tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post3918595495839902104..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: The Oxymoronic "Fair Tax"Gus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-78421254369756198712007-11-04T18:27:00.000-06:002007-11-04T18:27:00.000-06:00If a building is on fire, should you evacuate its ...If a building is on fire, should you evacuate its occupants and put it out? Or should you have everyone move to the top floor so that all occupants are burned equally? <BR/><BR/>Whether people are being burned equally or not is *not* a separate problem from the fact that the building is on fire. It is caused by the fact that the building is on fire.<BR/><BR/>Our income tax as it is today, takes income from large numbers of people before they see it, and it penalizes the wealthy. Both of these things are based on the ideas that (1) it is the job of one citizen to finance the medical care/groceries/transportation of others. and (2) the government should force us to do this.<BR/><BR/>Once we get the body politic clear that both of those ideas are false and deadly, the problems of taxation and the existence of the welfare state will slowly begin to disappear on their own, and the whole question of how "best" to take money from ordinary citizens by force -- I mean, collect taxes -- will go away with it.<BR/><BR/>I oppose taxation as such. All monies collected by the government should be paid voluntarily. (And despite your assertions to the contrary, this is not at all the case in any way with the "Fair" Tax. Furthermore, your notion that people would be able to dodge this tax "after sales" is wishful thinking. Half of the fair-taxers are against "loopholes" and will close this one so fast your head will spin.)<BR/><BR/>I have bigger fish to fry than to quibble about how to collect taxes when we should be fighting for no taxes at all. The whole fair tax crusade is a waste of energy, a distraction from real problems, and potentially will only increase the size of government.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-49432026318833640422007-11-04T18:03:00.000-06:002007-11-04T18:03:00.000-06:00Gus, your main complaint is really a non-sequitor....Gus, your main complaint is really a non-sequitor. It is as if you said, "the Fair Tax does not address my fundamental issue of the fact that my pet dog is unwashed."<BR/><BR/>The FairTax was not designed to solve the problem of either excessive taxation per se, nor of the welfare state. These are, of course, serious problems - and most of the supporters of the FairTax would agree that they must be addressed. I would personally argue that many other situations need to be addressed too, and the FairTax does not address them. Porkbarrel spending, for example, or the weakness of the dollar.<BR/><BR/>FairTax was designed to address the hideous inequities and problems created by our means of collecting taxes. It does not claim to be either more or less. It is designed to cease our punishment of productivity, and end various hidden taxes. It is "Fair" not because it reduces government - which is a seperate debate - but because it affects people equally, killing the idea of tax loopholes and favors.<BR/><BR/>I see this line of reasoning a lot, and I find it quite mysterious; as if people were arguing "we should not end corporate welfare, such as farming subsidies, because it doing so does not cure traffic congestion". The only rational argument can be made about whether the fairtax would be better or worse than income, payroll, corporate, estate, gift, and other such tax collection schemes. It has nothing to do with the weather, the cleanliness of your dog, or the government's hard spending ways.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and as to your latter point about generating income, and reporting it - the FT does not tax income, so it appears to be moot.<BR/><BR/>As for taking money by force: the FT is clearly more of a "voluntary" tax than the income tax is. At least, with the FT, you can always buy after-sale items in order to not pay it to the government (though of course, the FT will tend to bid up after-sales prices, so you will instead be paying a bit extra to the seller).Frobozzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07097110608871186715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-38006319190854386882007-08-27T23:15:00.000-06:002007-08-27T23:15:00.000-06:00Your commenter has a point: The WSJ article does h...Your commenter has a point: The WSJ article does have some flaws, among them being that nthe "prebate" is based on family size according to some advocates. <BR/><BR/>HOWEVER, my central objection -- that this is not a move away from the welfare state -- stands.