twofingers_articleHello, my name is Michelle Robertson, and I’m here to give two middle fingers to the current tax code and the IRS!

It shouldn’t take a nuclear scientist to understand our tax code, and yet constantly we find CPAs (and hell, even our own Treasury Secretary) struggling to make sense of it. I first heard about a plan called the FairTax through a friend who sent me to their website before the book detailing the plan was released - I couldn’t buy the book fast enough once it did. It took me all of 2 days to read it, because it’s simple and straight forward, just like our tax code should be.

Of course, that’s only one of this plan’s many hooks. The FairTax:

This is all ignoring the fact that nobody (not even your employer) will have to pay any payroll or corporate taxes! Do you honestly think your current salary isn’t affected by your tax burden resting on the shoulders of your boss? Imagine, as every business, small or large, instantly generates a larger net profit, your salary could actually increase on top of the ability to keep your entire paycheck. And what happens when businesses have more money to invest in productivity? They hire more people, which means more available jobs.

The FairTax also ensures that current tax evaders, be they illegal immigrants, black market criminals, or even just the legally savvy who are able to cheat our currently complicated system (ahem, Timothy Geithner) pay their fair share, without audits or an enormous and invasive bureaucracy.

H.R. 25, the congressional legislation commonly referred to as the FairTax, will repeal the 16th amendment, thereby doing away with the income tax. Ignoring the fact that the personal income tax pays for little more than interest payments on our debt to the Federal Reserve bank, and a handful of redistributive entitlement programs - doing away with the income tax doesn’t mean the federal government goes unfunded. It does mean, however, that the Feds will be funded fairly, primarily by basing taxation on consumption.

Essentially, the government will receive 23% of the price of whatever goods or services you purchase, from movie tickets and cell phones, to your new dream house, to that boat you’ve been dreaming of taking out on the lake. Now, the following caveat is important: this does not mean that those goods will increase in price by 23%. This is a myth perpetuated by folks who don’t understand how much they’re already paying in what are referred to as “embedded taxes” - taxes Uncle Sam is already collecting from the retailer (and any other company involved) in getting vegetables to a supermarket or Chevrolets to a car dealership.

This means your favorite Starbucks’ suppliers can run their business cheaper, while the coffee shop will save a ton itself by not having to shell out taxes for Social Security, Medicare, or corporate taxes, and instead will collect 23% of the base price of a latte (while saving a boatload in the process).

fairtaxbanner

So, while the price of coffee may go up in the beginning, the Caribou down the street, understanding and responding to the nature of a free market system, will see every reason to match increased revenue with lower prices, effectively competing with Starbucks (and every other coffee shop in town) by affecting prices across the board. Under the FairTax, companies who didn’t adjust to the new price equilibrium and put their customers at a disadvantage, would be at a disadvantage themselves.

Another perk for Americans is that the thinkers who devised this plan (Harvard economists, mind you), don’t think you should pay the federal government to consume essential goods and services, or “poverty level expenditures.” The amount of the FairTax paid for these items (which include food, clothing, transportation, medical care, etc) depends on the size of your household, and is paid to you every month in the form of a “prebate check,” no matter how much or little you make, essentially making all essential goods and services tax-free.

Not exempting anyone from the prebate is a good thing; it keeps the Washington lobbyists out of the equation as they would just continue to barter your power for their own. I can only imagine an election where the income tax was not up for debate! With the FairTax, no longer can a politician swear to lower your withholdings or demand they increase, much less pledge to transfer this wealth to someone else. All while the federal government remains as well-funded as it is today (in fact, more so).

Where did this magical 23% figure come from? Unlike the money we borrow from the Federal Reserve, it didn’t just come out of thin air. The economists who were determined to change the current tax code calculated that with a 23% consumption tax the government could be equally funded and the tax would be “revenue neutral.” If you have more questions on why the number is 23% - read the bill - it’s only 131 pages. Our current tax code is tens of thousands of pages, and no, I am not making this up.

Wouldn’t politicians just increase this percentage as they see fit? Well, yes they could, but with one catch: They’d have to look all 300 million Americans in the eye and say, “If elected, I will increase taxes for every single one of you.” This is why your vote will always count.

What if the majority fails to consume as much as they used to? Do you think that’s going to happen? Isn’t it more likely that a lot of individuals who instantly find themselves sitting on a bigger pile of cash will invest more of their money? After all, it’s tax-free, and those investments will only boost our economy further while creating more opportunities for anyone willing to seek them out. Hell, even foreign businesses will join in the fun!

