Our mission is to create a consolidated on-line presence of FairTax supporters and activists nationwide, allowing greater political visibility & strength, as well as networking & educational assistance for FairTax groups throughout the country
Website: http://fairtaxnation.com
Location: United States Of America
Members: 108
Latest Activity: on Tuesday
Comment
About the Flat tax. Almost every conuntry that has a flat tax also has a VAT. The few that do not seem to be under the control of a larger nation.
Russia is looking to change their VAT into a National Sales Tax.
Also I would like to note that the Fair Tax is the most researched tax plan introduced into the congress. After over $20Million in research the answer is in -- the founding fathers were correct consumption taxes collect revenue for the nation while protecting personal liberty.
One of the reasons why the FairTax should be implemented sooner, rather than later is because the first nation to implement it, WINS… BIG.
Income taxes have failed. VAT taxes have failed. But both have failed largely because they ignore the truism, ONLY PEOPLE PAY TAX. Businesses don't pay tax. They just pass them on. But far too many of the greedy takers don't realize that basic fact. This allows the liberals to get votes by promising to "Soak the Rich." The takers don't realize that raising taxes on business only increases the price on the products that they buy, which means that they - the individuals - are actually paying those additional taxes. It's that lack of transparency that is largely responsible for both the income tax and the VAT being a failure.
But since the FairTax will eliminate all taxes on production, it means that US-made products will have a 23% tax advantage over foreign-made products, both in the USA and abroad. To businesses, income tax is just another cost of doing business that is factored into the price of manufactured products, the profits that distributors make from reselling products or the price that retailers charge the consumers. So that means that when the US income tax is eliminated, the price of US-made products will drop, both in the USA and abroad. But foreign-made products will still have an income tax component built into the price, plus the FairTax will be added to the price of those foreign products, just as it is added to the price of US-made products.
If US-made products cost less, then more people in the USA and abroad will buy those US-made products. That creates more jobs in the USA. Also, foreign companies, in order to remain competitive, will move their manufacturing facilities to the USA, creating even more jobs. Of course, with more people working, there will be more people with money to spend and when they spend that money, they will pay tax. But if they don't spend it, then the savings will end up supporting businesses. It's a WIN-WIN situation.
As for the VAT, it shares many of the same problems with the income tax, in that it places an excessive compliance load on all businesses and much of it's costs are not visible to the consumer. By contrast, every penny of the FairTax is visible to the consumer on every sales receipt. If the government wants to raise the corporate income tax, the takers won't fight it because they think that someone else is paying that increase. But if they try to raise the FairTax, the takers will see it on their sales receipt and fight it, because they see it affecting them.
No amount of research is going to be absolutely conclusive. But the FairTax is the most thoroughly researched tax proposal in history - by a wide margin. Furthermore, it has stood up to its critics. Lindbeck, Linder and other FairTax experts have repeatedly challenged Flat Income Tax supporters and VAT supporters to debate them in a public forum. But neither Forbes nor any of the other Flat Income Tax proponents will take them up on the challenge. The Flat Income Tax people won't accept the challenge because they know that all they have is spin, generated by researchers who were hired to "JUSTIFY" the Flat Income Tax, while the FairTax is based on solid research from researchers who were hired to "SOLVE THE TAX PROBLEM".
Another thing to think about is that not a single major economist who has ever supported the FairTax has ever change his support to the Flat Income Tax or any other tax proposal. But every year, as more economists actually do their homework and study the FairTax, more of those economists move from support for the Flat Income Tax to the FairTax. If the Flat Income Tax had any redeeming value, you would think that at least one major economist would have changed his opinion in the other direction. But they haven't. When economists take the time to examine all the facts, the FairTax sells itself.
A Flat Income Tax only "APPEARS" to work as long as it "STAYS" flat. Furthermore, a Flat Income Tax is still a regressive tax, since it is a tax on productivity. Let's take these one at a time.
First, every time our tax system has been flattened even somewhat, it has immediately ballooned back to the progressive monstrosity that it currently is. The fact is that the liberals have found that one of the easiest ways to get votes from greedy, uninformed deadbeats, is to promise to make the income tax more progressive (i.e. Soak the Rich).
Second, there is a truism that sociologists state very succinctly. "If you want less of a thing, you punish that thing. If you want more of a thing, you reward that thing." Taxing income is punishing productivity and savings. Taxing consumption is rewarding productivity and savings. That's so obvious that even Forbes should be able to understand it. But obviously, he is more concerned with maintaining a broad class distinction than in helping everyone do better.
