The ''Fair Tax'' con artists

Forums: Business And Technology, Taxes, Tax Nuts
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Listen to the callers on the Neal Boortz talk show in addition to the host raving in support of the so called Fair Tax, [H.R.25] and you get the sad feeling there is little hope in accomplishing real tax reform in America.

It's amazing how caller after caller make statements in support of H.R. 25 which simply are not true or misrepresent the actual consequences of the proposal. The following are some typical paraphrased examples:

CALLER:

Quote:

The FT would repeal income taxes and this is why so many liberals hate the plan.

TRUTH:

The FT does not repeal the "income tax". Only a constitutional amendment can forbid Congress to calculate a tax from income. H.R. 25 is nothing more than a list of suggestions. Even if it were to pass and be signed into law by the President, it would not be binding legislation upon a future Congress which would be free to change the plan at their pleasure. The only way to achieve real tax reform is through a constitutional amendment, which binds the hands of Congress. Under the FT proposal, a future Congress is free to slowly amend H.R. 25 to its liking and reestablish the very system we now have, with the addition of a tax on all consumer goods and services. If the Fair Tax was now in practice, how many people would object to a small tax upon those evil oil company profits, starting the ball rolling to a return to our existing system?

CALLER:

Quote:

I like the idea of the family consumption allowance so poor people wont have to pay a tax on the necessities of life.

TRUTH:

All people when purchasing the necessities of life will still pay the 23 percent tax on such articles. The family consumption allowance is a monthly government check given to each household, and rations the amount of tax free necessities to each household by the size of the check if it is used for those items.

In addition, H.R. 25 is down right socialist friendly in that it would put every American Household on the government dole via its monthly "family consumption allowance", and would give Senator Ted Socialist Kennedy a very valuable tool which he and his socialist disciples in Congress will promise to increase during election time to buy millions of votes to remain in power, just as these socialists now do with the minimum wage, social security payments, aid to families with dependant children, Pell Grants, and you name it from the shopping list of government give-away- programs created by Congress___ the only difference with H.R. 25 is, its family consumption allowance promises to extend the tentacles of socialism to every American household with a monthly government subsistence check, making the majority of American households dependent upon a monthly government check! Were we not warned by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers that control over a man subsistence is a control over their will?

CALLER:

Quote:

Another benefit of the FT is it will end the costly record keeping for most Americans and businesses.

TRUTH:

In addition to making American households dependent upon a monthly government check, the fair tax proposal expands the number of tax gathers to include individual tradesmen and entrepreneurs, and even ordinary working people engaged in self employment, forcing them to all "register" with folks in government in order to pursue a livelihood [ see SEC. 502. REGISTRATION]. In short, the FT proposal would require these poor souls to become a modern-day regiment of enlisted tax gathers for government, increasing the number of tax gathers throughout the United States to an all time high, and compelling each to maintain burdensome and inquisitorial records and reports under a penalty of perjury [just as is now done with the income tax] to satisfy the wants and fancies of tyrants in government___ all the above to be implemented under the pretext of the "Fair Tax Reform", a reform which promises to abolish the IRS and income taxation, but in substance and truth will only tighten the iron fist of government around the people's productivity, while demanding the people to shamefully kneel to the iron fist of government, to receive their monthly government subsistence check .

CALLER:

Quote:

Another great feature of the FT is that it is revenue neutral which means it raises the same amount of money now raised under income taxation.

Amazing that the plan is sold on the idea that it will raise existing levels of revenue which is code wording to indicate the FT is designed to intentionally support existing big government, and pay for the salaries of all those involved in big government unconstitutional political plum job offices.

IN CONCLUSION, The only stinking tax reform we need is to add the following words to our Constitution, bringing us back to our Founding Father's original tax plan:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay "any" tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

To see what thinking Americans are promoting with regard to raising a federal revenue, CLICK HERE[/u] and go to "Taxes".

