I wondered, “Why are some liberals against going to a FairTax?” Then an acquaintance of mine hit me over the head with the obvious and the dawn came:
It’s because the idea is being put forward by Neal Boortz, a right-wing conservative talk show radio guy.
I can’t help that. I’ve never even heard Boortz talk show.
Just the same, the FairTax is an excellent idea.
Why don’t you liberals take the idea as your own? The Great and All Powerful Rush Limbaugh (whose radio show I’m not worthy to listen to) says Clinton took away ideas from conservatives and adopted them during his presidential campaigns. So why not you?
The idea is bigger than the man.
The FairTax is an excellent idea (so say I) which is worthy of exploration. Have any of you had to tussle with the IRS? This proposal would get the IRS entirely out of individual’s lives. No more 1040’s. No more federal income tax. No more social security tax. No more tax taken out of seniors’ social security checks.
Please get a copy of the FairTax book and secretly (under the blankets with a flashlight) read it.
You will be delighted. In the book are answers to questions such as “How does this benefit the poor?”
The FairTax can easily become a Democrat sponsored idea.
I don’t care; I just want it for our country.
Grim, let’s debate the “Fair Tax.”
I don’t understand it all, but I damn sure don’t like it and I can’t see how you would unless you’re rich.
If you’re NOT rich, let’s debate.
Comment by Bart — December 6, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
Ron Paul would just replace one big bureacracy with another, while shifting more of the tax burden to the middle class. Meanwhile, the only really good idea he has is to get the hell out of Iraq, which was a lot better an idea before we broke it. Every other position he takes is so far right it’s scary – and what’s worse, I even have some “liberal” friends with his campaign signs up.
Good thing he can’t win.
Comment by Peregrin — December 7, 2007 @ 5:00 am
Bart, one of the things that the fairtax deos besides shitcan the IRS is to attaach the govt directly to the economy. Is this so mysterious?
I assure you that it is a good thing, because it makes govt more responsive. Your turn.
Prergrin, Paul has another good idea – less govt.
Comment by grimgold — December 7, 2007 @ 10:21 am
Bart, i don’t want to get bored with this, so I have an idea! You be for the fairtax, I’ll be against it, and we’ll debate.
I’ll go first:
The fairtax is a scheme developed by the rich so they don’t have to pay their fair share of taxes. These evil ones want to keep the working people under their thumb and this is a good way to do it. Think about it – if the fairtax goes into effect there will be no more tax brackets! The poor will pay the same tax as the rich. As it is now, the working man gets a break because he doesn’t pay as great a percentage as the rich. The poor pay almost nothing. But with the fairtax everyone will pay as they spend money – everyone will be taxed the same. This is obviously a dark scheme worked up by the neo-cons and their allies, the filthy rich!
Your turn Bart!
Grimgold
Comment by grimgold — December 7, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
No more Social Security? No more tax taken out of seniors’ social security checks? Have you noticed that these two statements are completely contradictory? Can’t you obfuscate better than that?
Comment by oddcatout — December 7, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
Grim-
Why the Fair Tax why not go back to the idea of a flat tax. Then everyone would be taxed equally on the income they make. If you’re rich or poor you pay the same percentage.
Comment by N — December 7, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
Oddcat, I never even mentioned Social Security. I’m against the Al Gore idea of taking taxes out of S.S. checks. He implemented this bright idea some years ago, as you may know.
S. S. withholding is another tax on earnings that would go away under the fairtax – as you would know if you had bothered to study it. However, under the fairtax, S.S. itself would be covered (it’s all in the book).
N, The objection to the flat tax is that everyone would pay the same, which is also an objection to the fairtax (as I’ve detailed above). A 10% flat tax would not be possible without making govt smaller and more efficient, a worthy thing as far as I’m concerned.
The idea of the fairtax is to tax people when they spend money rather than when they earn it. Please sit in a chair at Barnes and Noble and read the fairtax book, you’ll be delighted.
Comment by grimgold — December 7, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
I’ve always thought the “Fair Tax” was about raising my grocery bill. That same jar of pickles is going to cost me 20% more.
Doesn’t it hurt a small business to raise the price of their goods and force them to do the IRS’s job? It won’t eliminate the IRS, it will privatize it out to large accounting firms.
Not counting the billions of dollars it would take to implement, the US Govt would see drastic decreases in tax revenue. Though I suppose the real goal is to starve the Govt until you can drown it in the bathtub.
Comment by Danger Bear — December 7, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Grim: “He implemented this bright idea some years ago, as you may know.”
Al Gore implemented taxing Social Security benefits? Here’s what the official SS government website has to say:
“Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?
“A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.
“The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer’s total income exceeded certain thresholds.
“The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan, who is presently serving as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.”
– Source: “Social Security History Myths II FAQ”.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
So it was Republican Reagan and not Gore who ‘implemented’ the taxation of SS benefits, and the proposal came from a Reagan appointee.
As far as your ‘fair tax’ proposal, I’ll go you one better — how about NO personal income taxes. We would make up the deficit in the tax base by imposing stiff tariffs on all of the corporations importing merchandise and labor into our country, and raise the taxes on corporate profits.
Comment by RS Janes — December 8, 2007 @ 8:07 am
RS, I may be wrong about Al, thanks.
DB, your pickle price will not go up. All explained in hte book or by me if you push me.
DB, businesses would collect tax as they do now. IRS would deal with them but not consumers. Govt would not collect less, just differently. April 15 would become just another beautiful spring day – please read the fairtax book.
RS, you don’t understand – under the fairtax there would be exacty as you say – NO income taxes. None. The difference would be made up with a consumption tax, and the govt would actually collect more money as a result of the economic explosion because the USA could now compete with the world more effectively. Please, please read the fairtax book, it’s all iin there!
This lead is getting a little long and very old. I’ll talk to you underneath a more current piece. Thanks to both of you for the conversation and Merry Christmas!
Comment by grimgold — December 8, 2007 @ 3:10 pm