I hear this one a lot: “Michelle, I think the FairTax is a great idea, but do you honestly believe it could happen?” Hell yes, I believe it can happen. We’ve got a black quarterback now, don’t we? And no matter what side of the political fence you sit, a lot of people never thought that could happen either. You are “The People,” people! Write your Senators and Congressmen and tell them that you support the FairTax, and that you’re out to vote for someone who does as well.

Is it going to be difficult? Of course it is! Do you know why? Because the FairTax takes power away from the politicians who are supposedly representing your best interest and gives it back to you! Don’t you know what’s in your best interest better than they do?

http://www.yourpoliticsareboring.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://www.yourpoliticsareboring.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://www.yourpoliticsareboring.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://www.yourpoliticsareboring.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://www.yourpoliticsareboring.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://www.yourpoliticsareboring.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://www.yourpoliticsareboring.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://www.yourpoliticsareboring.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/myspace_24.png http://www.yourpoliticsareboring.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://www.yourpoliticsareboring.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

SUBSCRIBE TO COMMENTS COMMENT | TRACKBACK |
FILE UNDER: , ,

Browse Timeline


30

"Encourages businesses who have fled overseas to escape the current tax code to return to American shores (and it doesn’t take a genius to realize that more domestic business means more job opportunities for you and me) "

As one of the dudes from the Cato Institute correctly pointed out, in a video posted on this very site, the current tax system provides for significant loopholes, for those willing to pay for them, and you better believe that groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers , some of the most powerful lobbying groups in the nation representing the captains of our domestic industry, have been getting a large piece of that action for a very long time.

MassStrike said this on Apr 27 09 at 6:46 am

So, I think it's fair to say that we must confront the fact that heavy labor-intensive industry is NOT fleeing the country because of taxes they AREN'T paying, but because increased margins via sweatshop labor and nonexistent labor standards, things Americans wouldn't stand for at the moment, are to be had overseas. The average Chinese industrial worker makes $0.57 per hour. Period. So let's dispense with this fairy tale about business returning to our shores because of a "tax-haven". The third word is already a giant tax haven. Until their labor standards catch up to ours (which is HIGHLY unlikely, considering the tremendous power these same organizations excercise overseas through institutions like the IMF), or our hard-won centuries long struggle for labor rights in this country is all but forgotten (which is ENTIRELY possible), don't expect blue collar work to return to our shores in any large amount ANY time soon.

MassStrike said this on Apr 27 09 at 6:46 am

So check it out, I've seen most of your attention focused on the argument of businesses "returning" to American shores, but humor me here: Even if not a single business "comes to America," there's no denying that lowering the COST of doing business in the united states would increase the amount of business that took place. New businesses would sprout up and we would see growth, no matter where it came from. Besides… it's still way better than what we've got now.

olbermang said this on Apr 27 09 at 3:19 pm

" there's no denying that lowering the COST of doing business in the united states would increase the amount of business that took place. "
I could see it resulting in an increase in small business, retail, restaurants, things like this, and things that can't be readily exported, like construction. But likely not the high-paying service and manufacturing work that used to employ like 40% of this country, as their costs probably wouldn't be lowered, certainly not in comparison to doing business in malaysia or something. That's just an era that's over.

"it's still way better than what we've got now. "
MAYBE. As I've said in other posts, I'm open to that. I personally think there are other methods that are stil better, even, but that's another discussion all together.

MassStrike said this on Apr 27 09 at 6:15 pm

Michelle, you rock!

FamilyWarFunding said this on Apr 27 09 at 6:25 pm

And there's also the parallel inquiry as to whether a fair tax would really result in the increased consumer purchasing power and demand needed to encourage new business. Just because there's no income tax doesn't necessarily mean an increase in purchasing power, considering a 23% sales tax is levied on everything. And does that include state sales tax as well? Because state expenses aren't going to just disappear.

