FairTax Rally and Economic Ads
April 9, 2009 · Filed under: AFFT Updates
Some AFFT updates...
FairTax.org is asking you to join thousands of your fellow FairTax supporters as they rally for Tax Day 2009. They have two April events planned: Jacksonville, FL (4/11) and Columbia, SC (4/15).
| A number of FairTax All-Stars are scheduled for one or both rallies including: |  Former Gov. and Presidential Candidate, Mike Huckabee |
 Syndicated radio host and FairTax book author, Neal Boortz |
 FairTax bill Lead-Sponsor, Rep. John Linder (GA-7) |
 FairTax bill co-sponsor, Rep. Steve King (IA-5) |
 Business entrepreneur and radio host, Herman Cain |
 Ga. Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioner, John Oxendine |
 National Communications Director for AFFT, Ken Hoagland |
Also, FairTax.org has placed full-page ads promoting the FairTax as a REAL economic stimulus package.
They recently purchased full-page ads in Investor’s Business Daily, the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and Tulsa World. They are asking for help to run more ads to reach fellow citizens, policy makers, and elected officials during this critical time for our economy. (See the latest full-page Investor’s Business Daily ad here).
11 Responses to “FairTax Rally and Economic Ads”
The full page ads as well as the draft letter to the President, which is supposed to be mailed April 15th, have a number of similar errors, imho. I have exchangd quite a few emails/posts with Ken Hoagland on some of these issues, but to no avail. As a former marketeer, I do feel that there are too many incorrect or disingenuous statements associated with the AFFT marketing campaign, but don’t expect to see anything change for the better.
(1) The ads claim that everyone will get a “huge boost in their take-home pay as all federal withholding and payroll taxes are eliminated”. What isn’t mentioned is the expected price increases that are sure to follow. There is no “free lunch”! Yes, “real” prices may remain about the same, but will the pay increase really be “enough to save their homes and pay mortgage bills’?
(2) The ads claim that taxes on the poor disappear, but that depends on the definition of poor. As we have discussed, the lower income families that consume accumulated wealth will be hit hard by the Fairtax.
(3) The ads claim that “eliminating taxes would make the USA the most favorable business environment in the world”. I don’t disagree that eliminating federal business taxation would be an important step, but there are many other reasons for choosing a particular business location. Among these are access to raw materials, access to markets, access to lower cost labor, and even state and local taxes. (Would you care to guess why Boeing moved their Corporate HQ from Seattle to Chicago?)
(4) The ads claim that the Fairtax is transparent. How can that claim be true if 15% of the revenue needed to fund the federal government is to be hidden in higher State/Local taxes? And how is that retail sales receipt transparent when nowhere on the receipt does it show that the retail merchant had to add a 30% sales tax to his cost plus profit?
Aggressive marketing may be fine in the business world, but I still believe that honesty and integrity still count for something when dealing with the public and Congress!
Hank,
Honesty and integrity count against you when dealing with congress.
I’m honestly sorry that you feel that way. Having spent ten years working on the Hill as a representative of a major aerospace company, I firmly believe that the vast majority of our elected officials are fundamentally honest, hard working folks, just like you and me, that are doing the best they can to work within the great democratic system. Most of the bad press comes from a group I call influence peddlers. Influence peddlers are able to lobby Congress based on who they know. As a lobbyist, I got in the same doors once, based on what I knew. If I lied or otherwise misrepresented an issue, there was always a competitor coming along to blow the whistle, and my usefulness would have come to an end rather quickly. Honesty and integrity do count!
I know it’s the great American sport to believe that all Members of Congress are crooks and thieves—except my Congressman of course. You may not like the system, but I don’t know of any better in the world. I’m beginning to wonder if “youth is wasted on the young?” It’s a sad state of affairs when the population believes Congress can’t be trusted. I don’t share that pessimistic view!
Hank,
I have to respectfully disagree with your congressional assessment. I am sure there are congresspeople that can fit into the honest category, but not the majority. Maybe they are all hardworking, but at what? I’m sure there are hardworking mafia hitmen, but that doesn’t make what they do a good thing. And there is a fundamental difference between you and me and then congress. Congress can forcefully take my resources, as well as yours. And they do, without constitutional authority.
Our congress held hearings to determine what caused this housing meltdown. It was them. They hold hearings on baseball steroids. Really? There is constitutional authority for that. A congress lady called the companies getting TARP moronic (or idiotic, or something). What do the group of people that admittedly give a group of morons $700B? Not honest and hard working.
Don’t forget this is the same institution that gave Massachusetts a multi-billion dollar boondoggle (often referred to as the World’s Largest Carwash), while at the same time levees in New Orleans and bridges in Minnesota failed causing the deaths of innocent citizens. You don’t think it had anything to do with Massachusetts being the home of Senators Kennedy and Kerry, do you? Barney Frank (current chairman of the House Committee on financial services and another Massachusetts politician) actually had the nerve to come on a program the night of the bridge collapse and claim the reason was inadequate taxation. Right. I have a feeling more taxation would have just led to a bigger carwash.