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-46388845453892861162007-08-27T22:53:00.000-06:002007-08-27T22:53:00.000-06:00Here you go, Gus - as promisedHere you go, Gus - <A HREF="http://z7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparadise/index.php?showtopic=1199&view=findpost&p=10216348" REL="nofollow">as promised</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-70261478115157161732007-08-27T05:00:00.000-06:002007-08-27T05:00:00.000-06:00I'll grant that bringing up the Church of Scientol...I'll grant that bringing up the Church of Scientology is a cheap shot. Heck. Let's even suppose for the moment that your lengthy attempt to offer a point-by-point rebuttal to Bartlett answers him.<BR/><BR/>So what? You haven't answered my <B>fundamental objection</B> to the premise that <B>any</B> tax can be "fair".<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, the web site you point to focuses on how this measure would replace the current income tax system, and makes much of its income-redistribution element ("prebate"). It also does not raise any fundamental objection to the welfare state.<BR/><BR/>The best that could be said for a national sales tax (or, incidentally, for a flat tax) is that by making everybody aware of the enormous drag on the economy that the welfare state has become -- by making them pay the taxes -- we might finally see people willing to talk seriously about getting rid of welfare programs.<BR/><BR/>This benefit is removed by the progressivity of the proposed tax, which also starts a new welfare program in the form of its "pre-bates" -- except that now the government is sending checks to much of the middle class, too.<BR/><BR/>As for your rebuttal, I haven't the time to answer it point for point, but you're way out to lunch on at least one point: Given that one need not actually run a business to earn cash income, I don't buy your idea that only people who run (what the government now regards as) businesses would have to file income reports. I could see the government simply deciding that the definition of "business" needs changing -- e.g., to include waiters perhaps -- in order to close this "loophole". Too bad that "closing loopholes" is an explicit goal of your site.<BR/><BR/>So workers get to "keep their entire paycheck", What difference does that make if they can avoid taxes only by never buying anything?<BR/><BR/>For all your verbiage and the volumes of research on that site, one question remains completely unanswered and buried in the snow: <B>"By what right does the government take my money from me by force?"</B>Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-43984193253216486092007-08-27T00:05:00.000-06:002007-08-27T00:05:00.000-06:00Can you say, "Hit piece"?Bruce Bartlett (BB, with ...Can you say, "Hit piece"?<BR/><BR/>Bruce Bartlett (BB, with apologies to a true great, BB King):":"It was originally devised by the Church of Scientology in the early 1990s as a way to get rid of the Internal Revenue Service" <BR/><BR/>Me: This seems like a scientific approach to the review of FairTax; Scientologists are kooks, the FairTax must be a kooky idea.<BR/><BR/>BB: "In reality, the FairTax rate is not 23%. Messrs. Linder and Chambliss get this figure by calculating the tax as if it were already incorporated into the price of goods and services. (This is known as the tax-inclusive rate.)" <BR/><BR/>Me: Hmmm, I wonder what income tax rates begin to look like, if calculated, "externally" - as a percentage of what's left of taxpayers' income? Care to tell us THAT, BB?<BR/><BR/>BB: "This is only the beginning of the deceptions in the FairTax." <BR/><BR/>Me: Oh, like their website, FairTax.org, hasn't already thoroughly debunked most of these "straw men" that have been floated (all, that is, except this newest Scientology angle - and I doubt that they'll spend much time on that one - preposterous).<BR/><BR/>BB: "the federal government would have to pay taxes to itself"<BR/><BR/>Me: The idea here is to prevent government from competing with the private sector. But why even mention this, when later you say, "but its tax collection will also be ... higher."<BR/><BR/>BB: "The FairTax rate, however, is not high enough to finance the higher spending it imposes."