posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 10:16 PM
Beyond the proposal for the FairTax itself, the Neal Boortz/John Linder book has even more verbiage to offend libertarians than it does points we can
It wasn't intended to promote the agenda of the Libertarian Party. it was intended to promote a replacement for the current income tax. you have
to start somewhere practical.
The following is a comprehensive recounting of the bad to be found in The FairTax Book:
The book isn’t about reducing taxes or spending but about funding the entirety of current spending levels (2).
imagine that. a book that is not about reducing federal spending that doesn't address reducing federal spending.
The historical example of the 1872 repeal of the income tax is noted, but the lesson that it was done without trading the income tax for a new tax is
The book is about FT, not american tax and budget history
The tax trade in the Ruml plan of 1942 – with the taxpayer taking it on the chin – is recounted, but the lesson of not trusting politicians with
such tax trades is ignored (27).
Covered Already (CA)
More than an entire chapter is spent celebrating the idea of every household receiving a monthly check from the federal government (79–90).
The term "celebrating" is being used for impact, not an honest review of the content.
A reference to "replacing virtually all personal income and corporate taxes" is slipped in, apparently betraying the book’s claim that the
national sales tax will replace all of these taxes (82).
what an idiot. even if FT passes, this doesn't mean that States who currently withhold STATE income taxes will stop collecting them.
There’s a passing reference to politicians who thrive on others’ dependency, but the idea of every household receiving a monthly check from the
feds disturbs these authors not at all (88).
why should anyone be bothered by someone receiving a refund of their own money just like a tax refund that one might receive today?.
The authors seem quite stressed over individuals using things such as Offshore Financial Services and Eurodollar transactions to avoid death taxes and
other taxes (99–100).
Again, just using language (i.e. "quite stressed") for impact.
The authors want the US to become a tax haven for businesses, but bellyache about other countries being such tax havens (100–101).
the nerve of Boortz to pull for the home team.
Part of the FairTaxers’ propaganda that the intended sales tax rate will generate as much revenue as all of the current income-based federal taxes
do today is based on three unrealistic assumptions: 1) no increase in black market activities; 2) governments at all levels paying the tax; and 3) no
additional exceptions to what is taxed being implemented (106).
doesn't deserve a response
It is claimed that businesses will no longer need to keep payroll records (108). Then, inconsistently, the authors state that businesses will in fact
report the number of quarters of employment to the Social Security Administration (168), while the FairTax.org website states: "Employers continue to
report wages for each employee … for the determination of benefits." [emphasis added]
A fine example of taking something completely out of context.
The authors believe that when people avoid any taxes it causes an increase in other people’s taxes (4, 93–94) – despite the fact that at other
times they tell us politicians will always spend any additional money they receive (136).
The authors are absolutely right on both points. these concepts are not mutually exclusive.
The authors celebrate the prospect of broadening the tax base for the unconstitutional Social Security program and bemoan the fact that currently
Social Security taxes are not levied on dividends (136–137).
there's that "celebrate" word again used to replace the word "explain".
Apparently it is offensive that the IRS would demand that golfer Lee Trevino pay gift taxes on heart surgery he paid for his caddy, but not offensive
if he were forced to pay their hefty sales tax on that same surgery (142).
this comment totally ignores the fact that the gift tax is in addition to the current costs of the surgery and that under FT, the price of the
surgery (which would end up about the same as it is now) would include the FT.
Revealing a near-psychotic level of naïvety, the authors tell us that the kind of abuses suffered under the IRS "simply wouldn’t happen" once the
FairTax is implemented (145–146).
No more tax liens on homes? no more seizures of personal property? no more tax courts for unpaid income taxes? no more prosecutions for those
accused of "willful failure to file"? I guess I am, also, psychotically naive.
in the Q & A, we’re told that questions and objections unanswered in the book itself is why we have talk shows and email and that the Neal Boortz
Show is the unofficial clearinghouse for the fairtax. yet boortz has avoided answering the objections I have raised (as well as those of others who
have contacted me) (148, 179).
He is writing (or has already written) an entire book dedicated to responding to the reasonable questions and objections (and myths) being raised.
I have the time to respond to this idiot, boortz does not.
The authors attack doubters who point out that the plan calls for a sales tax rate that is 30% of an item’s price, claiming that such critics
"never miss a trick." Yet Boortz and Linder wrongly claim that their misleading, but more appealing, 23%, is the proper figure (152).
This is the proper method (the 23% figure) for expressing an inclusive tax which is embedded into the sticker price.
To further muddy the waters concerning the intended national sales tax rate the book refers to a $100 item as one priced at $77 with the $23 worth of
tax. Once upon a time, one of the touted virtues of the proposal was to bring the tax rate out in the open for the taxpayers…now the intention is to
hide the tax within the price as politicians currently do with gasoline prices (152, 154)?
Is he suggesting that the currently embedded taxes are not hidden?