Congresspeople purely and simply do what they need to get re-elected. Why? Because if they don’t, they won’t get re-elected. It’s completely logical. From the founding of our country, there had been federal corruption. At this point it’s unavoidable. That’s why, imho, the best strategy is to limit the federal government as the constitution requires. This won’t eliminate corruption. It will limit the areas that can be corrupted.
“It’s a sad state of affairs when the population believes Congress can’t be trusted.” No. There is nothing sad from embracing reality. And from my experience, it usually the young that take on the rose-colored view of congress (as saviors). So I’ll agree with your “youth wasted on the young” comment.
Andrew,
Instead of working your butt off on a proposal to simply change the way the federal government collects (too much?) revenue, why not put your considerable energies to work supporting a term limit plan? The States have term limits, the President is term limited, why not Congress? I notice that the Glen Beck survey has term limits as the #1 priority, and rightly so! Our founders never envisioned “professional politicians”, and would be horrified at the current state of affairs. Those opposed to term limits, other than those members wanting to keep their jobs, make only one good point that I’m aware of. There is a fear that the professional staffers, particularly the staff Directors on all the Committees, would become too powerful, and run roughshod over the “rookie” members of Congress.
While we are at it, why not couple term limits to revising the retirement policies that currently award members obscene pensions for very little time spent in Congress?
Andrew, while we may differ about the honesty and integrity of our elected officials, I totally agree with you that the federal government needs a major haircut. I would also support a 10th Amendment Commission as proposed by Boortz which would take a meat axe to the size and cost of the federal government. My sense is that the States are getting aroused over the radical shift in power to the feds, and at some time, may put the hammer down. After all, the States created the federal government, and should be able to regain control? Stay tuned!
Hank,
I totally agree with Post 5 (except for the part about me working my butt off for the fairtax. I wish I currently had time to work hard for a multitude of political causes, but I don’t. I’m hoping it’s not the time, but my organization of it. So in the future, maybe I can work my butt off).
Congressional term limits would be excellent. I’ve long and hard about it. Given the seniority system congress has set up for itself, it is difficult for one state to take a stand. They’ll basically end up just weakening their own power. Constitutional amendment seems like the next obvious choice, but it would be easier to just let congress pass term limit legislation. It takes 2/3 of congress (if I remember right) to propose an amendment anyway, unless the states get together to propose an amendment (but that’s never happened in our history). Legislation takes a simple majority.
10th amendment commission? Absolutely. But if you believe the tenth amendment has meaning, you must believe that the general welfare clause is restrictive, not expansive (relative to federal powers).
Actually, the cause I’d put most of my energies into now would be spending caps (baseline + inflation + population growth). Colorada seems to be doing pretty well with their’s. I think if we could get this enacted eventually at a federal level, having mixed taxation systems wouldn’t so much of a fear. It might also allow us to enact the fairtax in phases without the fear that the federal government will take advantage of the taxpayer.
Well Hank, will wonders never cease...
I have to agree with almost everything that you have posted here. The one thing that you seem to imply strikes me as a bit odd. You seem to make the case that our Congress is generally deserving of our trust and support. You go on to state the following, ” Our founders never envisioned “professional politicians”, and would be horrified at the current state of affairs.” Additionally, you state, “It’s a sad state of affairs when the population believes Congress can’t be trusted.”
I think you are lacking in respect for the wisdom of our founding fathers. I completely agree that they would indeed be horrified by our current state with “professional politicians”. George Washington for instance refused to run for a third presidential term for exactly this reason. Let’s face facts here though, our founding fathers put in the Bill of Rights specifically out of distrust for government, and rightly so. Most of the Bill of Rights were directly derived from the things that led to the revolution in the first place, and our founding fathers sought to ensure that the government they created would not simply be another unbearable replacement for the English crown.
My feeling is that the men who founded this great nation had a pretty good bead on human nature. They understood that power corrupts and while these were some of the greatest men of their time, the populace must always be wary and on the lookout for the lesser men such as Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc. The group I just mentioned who seem bent on personal gain and implementing policy to ensure the continuation of their own political power first and foremost.
Scott,
Don’t make a habit of agreeing with me, else you will destroy
all the fun I derive from jousting with you, Andrew, RM, Justin, et al. in my otherwise boring retirement years?
As for my respect for our founders. can’t I respect them and respect the honesty and integrity of our current Members at the same time? What our founders would be horrified at is the loss of “citizen legislators” in favor of professional politicians who make a lifetime career of their job. Think positively about term limits. Solves a lot of problems, imho.
