig 
 
 

Oct 20 2005
next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <dj7jab$14ia$1 digitaldaemon.com>, JT says...
Im glad people want real tax reform - the awakening is afoot! But we 
need to go deeper and abolish the federal reserve itself or we are doing 
is throwing a bucket of paint over it.

I agree that Keynesian economic policy turned out to be kind of a mess, but at this point it's not likely that the Fed is going anywhere--they manage trillions of dollars of securitized national debt. What would happen to all that? Sean
Oct 20 2005
parent reply JT <jtd514 ameritech.net> writes:
"turned out to be kind of a mess" ? This is the way it was designed. It 
was always just a scam. It was designed to transfer your wealth to the 
owners of the fed via inflation through the mechanism of expanding the 
elastic money supply. i.e. they just print more money. There is no real 
'debt' the way we percieve. We have a bunch of very slick criminals 
handing us a bill and we just shrug and go "gee i guess we owe it" when 
in fact its mostly just rental fees on worthless green paper.

for example, if you could take a piece of paper, color it green with a 
crayon, write $100 on it in magic marker, and then LOAN it to someone 
for $100 PLUS INTEREST - would you or would you not eventually own 
everything? Would the planet not eventually be 'in debt' to you? Heck, 
would they even physically be able to pay it back? (hint: no debt = no 
dollars)

Im sorry - I dont owe any blue blood family any "debt" just because they 
conned my great-grandfathers generation into the federal reserve. In 
fact I want a refund.

I dont know the exact solution but it starts somewhere with a REAL 
CURRENCY not this fiat nonsense we have been brainwashed into believing 
is money. The dollar doesnt even rate as high as a 'bank note' - its not 
anywhere near money. The legitimate securities should be transfered and 
the illegal ones flushed right down the toilet. my solution would also 
be to lock up the criminals behind this nonsense. Of course this gets 
into a place americans just dont want to go - but it all begins with 
abolishing the federal reserve. anything else is just games.


Sean Kelly wrote:
 In article <dj7jab$14ia$1 digitaldaemon.com>, JT says...
 
Im glad people want real tax reform - the awakening is afoot! But we 
need to go deeper and abolish the federal reserve itself or we are doing 
is throwing a bucket of paint over it.

I agree that Keynesian economic policy turned out to be kind of a mess, but at this point it's not likely that the Fed is going anywhere--they manage trillions of dollars of securitized national debt. What would happen to all that? Sean

Oct 20 2005
parent JT <jtd514 ameritech.net> writes:
Well Im getting carried away here - the fed scam is something Im quite 
passionate about. I will let you guys get back to your discussion, but I 
want to suggest a book. This is a fantastic book that I think every 
American should read regarding the history of our central bank. There 
are better books but this is the best introductory material out there 
and gives a wonderfull overview of history.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0912986212/002-7900086-8464069?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance
http://www.realityzone.com/creature.html

"A superb analysis deserving serious attention by all Americans. Be 
prepared for one heck of a journey through time and mind." - Congressman 
Ron Paul (Member, House Banking Committee)
Oct 20 2005
prev sibling parent Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <dj7jab$14ia$1 digitaldaemon.com>, JT says...
Yeah its not going to happen. First of all the current federal 
government is closer to organized crime than politics, the IRS is a 
private entity and we dont even know who owns the trust which controls 
it.  Most likely its the private owners of the federal reserve. The 
legal definition of "income" is "profit from a business" - a man trading 
labor is not taxable. Somewhere along the way they suckered us into 
paying the corporate tax burden. They also suckered us into establishing 
an illegal central bank - by calling it a federal reserve. Now they 
actually confiscate our wealth and hand it over to the owners of the fed 
- not the government - at the tune of $40 million an hour. All for the 
benifit of using their fancy (yet worthless) green paper. But hey, they 
have guns n stuff.

What is going to happen is a national point of sale tax on top of the 
income tax. This national sales tax will result in a federal ID card and 
federal terminals at all points of sale. This will be the road to their 
orwellian promised land. It will take a major revelation to turn the tax 
burden back upon the corporations. A revelation that turns the entire 
illegal system that is the federal reserve and IRS onto its ass as 
exactly what its is: the greatest scam of all time. I believe the 
awakening is happening, so we shall see...

Im glad people want real tax reform - the awakening is afoot! But we 
need to go deeper and abolish the federal reserve itself or we are doing 
is throwing a bucket of paint over it.

That's what I fear the most about any tax "reform". They will end up compromising with the myrid of special interest groups out there and basically we will end up with a higher tax bill and less freedom.
Craig Black wrote:
 This is an incredibly radical change to the tax code.  What are the chances 
 of this actually passing?  I would guess its not likely at all.
 
 -Craig 
 
 


Oct 20 2005