As for studying the FairTax, more than $21 million has already been spent on research, polling and related study on the FairTax. That's more than 10 times the amount spent on researching the Flat Income Tax that Forbes pushes and almost 20 times more any tax bill that has ever passed.
Furthermore, the money spent on what was supposed to be research of the Flat Income Tax was actually not spent on unbiased research, but rather was a determined effort to "JUSTIFY" the Flat Income Tax. By contrast, when Linbeck, McNair, and Trotter initially put up $1.5 million each, for tax reform research, their charge to the economists and pollsters that they hired was not to justify any particular type of tax, but rather, to find the best possible fix for the current broken tax system. Together, those economists created what would become known as the FairTax.
Forbes and his Flat Income Tax supporters used what is called, "PUSH" research. In other words, they determined what the outcome of their research would be, before setting the parameters for their supposed "research". So naturally, the economists concluded what they were expected to conclude. But the FairTax creators never mentioned favoring a particular type of tax, when instructing the economists that they hired. They gave the economists simple instructions to find the best possible fix for the current tax system and the most generous budget ever, for researching tax issues. The FairTax was what emerged from that research.
Furthermore, the Flat Income Tax has repeatedly had holes shot through it that supporters have been completely unable to address, to they resort to changing the subject. At the same time, the extensive research on the FairTax means that supporters have been able to conclusively defend the FairTax against every argument that detractors have leveled at it.
I suggest that you read "The Rich Don't Pay Tax! …Or Do They?" http://TheRichDontPayTax.com/ and pay particular attention to section 3, where the major goals for substantive tax reform are laid out. You'll see that the Flat Income Tax fails on all but a few of those goals, while the FairTax achieves every one of those goals.
The problem in repealing the 16th amendment first is we will not have a tax system to collect the money to pay our bills. It would play havoc on the financial markets and we risk a crash or worse. The government would then step in to "save" us by imposing a tax system of their own choosing.
We pass the Fair Tax which replaces our current tax system. There is no reason why everyone can't work on repealing the 16th amendment now so we will be ready when the Fair Tax passes.
Join us on FairTaxNation.com and lets get to work!
Comment by Clint Counts on September 23, 2012 at 4:15pm John you are absolutely right ! We must repeal the 16th amendment before we allow any new tax system. in my humble opinion repealing the 16th and 17th amendments is the only solution to saving America and we must understand what we are up against, the "progressive" movement started 100 yrs. ago with T.Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and has kept the pressure on continuously taking what they can get, Example; the Health Care takeover bill has been in their desk drawer for 75 yrs. while they done everything they could by passing seemingly insignificant bills such Ted Kennedy with HMO's slowly eroding the relationship between Drs. and patients all to create a "crises" thinking they could fool us into accepting their "free" healthcare thereby advancing the no. 1 goal SOCIALISM/FASCISM ! We must study and understand how they have got us to this point and take our Freedom back by using their Tactics of taking what we can get one step at a time and keeping the pressure on our representatives to repeal these Freedom killing laws !
Comment by William Rixon on September 23, 2012 at 9:44am So... anything new?
ZB, you are absolutely right about both Perry and Cain.
Perry will never get my vote in any primary or general election.
It's also clear that Cain is backing away from his support for the FairTax. Vern points out that Cain had only about 7 minutes total. But since Cain was asked about tax policy, you would think that he could have found at least 2 seconds, out of that 7 minutes, where he could have said the phrase, "FairTax". He didn't. In fact, he didn't even allude to it, anywhere in those 7 minutes.
When a candidate - any candidate - changes his message in the middle of a campaign, he will lose support. That's not so much because people don't like his new positions, but rather because it leaves people uncertain about his convictions on ALL issues. If someone can so cavalierly back away from one of his primary issues, it makes people wonder if he can be depended upon to hold firm on any of his stated positions. I think that this has a lot to do with Cain's falling polling numbers.
Cain is still my first choice. But his backing off on the FairTax does leave me concerned, not only about his commitment to the FairTax, but about his commitment on other issues, as well.
Comment by Vern Shotwell on August 14, 2011 at 2:09pm What's to say? I doubt that Cain had more than 7 minutes total. And that pesky bell, ran him out of time more than once. Hundreds of things that could have been touched on.
Let me get this straight.
You would not be complaining if Cain were not a proponent of Fair Tax is that not so?
Oh, the convolutions! What fun!
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
You need to be a member of FairTax to add comments!