<BR/><BR/>Me: Didn't do your research: "...The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University and Laurence Kotlikoff, Professor of Economics at Boston University, have teamed up to provide a sound methodology for estimating the FairTax base and computing the FairTax rate. Their paper demonstrates that the 23 percent rate specified by the Fair Tax Act (HR 25) is eminently feasible and suggests what led Gale and the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform6 to reach the opposite – and incorrect – conclusion. (See <B><A HREF="http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/TaxingSalesUnderFairTax.pdf" REL="nofollow">Paper</A></B> )" See also: <B><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/taxpanelrebutted" REL="nofollow">Tax Panel rebuttal</A></B> + <B><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/ftgalerebuttal" REL="nofollow">Wm Gale rebuttal</A></B><BR/><BR/>BB: (Regarding the blanket 30% increase attributed in multiple places in your article, "tanks," "newly-constructed homes," the added amount that would be paid by "state and local governments.")<BR/><BR/>Me: Nowhere do you point out the price efficiencies that would be gained under FairTax. Kotlikoff and associates found that these ranged from 20% - 30%, and averaged them to 22% across the economy. Thus, we're ALREADY PAYING an embedded 22% in our retail prices. If you believe in market competition (do you?), then you must allow for the elimination of these embedded taxes - which means relative price stability (due to lower costs of doing business - for every business entity contributing at every stage of production). Thus, representing an add-on of 30% is blatant demogoguery.<BR/><BR/>BB: "Aside from the incredible complexity and intrusiveness of tracking every American's monthly income -- and creating a de facto national welfare program -- the FairTax does not include the cost of this rebate in the tax rate."<BR/><BR/>Me: The only purpose for tracking income, is for social security payouts. That "incredible complexity and intrusiveness of tracing every American's ... income" - last time I checked - is what the current income tax system, and theIRS, are all about. FairTax bases "prebates" on family size. Prebates are sent to ALL American families to untax the necessities, thus eliminating wasteful bureaucracy,and corruption-producing tax code rules and regulations.<BR/><BR/>BB: "the FairTax does not include the cost of this rebate in the tax rate."<BR/><BR/>Me: Somebody told ya wrong - like Prego spaghetti sauce, "It's in deah." That extra 5% you then introduce is the amount that Kotlikoff DEDUCTS from the 23% to derive the rate sans prebate.<BR/><BR/>BB: "Rejecting all the tricks of FairTax supporters..."<BR/><BR/>Me: Hey, you calling me a trickster?<BR/><BR/>BB: "...professional revenue estimators have always concluded that a national retail sales tax would have to be much, much higher than 23%."<BR/><BR/>Me: Then, why hasn't William Gale, and the president's Tax Panel, delivered their economic methodology (substantiating higher quoted tax rates) to Kotlikoff or FairTax.org? Hmmm?<BR/><BR/>BB: "Perhaps the biggest deception in the FairTax, however, is its promise to relieve individuals from having to file income tax returns, keep extensive financial records and potentially suffer audits."<BR/><BR/>Me: Huh? What's to deceive? Individuals do not file income tax returns. Businesses don't either; businesses will file basically an expanded state sales tax return. Individuals would keep financial records, but not for the purposes of filing a return. And working families would not be subject to audit unless they ran a business.<BR/><BR/>BB: "the idea of making April 15 just another day, this seems to be a major selling point for their proposal"<BR/><BR/>Me: Duh. Like that's bad to get out from under the thumb of an intrusive government that has been proven arbitrary in the manner in which it administers the current tax code?<BR/><BR/>BB: "In short, the FairTax is too good to be true, and voters should not take seriously any candidate who supports it."<BR/><BR/>Me: Sorry, BB. Your commentary is to bad to be credible. Next time, at least familiarize yourself with the research and rebuttals to the demogoguery that is sure to assail it.<BR/><BR/><B>Readers should expect these assaults on FairTax to increase as this eminently workable - in fact, URGENTLY REQUIRED - tax plan gains adherents.</B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-35646123823762081212007-08-26T22:45:00.000-06:002007-08-26T22:45:00.000-06:00I had someone post a bit on this on the 'Paradise ...I had someone post a bit on this on the 'Paradise forums. I didn't like it - I knew I smelled a rat.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for this; I'll link up to you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com