MassStrike said this on Apr 27 09 at 6:49 pm

if prices remain (or become) the same as they are currently, then yes….there is an increase in purchasing power…even if prices rose somewhat - having a check each month that made essential goods taxfree AND KEEPING your whole paycheck…i think youd still find yourself in a much better position.

and yeah, right on michelle

TaxOwl said this on Apr 27 09 at 7:33 pm

Well, I highly doubt that prices would remain the same, as that would fly in the face of all supply-demand theory. But possibly it would give consumers some increase in spending power, who knows…It depends on what percentage of your annual earnings you must spend to subsist. If you're a millionaire, and can easily get away with spending 23% or less of your wealth to live, sure, MASSIVE increase in spending power. If, however, you live paycheck to paycheck, and get a rebate on only 23% of the 90% of each paycheck you spend (which is quite common), I think you'd likely see a significant decrease in purchasing power, which very clearly puts this issue into the genre of class-conflict.

Good article, Michelle, and a good read.

MassStrike said this on Apr 27 09 at 7:58 pm

i just thought of something, what about tourists? people visiting america spending money to eat, stay, travel - they'd all be funding the government, so not only would businesses and 'the economy' in general benefit from tourism, it would help fund the government as well.

oh, and google "embedded taxes" and read some explanations for why prices will stay them same or even drop under the fairtax.

TaxOwl said this on Apr 27 09 at 9:52 pm

"oh, and google "embedded taxes" and read some explanations for why prices will stay them same or even drop under the fairtax."
Haha, I did that a long time ago, and it's utter nonsense, unworthy of even dignifiying with a rebuttal, really, but I guess I could give you one if you wanted it. But, regardless, show me ONE economist, much less a Ph.D., who will support the argument that a "fair tax" will abolish "embedded" taxes, and that prices would remain where they are now. Suppliers of inputs like rubber, steel, machinery, nylon, wheat, corn, etc., would still have to levy a 23% sales tax to manufacturers for inputs they sell, which would factor into the manufacturers costs of production. Is this not an "embedded tax"?

MassStrike said this on Apr 27 09 at 10:12 pm

"i just thought of something, what about tourists? people visiting america spending money to eat, stay, travel - they'd all be funding the government, so not only would businesses and 'the economy' in general benefit from tourism, it would help fund the government as well."
You have a point here. America's never really had a big tourist economy, but it's a valid point nonetheless, I think.

MassStrike said this on Apr 27 09 at 10:13 pm

You may have proven the point about prices staying the same - the "embedded taxes" that are being plucked out by the FairTax are being replaced by the *retailer* collecting the 23% sales tax. its not really accurate to say that the producer is 'levying' the tax. you take 23% out of the cost of the good, and replace it with a tax, the price remains unchanged. The 23% number is supposed to be a reflection of the percentage of the cost of a product that is owed to embedded taxes.

TaxOwl said this on Apr 27 09 at 10:40 pm

Ahh, I see. SO, basically the tax burdens borne , as of now, by corporations, consumers, asset holders and business in turn are to be shifted ENTIRELY onto the consumer? I've not done the math myself, but it should be noted that, if the 23% figure truly does reflect the average total of "embedded" taxes on consumer products, this IN NO WAY means prices are 23% rhigher as of now than they would be without corporate, capital gains and business taxes, as a portion of those taxes are borne by producers WITHOUT offsetting increases in revenue. The interaction of supply and demand, of which taxing is merely one factor, ultimately determine pricing.

MassStrike said this on Apr 27 09 at 11:03 pm

And, also, whatever arguments one may make about special interests (producers) enjoying significant loopholes seems rather irrelevant, as all fair tax legislation would do is institutionalize and universalize producer loopholes.

I dunno, I'm still trying to learn about the fair tax thing, here, but it still makes no sense to me whatsoever.

MassStrike said this on Apr 27 09 at 11:05 pm

The 23% figure is a reflection of how much it would take for the FairTax to fund the government as well as it is funded with the current tax code, not to cover the amount of what is currently "embedded". The argument is that producers are not going to raise the prices of goods because they 'all of a sudden' have to pay an extra 23% tax! The 23% tax will be factored in the pricing of goods, yes. But, do you honestly think that current prices don't have a lot to do with how many "embedded taxes" the producer is already paying? And please remember, you keep you every single dime you earn.

mlr800 said this on Apr 28 09 at 12:55 am

"But, do you honestly think that current prices don't have a lot to do with how many "embedded taxes" the producer is already paying? "
Yes, of course I do (but it's not the whole story, either). I just don't understand why abolishing these "embedded" taxes and substituting them with a universal 23% sales tax should NOT result in a rise in prices. That makes no sense.

