Violence is not the answer
Here is a letter that one of our posters wrote to various papers.
As a well-known FairTax supporter, I deplore and condemn the wanton and depraved act of a misguided individual who, on February 18, 2010, saw fit to fly a small airplane into an Austin, Texas, office building in which two hundred IRS employees were working. Whatever score he had to settle with the IRS, his act was all the more egregious because it took place in a country such as ours, where citizens have due process, equal protection of the law, and the right to assemble peaceably to petition their government for redress of grievances.As a FairTax-er, I stand in solidarity with those victims and their families who suffered injury, property damage, and most lamentably in one case, loss of innocent life.
FairTax does seek the replacement of the IRS and the taxes it administers. But it holds the highest regard for the 100,000 men and women who serve their country as its employees and agents for their integrity, dedication and talent. As a FairTax-er, I distance myself from those who would act in disregard of the rights of others to settle scores with the IRS.
~Jim Bennett
Jim — Great letter.
I agree with what you have said here. No one should choose to support something for the purpose of revenge. I personally believe that the FairTax should be implemented because I believe that it’s what’s best for the American taxpayer.
I am currently a student at Ivy Tech Community College and I am studying Fair Tax. I am against the Fair Tax because it will impose a 23% national sales tax. While it is only on new items it will still increase the cost of new items which will make it harder for some people and families to afford. Also the Fair Tax is not indexed for inflation, so as prices increase so will the national sales tax. While I am against Fair Tax I have to agree with you that violence is not the answer, and you are right since we are in America we all have equal rights and therefore should not be persecuted for what we believe in.
Could the plan be implemented overnight?
I like the idea of a phased introduction. A sudden change causes confusion, which can lead to fear and panic. Overall the plan makes sense, but it seems like there are several important questions that don’t have a good answer (solution).
I am a student at Ivy Tech and i am for the Fair Tax and yes many people will lose their jobs, but we deserve a better tax system one which is fair to all.
I am a current student attending Ivy Tech Community College in Sellersburg, IN we are studying the pros and cons of the fairtax.
I agree as a supporter of the Fair tax this is not a way to get rid of the IRS. The correct way would be to get this passed through Congress.
I am a student at Ivy Tech Community college doing some research on the FairTax act.
From what I have studied so far I do not agree 100% with the Fair Tax law, but I think that people should not become violent over the subject and instead should just argue peacably with each other.
at first I was against the fairtax, I was more for a flat tax. I kept an open mind and read a couple books and I’m not I’m all for it, my only real concern is it would be harder to privatize Social Security as there’s no way to say how much someone is really paying. On the other hand you could potentially give everyone the same benefit and essentially add it to the Rebate as soon as you turn 65, no filing for retirement at a desired age, you can keep working if you want to. Since you are required to give your SSN to get the prebate, we can simply have the Social Security hand out the prebate and Social Security with the same Direct Deposit method it would remove the need for an extra entity of government to handle the prebates. I would essentially give each person the poverty level + the prebate when they turn 65.
The tax is essentially a 23% of the sale or 30% as most people understand sales tax. A Corporate tax is consumption tax, companies have to raise to prices to account for the Corporate tax. It’s estimated that the average embedded tax is pretty close to 23%. The goods of items made in the USA would stay relatively the same price. This point is made on the fairtax site and the books I’ve read, The following point is never mentioned. Items shipped to the US do not contain our corporate hidden tax, this means imports will go up 30% because they fairtax would be added to them at the same time US goods stay the same price as they are today. This means the US will be able to produce good closer in price then the items brought in from China. As a results more businesses will open in the US to create these goods, creating more jobs which in turn will increase spending which in turn will increase federal revenue. On top of the that the US would be able to export items overseas with the fairtax or the corporate tax which means US companies will be able to ship items out of the US at about a 20% cheaper rate then they do today, which is also good for US businesses and jobs.
Tony,
I’m no import/export expert, but don’t you think that if we slap a 30% sales tax on all imports, other countries will surely retaliate with a similar import tax on our exports? Has anyone that understands international trade agreements looked at this 30% import tax (sales tax) to see just what might be the unintended consequences of the Fairtax?
Retail prices are not going to remain about the same, no matter what you may have read. If you agree that we are all going to get 100% of our pay/pensions, then retail prices have to rise by 15%-20%. Here’s why.
The 1997 Jorgenson embedded tax study concluded that embedded tax costs averaged 22% across the 35 industry segments studied. But Jorgenson assumed that businesses would keep all employee tax withholding amounts in order to get maximum producer cost reductions. In other words, Jorgenson assumed we would continue to get our net pay, not our gross. That isn’t going to happen for legal, contractual and fairness reasons which I’d be happy to discuss if necessary.
Based on 2007 actual revenue data, business tax related costs came to an average of 10%, including business income taxes, the business payroll share, and business compliance costs. Remove 10% in tax related costs, add the 30% sales tax, and retail prices will go up by an average of 17%. (1.00 x .9 x 1.30 = 1.17) Simple math. Notice that you have to add 30% to business costs in order to arrive at a 23% tax inclusive price.
To suggest that we will get all of our pay/pensions and retail prices will remain about the same is just repeating the long discredited “free lunch” Fairtax myth. There is no free lunch! You are going to need that increase in take home pay in order to deal with the higher prices.
Regarding your last sentence Hank, getting gross pay is what creates the higher prices. If the government can direct the portion returned to employees, either immediate or through a transition period, they could reduce the inflation amount. As for the import / export, most countries already have VAT taxes on our imports. Time we level the field. I don’t see why we should sit at a disadvantage because of what they could do. We need a consumption tax.