Returning to the thrust of this thread, I’d be interested as to whether or not you agree with my criticisms of the ad and Presidential letter? I don’t want to start a rehash of all the issues, but would you agree that (1) the huge pay boost may be offset by higher prices; (2) “poor” needs a clearer definition; (3) are federal taxes really the most important factor in determining a favorable business environment; and (4) is the Fairtax really transparent?
Cheers!
Hank,
I enjoy the intellectual jousting as well. Please call me Rick, I use my initials for all my blog post because I’ve been a webmaster at rmforbes.net since 1996. It’s just become habit.
So, if you respect the founding fathers then you must really hate the current income tax code. After all the revolution was fought over unfair taxation and the founding fathers went to great lengths to keep us out of the current mess. Article 1 Section 9 specifically prohibits direct taxation upon citizens, AKA a capitation tax or head tax. The current income tax gets around this constitutional prohibition by defining income quite differently than the common understanding of the word. The current “income tax” is not a tax on income at all. It’s a excise tax on profit derived from very specifically defined activities. Your income is not directly taxable but the profit derived from wages/salaries while in employment of a U.S. corporation is taxable. This is why the current system has become and must remain so complex and suject to corruption.
When you try to compare economic groups income is not a very accurate way to do so. A very wealthy individual may go years without income, living instead upon aquired resources and profits from personal property. Where as the lower end of the scale have low resources and any income goes directly to basic needs. Both groups may have exactly the same amount of profit on paper but live in very different worlds.
Hank, let me respond to your issues...
1. The huge pay boost may be offset by higher prices. - I’ll agree with you that this is only portraying the positive side of the equation. Obviously, I think most people understand that prices will rise under the FairTax. I’ll let it go at that.
2. The “poor” needs a clearer definition. - I can see your point here. The letter/ads would be more honest if they simply stated that all consumption up to the poverty level would be untaxed via the prebate. However, your argument about those poor being taxed more heavily due to living off accumulated weath or simply by borrowing and living beyond their means is still pretty tricky area if you asked me.
3. Are federal taxes really the most important factor in determining a favorable business environment? - I haven’t ready and/or watched all of the ads, but is this what they are really saying? Do the ads/letter actually say that tax considerations are the singularly most important aspect of the business environment? My guess is that the ads portray tax consequences as being vital, and I do not disagree with this at all. If the ads do indeed say that federal tax codes are the singularly most important factor for business, then I would say the ads are dishonest.
4. Is the Fairtax really transparent? - Yes. At least in comparison to what is in place at this time. I believe that for most people, the FairTax will be much easier to understand than our current system. Yes, I understand your argument about state/local taxes needing to rise to cover the increased costs due to having to pay the FairTax. This however is a relatively small component compared to the embedded costs of the income/payroll taxes that I think most Americans never even consider today.
Again, I find myself agreeing with you in part on all of these issues. However, you also have to agree that none of these statements are just blatantly false. This is an argument and the proponents are trying to put the best face and argument on the FairTax. The opposition will of course lay out the negative side of the arguments.
My question is this... If these 4 points had disclaimers stating the limitations such as I have, would the opponents then counter the ads with information of their own highlighting the weaknesses of the FairTax but include disclaimers as to the potential benefits? I think not.
Scott,
Thanks for your comments on the ads. I’ll agree that nothing in the ad is blatantly false, but I think the ad goes beyond simply trying to put the best face on this scheme. A few quick observations on your reclama:
(1) I don’t believe that there is anyone in the country that understands that prices are going to rise except for the few of us on this blog. I recall that John Linder denied it during the debate with Hayden, and almost all other blogs keep repeating that prices will remain about the same after the “embedded taxes” are removed. If that is true, then someone needs to clearly state that your current net pay will be your future gross! Can’t have it both ways. No free lunch. Find me any other Fairtax blog or study that admits that prices will rise?
(2) Tricky, but true!!!
(3) Here is the exact wording in the ad: “Elimination of capital gains and corporate taxes makes the USA the most favorable business environment in the world.” Which infers to me that the writer of the ad believes that taxes are the single most important issue in locating a business. And that may not be true. Ask 1000 business owners and I bet they would pick low cost of labor?
(4) You are willing to bet that everyone understands that prices will rise under the Fairtax, but you don’t agree that everyone understands that retail prices today include all business costs including taxes??? Is there really some mystery about the embedded costs of the income tax system today? I don’t think so.
And since when is hiding 15% insignificant? Can’t agree with your reclama on this one.
I, for one, would be happy to add disclaimers as to potential benefits to my criticisms just as soon as everyone stops treating the Fairtax and HR25 as written on the clay tablets. As Hayden has pointed out a number of times, proponents and opponents continue to just talk past each other with no change or modification in position. That Kool-Aide must be powerful stuff???