Those who are unfamiliar with our Founding Fathers original tax plan, as they intended it to work, a plan which also includes a specific method to extinguish an annual deficit, CLICK HERE and scroll down to :

American Constitutional Research Service Before the
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
June 1995

Regards,
JWK

"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"[/b] --- Thomas Jefferson

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,139 • Replies: 16

No top replies

Suppose that every day, ten people go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four people (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh $7. The eighth $12. The ninth $18. The tenth person (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten people ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So, now dinner for the ten will only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four people were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

The six people realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth person and the sixth person would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth person, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings.) The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the people began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth person. He pointed to the tenth person "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth person. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh person. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four people in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine people surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth person didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore

0 Replies

A lovely story Fedral that in no way relates to taxes. But if it makes you feel better to think it does, go ahead.

You might want to check out the reality of what people in each quintile pay of total federal taxes. A funny thing about the reality, no quintile gets off with paying zero in taxes.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6133&sequence=0

0 Replies

The "Fair and Progressive" breakdown of the U.S. Income Tax burden according to 2001 IRS Figures:

The top 50% of wage earners pay 96.03% of ALL Federal Income taxes collected.

The top 10% of wage earners pay 64.89% of Federal Income taxes collected.

The top 1% of wage earners pay 53.25% of Federal Income taxes collected.

So precisely WHERE is the "progressiveness" in that system?

Who exactly is paying their "fair share" and who is getting out of paying at all?

I love buzzwords like "progressive", it makes people believe that it just can't be a bad thing.

It is class envy and wealth discrimination made legal.

Think about how much of your "fair share" you are paying next time you fill out your 1040 form.

And this part makes absolutely no sense.

If you make 20,000 and pay 20% flat tax you pay $4,000.

If I make $200,000 and pay 20% in a flat tax I pay $40,000.

I pay ten times what you pay because I make 10 times more than you.

Using the 2003 IRS's tax liability calculator and using both our incomes above with no deductions shows the following:

Your liability for an income of $20,000 would be $1,484.

My liability for an income of $200,000 would be $51,500.

As above I still make 10 times what you make, but my income tax liability is 34.7 TIMES yours.

There is nothing "fair" nor "progressive" about penalizing success.

Fair means fair, fair doesn't mean 'soaking' the rich because they 'can afford it'.

Thats discrimination, pure and simple.

0 Replies

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_044900_incometax.htm

The tax system was never designed to be "fair". Nor, should it be unless you want to see a return of aristocracy.

Think about it. This is the same argument by those who want to repeal the Estate Tax. Do you really want all the wealth and, as a result, power concentrated in a few? That is what will happen is a fair tax is installed and a repeal of the estate tax.

The rich will get richer, the poort will be poorer and there will be no working middle call.

0 Replies

Why do people IGNORE 50% of federal taxes when the complain about how the rich pay more than their fair share?

In 2005, personal income taxes were expected to bring in 893 billion. The total revenues for the US govt was expected to be 2,052 billion. So personal income taxes in 2005 made up about 43% of the Federal revenues.

Source was the US Budget documents at ..
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf

Table 2.1

Arguing a tax system isn't fair when you don't include ALL the taxes is hardly much of an argument.

0 Replies

Assuming you make 200,000 and I make 20,000

I pay 12.4% of my income in Fica.
You only pay 5.9% in Fica (You don't have to pay after $93,000)

Assume we both buy 1000 gallons of gas each year
I pay almost 1% of my salary for gas tax
You pay .01% of yours
The same is true for all excise taxes. You pay a much smaller % of your salary than I do.

0 Replies

And so I'm supposed to be penalized for my success?

Because I put in massive amounts of effort, bust my ass getting through school.
Through all my hard work, I am well compensated for that work and now the Government decides to penalize me for that by paying more % of my income in income taxes.

If you want to pay less % for gas, food, FICA, etc, work harder or get a better job through your own efforts, don't drag ME down because of your sense of envy.

0 Replies

Are you supposed to pay LESS because you are successful?

