Comments on: It’s Called the Fair Tax, Not the Perfect Tax

By: mbecker908

mbecker908 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:32:45 +0000

1. (From above) I’ve never called the prebate a “welfare payment”. What I said was that unless the language is iron clad (and there ain’t no such animal in DC), the Congress could use a mechanism already in place to increase payments to low income groups. You’re calling it welfare. I’m calling it Congress doing redistribution.
2. Yes I can tell the difference between repealing and a constitutional amendment. And I explained the problems with attempting to repeal a law like you’re proposing. It’s “too big to fail”. It won’t be repealed. It will just be “messed with”.
3. My point is that if you think for one second that this “fix” you’ve come up with to avoid a constitutional amendment will work you’re a damn fool. You obviously trust the Congress or you’d see the folly of this proposal.
4. Your point about repeal makes my point. And the problem isn’t stated correctly. First of all it takes 50% +1 to pass the legislation. It takes 2/3 of both houses to approve a constitutional amendment. You could pass the legislation with 51 senators. You could spend three years getting another 10 on board. You’ve still got no amendment. Now what? Or, let’s say that you get 2/3 of both houses. You’ve still got to get 3/4 of the state legislatures, most of whom are going to have to restructure their revenue streams. You’re living in a dream world.
5. I know that any tax reform can be bolloxed by another Congress. That’s my issue. I’m in favor of real tax reform. A plan that is well thought out and that people have paid attention to the details of. This one, at least as you’re flacking it, is NOT it.

By: NightTwister

NightTwister — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:55:38 +0000

-nt-

By: Finrod

Finrod — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:36:17 +0000

1. So you’re telling me that you, like NT, can’t tell the difference between repealing a law and repealing a constitutional amendment?

2. Neither do I. Your point?

3. I put the odds of the FairTax being passed, then repealed 3 years later at pretty much nil. How many Congressmen are really going to stand in the way of repealing the Sixteenth after 2 years of everyone getting their full paycheck and not having to file tax forms? It would be political suicide, and if Congressmen are good at one thing, it’s avoiding political suicide.

4. Any tax reform can be bolloxed by a future Congress. Using that as an excuse to pick one tax reform plan over another is inane.

By: Finrod

Finrod — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:23:24 +0000

Must’ve been mbecker908 that insisted on calling it welfare. I mistakenly thought that you actually had advanced an argument against the prebate, instead of just proclaiming that you don’t like it.

I’ve still knocked down every argument you’ve posted so far, using your own words. Do you want to go quietly, or do you want me to knock down more?

By: mbecker908

mbecker908 — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 22:43:52 +0000

1. What NT said.

2. I do not trust Congress. Period.

3. You’re going to put the country through major dislocations with tax laws, effective putting tax accountancy & legal services out of business (which I am all for), for three years. The constitutional changes fail and we’re in deep stuff because the tax professionals are gone.

4. NEVER pass laws based on Congress acting in good faith at a later date. See the immigration law that Reagan signed that gave 1.5MM illegals amnesty in return for tough employer sanctions and border security to be passed later. Twenty years and we’re still waiting.

By: NightTwister

NightTwister — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 22:34:33 +0000

Not once.

I have many problems with the fair tax. My biggest objections are giving the government another way to tax (federal sales tax) that does not currently exist, and the prebate. My objections not limited to those reasons just because they’re the only ones I’ve voiced in this discussion.

By: Finrod

Finrod — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 22:16:07 +0000

You said:

I’m not willing to agree to another method of taxation unless the existing one is eliminated at the same time.

This is exactly what the FairTax does: it eliminates all the other taxes in favor of One Tax Only.

If you want to change your objection to that the existing one must not only be eliminated, but constitutionally prohibited from returning, you can do that, but you are in fact moving the goalposts, immaterial of whether I like it or not.

Your arguments against the prebate seem equally muddle-headed; last I saw from you, you were trying to call it welfare which is silly at best.