MassStrike said this on Apr 28 09 at 1:12 am

Anyway, this statement…
"The 23% figure is a reflection of how much it would take for the FairTax to fund the government as well as it is funded with the current tax code, not to cover the amount of what is currently "embedded"."
…runs contrary to what has already been posted on this site…
"There would be no IRS, no Tax Man, no 1040, no income tax. Getting rid of these taxes, which already make up about 23% of the cost of all goods, and replacing that with a 23% embedded sales tax, would mean that wealth was still taxed…"
…..,so perhaps I should just read the book myself huh haha…?

MassStrike said this on Apr 28 09 at 2:04 am

Because the free market will prevail! And you get to keep your whole paycheck, didn't I say that? Besides, your current employer will keep the taxes he is already paying to keep you employed!

mlr800 said this on Apr 28 09 at 2:08 am

I implore you to read the book yourself. And not part of anything I've said has been contradictory. The 23% consumption tax is to replace the income, corporate, Medicare, Social Security, and Estate tax. And nobody has said that wealth fails to be taxed! How can Wealth fail to be taxed when the wealthy are spending the most, and will continue to spend the most?

mlr800 said this on Apr 28 09 at 2:32 am

Well sure, some forms of wealth, namely those that accrue value to the owner without him or her necessarily lifting a finger, such as gains on capital, estate and property, will, by definition, fail to be taxed. Also, as I've already pointed out, a wealthy person could live off 23% of their monthly earnings quite comfortably, and never pay a cent in taxes due to the "pre-bate", while still profiting off the infrastructure and economically stimulating public goods of this country, which are financed by tax revenue. On the other hand, others will have no choice but to spend upwards of 90% of their monthly paychecks just living, therefore de facto paying a 23% tax on the majority of their earnings. This strikes me as immensely unfair, especially considering the infrastructure amricans enjoy could concievably be financed disproportionately by those least able to finance it. There's no law saying the wealthy must spend more money, nor that they must spend most of it in this country, so I don't see how you can reasonably assume that they would, under a "fair tax", as the incentives would be for them not to.

MassStrike said this on Apr 28 09 at 3:07 am

Hey olby and mlr800, we might be approaching the "whatever, man" point with MassStrike on the FairTax. He's great and all but, the information is there, we aren't arguing about the merits of the plan, just what we "expect will happen" and how "fair it is."

And good point about tourists TaxOwl.

FamilyWarFunding said this on Apr 28 09 at 3:30 am

YOU guys are great. I'm just a dude trying to make some sense of this crazy world. Don't mind me. AND I do appreciate all the responses I've had to my inquiries thus far, I really do. I hate liberal blogs, fucking boring…

MassStrike said this on Apr 28 09 at 4:06 am

"Hey olby and mlr800, we might be approaching the "whatever, man" point with MassStrike on the FairTax."
Haha, we'll see. It's been a while since I pulled that one…

MassStrike said this on Apr 28 09 at 4:15 am

Are you trying to be provocative, Mr. MassStrike?

mlr800 said this on Apr 28 09 at 4:28 am

Eh, he's a good enough sport.

olbermang said this on Apr 28 09 at 5:45 am

I meant there would a collective "whatever" on the part of those trying to get you to lurrve the fairtax

FamilyWarFunding said this on Apr 28 09 at 3:37 pm

"Are you trying to be provocative, Mr. MassStrike?"
Certainly not. I've no intererest in provoking you gentleman. Just saying, no hard feelings.

MassStrike said this on Apr 28 09 at 3:53 pm

Thanks for the article. We gotta lot of werk to do! Y’all try and hit that NAACP NY convention in July. FTNation is trying to get a booth. Say the appropriate prayers, por favor. adios!

MR said this on May 29 09 at 10:38 am

Dang! Got off too quick. Saw the massStrike comment about the po’. Well I fit that. S.Security sucks! Paid into this b*tch and hell to pay getting it back. FairTax would be a boon to me. Haven’t bought new car in 25yrs-don’t plan to-they are like used disposable diapers. I’m still in 1970’s, something I can work on!

I very seldom buy new. EVER! Mostly I trade to get around. If I had the pre-bate my whole life would change. No more would I spend 2 hours to turn a couple of lbs. of chopped meat into 15lbs of mystery meat, etc.

And thanks pantsloads you *ssh*le pro politicians of all stripes-If I would have had FairTax when I was working I would not be poor now.

MicheleRKing said this on May 29 09 at 10:46 am

Add a Comment

Want your own avatar? Register at Gravatar with the email address you use for YPAB, upload your image, and you're done.
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>