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

The "Fair and Progressive" breakdown of the U.S. Income Tax burden according to 2001 IRS Figures:

The top 50% of wage earners pay 96.03% of ALL Federal Income taxes collected.

The top 10% of wage earners pay 64.89% of Federal Income taxes collected.

The top 1% of wage earners pay 53.25% of Federal Income taxes collected.

So precisely WHERE is the "progressiveness" in that system?

It's THERE. "Progressive," in the context of income taxes, doesn't mean "innovative" or "advanced," it means "increasing by stages."

Fedral wrote:

Who exactly is paying their "fair share" and who is getting out of paying at all?

Depends on what you mean by "fair."

Fedral wrote:

And this part makes absolutely no sense.

If you make 20,000 and pay 20% flat tax you pay $4,000.

If I make $200,000 and pay 20% in a flat tax I pay $40,000.

I pay ten times what you pay because I make 10 times more than you.

Using the 2003 IRS's tax liability calculator and using both our incomes above with no deductions shows the following:

Your liability for an income of $20,000 would be $1,484.

My liability for an income of $200,000 would be $51,500.

As above I still make 10 times what you make, but my income tax liability is 34.7 TIMES yours.

There is nothing "fair" nor "progressive" about penalizing success.

Well, that depends on what you mean by "success." If you equate income with "success," then some of the most successful people in this country don't perform any work at all. I'm not sure, for instance, why we should describe a lottery multi-millionaire or the lazy scion of a robber baron dynasty as a "success" merely because of their net annual income.

Fedral wrote:

Fair means fair, fair doesn't mean 'soaking' the rich because they 'can afford it'.

Thats discrimination, pure and simple.

Only if you equate "fairness" with "equal distribution." I'd be interested in learning why you think the two are equivalent.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Assuming you make 200,000 and I make 20,000

I pay 12.4% of my income in Fica.
You only pay 5.9% in Fica (You don't have to pay after $93,000)

Assume we both buy 1000 gallons of gas each year
I pay almost 1% of my salary for gas tax
You pay .01% of yours
The same is true for all excise taxes. You pay a much smaller % of your salary than I do.

Are you self employed, parados? Unless you are paying both portions of your FICA, you are only paying 6.2% of your income. In 2005 the FICA income limit is $90,000 or $5580 max deduction. For an individual employed by someone else earning $200,000 the FICA withholding is 2.8% compared to the 6.2% for those earning less than $90,000. Your example was correct, just the percentages were doubled. It gets worse for someone self employed as they must pay both the employee and employer portions or 12.4%, as you stated.

0 Replies

Woyio has the right of it. Without some way to redistribute the wealth, there would be a small, rich, idle aristocracy and a large, poor, burdened peasantry.

We need to redistribute the wealth in order to drive the economy.

0 Replies

Another observation concerning H.R. 25. What is your opinion?

The more I study the proposed H.R. 25 legislation, the more I realize how much it favors big government and resembles a socialist type of tax.

Our founding fathers never envisioned nor did they ever attempt to lay the type of tax as described in H.R. 25. There is no instance in our nation`s entire history, to the best of my knowledge, in which any of Congress` taxing powers have been attempted to be used in the fashion described in H.R.25. For example, the use of Congress` power to lay an excise tax, with relation to articles of consumption, has always, in our nation`s history, been limited to placing a specific amount of tax upon a specific article chosen. Likewise, the use of the excise tax has always been limited to identifying a particular privilege, or particular occupation, and then setting the amount of tax to be paid upon the particular privilege or selected occupation.

What is described in H.R. 25 is not only a new type of tax, it is a tax which it is safe to say would never have been agreed to by those who framed and ratified our Constitution, and was actually rejected during the Convention of 1787!