By: NightTwister

NightTwister — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:07:33 +0000

The fact that you don’t like it doesn’t really matter much to me.

This isn’t the only reason I’m against the Fair Tax, btw. I’ll never agree to the prebate, for instance.

By: Finrod

Finrod — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:45:16 +0000

Passing the FairTax will eliminate all the other methods of taxation, it just won’t constitutionally bar them immediately doing it this way– it’ll take another three years.

What you’re actually asking for something that’s impossible to happen (repealing a constitutional amendment takes a lot of time, and no one will agree to repealing the Sixteenth until a better system is already in place), and then saying that passing the FairTax is impossible. In other words, you can never be satisfied with the FairTax no matter what, which makes all your stated objections nothing more than a feint.

By: bs

bs — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:19:26 +0000

By: NightTwister

NightTwister — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:14:38 +0000

I’m not willing to agree to another method of taxation unless the existing one is eliminated at the same time. Sunset provisions won’t work for me, because they’re too easy to eliminate later. Congress will just say they need to do it a little longer and before you know it it’s permanent. I’m just not willing to take that chance, so I will fight against this if it’s proposed by Congress.

By: Neil Stevens

Neil Stevens — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:03:46 +0000

By: Finrod

Finrod — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:59:30 +0000

The current plan is to pass the FairTax with a proviso that says that if the Sixteenth isn’t repealed 3 years after the FairTax goes into effect, then the FairTax is repealed and we go back to the old system.

Please explain why this isn’t good enough for you, or STFU about the Sixteenth already.

By: NightTwister

NightTwister — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:58:44 +0000

Only so many hours in the day, you know. Tax reform isn’t exactly going to get any traction in the next four years anyway. There are more important things to do like working in my local community to start turning things Red again.

By: NightTwister

NightTwister — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:56:40 +0000

Sounds like we’re going to have the current system a while longer.

And I’d venture a guess that more than 6 would be in favor of the system proposed by Fred, but I don’t have any data to back that up, so understand it’s just speculation.

In any case, it’s certain that nothing is going to change in the next four years except the percentage of my income that the government is going to allow me to keep.

By: NightTwister

NightTwister — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:53:16 +0000

And I’m not terribly worried about it. There are enough conservatives like me that would never go for it, not to mention support from the other side is basically nil.

By: Jim Tomasik

Jim Tomasik — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:51:38 +0000

Read ‘em and weep.

Currently there are about 76 members of congress supporting FairTax. All but one are republican.

Flattax is at something like 6.

Maybe we should compare the percentage of FairTaxers who lost their seats in comparison to non supporters who lost their seats.

Then compare how many new FairTax supporters got elected verses how many new non fairtax supporters got elected for a first term.

I think you will find that you lose this arguement all the way around.

By: adamsweb

adamsweb — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:49:35 +0000

You want a Constitutional Amendment, but it’s not actually needed. Right now, the government could decide to impose a Sales Tax without eliminating any other tax. Regardless of the Fair Tax, Congress already has the power.

Repeal of the 16th Amendment is a great long-term goal, but until we have another method of taxation that people have actually been able to try.

By: NightTwister

NightTwister — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:39:43 +0000

If you think for one second I'm willing to allow congress another way to tax me without removing the existing one at the same time, you're nuts. I'd fight that harder than I fought the Shamnesty bill last year.

By: Jim Tomasik

Jim Tomasik — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:38:26 +0000

Lets see your plan happen. Like I said, It would be my second choice. If we have to have socialism in tax collection ,lets do set it back to the civil war era.

Why is Thompson’s plan getting vertually no support in Congress? Does Thompson’s plan even match up with the current flat tax bill?

If anyone is screaming into the night, it guess you are right in that it would be FairTax supporters. Flat tax supporters are whispering into the night. If FairTax is going nowhere, Flat tax apears to be backing up.

Marsha Blackburn is a Thompson supporter, get her to present it as a bill maybe? How can I help you get this going?