H.R. 25 is an attempt to resurrect the type of tax allowable under the Articles of Confederation___ a general across the board tax based upon the wealth of each state [land value] in which each state agreed to pay a share of a tax in proportion to their assessed land value. But this kind of tax was rejected during the Convention of 1787 and protection was afforded against a tax based upon wealth by a new rule of apportioning. The new rule being___ to base the amount of each state`s share of the general tax being collected upon representation, and not wealth___ in other words, the protection adopted in the laying of a general across the board tax being representation with proportional obligation, a new rule which socialists and the friends of big government hate with a passion.

In harmony with the new rule of apportionment, and when the various states are required to contribute into the common treasury in a general tax such as H.R. 25 is, Congress is required to determine a total sum needed to be collected under the general tax and then notify each state of its share of the total tax being collected, and, when each state`s share of the total being collected is raised and deposited with the Treasury of the United States, the tax is to be suspended in those states having paid their apportioned share of the general tax being collected.

H.R. 25 as proposed, is not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted and attempts to re-establish a general federal tax based upon wealth, as described in the Articles of Confederation, and proposes to do so without apportioning that tax based upon representation, which our existing Constitution requires!

In short, H.R. 25 is another attack upon federalism and attempts to accomplish indirectly what the Constitution was intended to forbid!

Regards,
JWK
ACRS

The only stinking tax reform we need is for the people to demand their employees in Washington add the following words to our Constitution, bringing us back to our Nation’s original tax plan:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money[/color]

To see what freedom loving Americans are promoting with regard to raising a federal revenue, CLICK HERE[/u] and go to “Taxes”.

Those who are unfamiliar with our Founding Fathers original tax plan, as they intended it to work, a plan which also includes a specific method to extinguish an annual deficit, CLICK HERE[/u] and scroll down to :

American Constitutional Research Service Before the
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
June 1995

0 Replies

Boortz, please explain!
Neal Boortz, who peddles the Fair Tax, needs to do some explaining.

The alleged fair tax, which he supports would create the largest entitlement program in the history of America under its family consumption allowance___ an entitlement which is estimated would cost $ 600 BILLION a year!

The cost of H.R. 25 to the American Taxpayers with regard to the family consumption allowance would make the projected cost of Hilary Health Care look like chicken feed.

In addition, did it ever occur to Boortz that slugs in society who now live off welfare, some of whom make multiple babies to increase their monthly government check, would further benefit and realize an approximate $ 400 per month bonus because of the family consumption allowance, and do so without having to contribute into the common treasury?

The Boortz tax plan is a windfall to the slugs and leaches in our society, and Senator Ted Socialist Kennedy and his disciples in Congress will gladly increase the family consumption allowance to buy votes and remain in power! Why does Boortz supports such a socialist friendly, big government friendly tax plan?

Regards,

JWK

0 Replies

More on The FairTax Con Artists!

To understand the FairTax fraud being perpetrated by Neal Boortz, one must first understand the 16th Amendment did not create any new tax. The Amendment merely clarified a question about a constitutional provision requiring “apportioning” a tax calculated from income!

This happens to be an extremely important point and exposes why the sales pitch given by the FAIR TAX CON ARTISTS, especially Neal Boortz, their ring leader,[/i] is just that----a con job plain and simple!

We are told by Boortz his plan will eliminate “income taxes” [taxes calculated from income] and the massive paper work and man hours wasted with such a tax. But this is a bold face lie made by Boortz for two reasons:

1.

The tax Boortz mentions can only be “eliminated” by a constitutional amendment forbidding Congress to calculate a tax from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

To this day, and to the best of my knowledge, there is no pending legislation on Capitol Hill promoted by the Fair Tax Con Artists which proposes: The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

Without such an amendment, the tax mentioned by Boortz is not eliminated as his book fraudulently portrays on its cover!

2.

But let’s give Boortz the benefit of doubt and that it is his intention, by the language of H.R. 25, to “eliminate taxes calculated from income“.

Sad to say even this turns out to be wishful thinking. If H.R. 25 was enacted into law tomorrow, and Congress followed its language to the letter, H.R. 25 makes no attempt by its language to prohibit Congress from laying an “excise tax” as upheld in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)[/u], a case decided prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment allowing a tax calculated from corporate profits, gains, and income!

The Fair Tax Con Artists having left this loophole, invites Congress, in order to be in compliance with H.R. 25, to simply erase the word “Revenue” from “Internal Revenue Code” and replace that word with “Excise“, as in “Internal Excise Code,” and likewise erase the word “Revenue” from “Internal Revenue Service” and replace it with “Excise“, as in “Internal Excise Service“, and go about its business inflicting the same time consuming and costly misery upon Corporations as now done under “income taxation“, but in addition, these corporations will also have to abide by and follow an additional rule book created by Boortz under H.R. 25, with all its new regulations for record keeping as stipulated in its language!

And if you think this would not quickly happen with Congress’ never ending appetite to increase its piece of the pie from the productivity of the people, you would have to also believe there would be an earth shattering outcry from the people of America if Congress decided to enact, in addition to the H.R. 25 tax, a small “pay their fair share” excise tax upon corporations and other wealthy scoundrels who make millions of dollars a year in “profits” and bleed the poor working people, as was alleged about Leona Helmsley, who just happened to pay more in taxes than the combined taxes paid by any 20 average working people in New York, and yet, she was sent to jail.

But wait! I thought Boortz was a defender of people being free to earn a profit. So why, tell me why on earth does he promote a plan which provides the tools to Ted Socialist Kennedy, and his disciples in Congress, to continue to bleed the productive members in society, while giving a $ 400 per month bonus to un-wed moms to stay at home and make babies under his family consumption allowance?

Come on all you Boortz Fair Tax stooges, answer the question!

Regards,

JWK

ACRS

The only stinking tax reform we need is to demand our employees add the following words to our Constitution:

"The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay “any” tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.[/color]

It doesn’t tax 135 pages of bullstuff [H.R. 25] to accomplish real tax reform, it only takes the will of the people to rise up and demand their employees, their public servants, add the above words to their Constitution!

0 Replies

Hey Boortz, defend your tax plan!
H.R. 25, the alleged Fair Tax, is proposed as a fair, simple, and transparent tax system.

You bet H.R. 25 is transparent___ but it sure is not fair as it is being promoted.

For example, the monthly family consumption allowance checks which would be sent out by government under H.R. 25 would come from taxes paid by people who work for a living, pay the H.R. 25 tax, and thereby contribute into the common treasury.

The family consumption allowance entitles those who don’t work for a living nor contribute into the common treasury to receive the allowance! Drug dealers and drug addicts are entitled to the allowance; burglars, armed robbers and car thieves are also entitled to the allowance; and, even your local un-wed welfare moms who stay at home, do not contribute into the common treasury but makes babies to increase their current monthly welfare check, are entitled to the allowance. Even criminals who are locked up in prison and jail are entitled to the allowance. In fact, each of the above are entitled to get a $400 per month bonus under H.R. 25, for not contributing into the common treasury, which turns out to be another socialist transfer of wealth entitlement program!

H.R. 25, the alleged FairTax, would create the largest entitlement program in the history of America under its family consumption allowance___ an entitlement which is estimated would cost $ 600 BILLION a year! The cost of this entitlement to the American Taxpayers would make the projected cost of Hilary Health Care look like chicken feed.

Hey Boortz, and all you Fair Tax Neal Boortz Stooges, where are you? Come out and defend your socialist transfer-of-wealth tax plan.

The only stinking tax reform we need is for the people to demand their employees, their public servants, add the following words to our Constitution, bringing us back to our Nation’s original tax plan:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay “any” tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.[/color]

See how easy real tax reform is? It doesn’t take 135 pages of bullstuff, [H.R.25] which would leave us on a sinking ship…it only taxes 32 words for the people of America to gain control of a runaway Congress!

To study the Founder’s original tax plan CLICK HERE[/u]and scroll down to:

American Constitutional Research Service Before the
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
June 1995

Regards,
JWK

0 Replies

The ''Fair Tax'' con artists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know