Another good summary:

-1-
An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people
Concerning Reform of the Federal Tax Code
Dear Mr. President, Members of Congress, and Fellow Americans,
We, the undersigned business and university economists, welcome and applaud the ongoing
initiative to reform the federal tax code. We urge the President and the Congress to work
together in good faith to pass and sign into federal law H.R. 25 and S. 25, which together call
for:
• Eliminating all federal income taxes for individuals and corporations,
• Eliminating all federal payroll withholding taxes,
• Abolishing estate and capital gains taxes, and
• Repealing the 16th Amendment
We are not calling for elimination of federal taxation, which would be irresponsible and
undesirable. Nor does our endorsement call for reduced federal spending. The tax reform plan
we endorse is revenue neutral, collecting as much federal tax revenue as the current income tax
code, including payroll withholding taxes.
We are calling for elimination of federal income taxes and federal payroll withholding taxes.
We endorse replacing these costly, oppressively complex, and economically inefficient taxes
with a progressive national retail sales tax, such as the tax plan offered by H.R. 25 and S. 25 –
which is also known as the FairTax Plan. The FairTax Plan has been introduced in the 109th
Congress and had 54 co-sponsors in the 108th Congress.
If passed and signed into law, the FairTax Plan would:
• Enable workers and retirees to receive 100% of their paychecks and pension benefits,
• Replace all federal income and payroll taxes with a simple, progressive, visible,
efficiently collected national retail sales tax, which would be levied on the final sale of
newly produced goods and services,
• Rebate to all households each month the federal sales tax they pay on basic necessities,
up to an independently determined level of spending (a.k.a., the poverty level, as
determined by the Department of Health and Human Services), which removes the
burden of federal taxation on the poor and makes the FairTax Plan as progressive as the
current tax code,
• Collect the national sales tax at the retail cash register, just as 45 states already do,
• Set a federal sales tax rate that is revenue neutral, thereby raising the same amount of tax
revenue as now raised by federal income taxes plus payroll withholding taxes,
• Continue Social Security and Medicare benefits as provided by law; only the means of
tax collection changes,
• Eliminate all filing of individual federal tax returns,
• Eliminate the IRS and all audits of individual taxpayers; only audits of retailers would be
needed, greatly reducing the cost of enforcing the federal tax code,
An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people
-2-
• Allow states the option of collecting the national retail sales tax, in return for a fee, along
with their state and local sales taxes,
• Collect federal sales tax from every retail consumer in the country, whether citizen or
undocumented alien, which will enlarge the federal tax base,
• Collect federal sales tax on all consumption spending on new final goods and services,
whether the dollars used to finance the spending are generated legally, illegally, or in the
huge “underground economy,”
• Dramatically reduce federal tax compliance costs paid by businesses, which are now
embedded and hidden in retail prices, placing U.S. businesses at a disadvantage in world
markets,
• Bring greater accountability and visibility to federal tax collection,
• Attract foreign equity investment to the United States, as well as encourage U.S. firms to
locate new capital projects in the United States that might otherwise go abroad, and
• Not tax spending for education, since H.R. 25 and S. 25 define expenditure on education
to be investment, not consumption, which will make education about half as expensive
for American families as it is now.
The current U.S. income tax code is widely regarded by just about everyone as unfair,
complex, wasteful, confusing, and costly. Businesses and other organizations spend more than
six billion hours each year complying with the federal tax code. Estimated compliance costs
conservatively top $225 billion annually – costs that are ultimately embedded in retail prices paid
by consumers.
The Internal Revenue Code cannot simply be “fixed,” which is amply demonstrated by more
than 35 years of attempted tax code reform, each round resulting in yet more complexity and
unrelenting, page-after-page, mind-numbing verbiage (now exceeding 54,000 pages containing
more than 2.8 million words).
Our nation’s current income tax alters business decisions in ways that limit growth in
productivity. The federal income tax also alters saving and investment decisions of households,
which dramatically reduces the economy’s potential for growth and job creation.
Payroll withholding taxes are regressive, hitting hardest those least able to pay. Simply
stated, the complexity and frequently changing rules of the federal income tax code make our
country less competitive in the global economy and rob the nation of its full potential for growth
and job creation.
In summary, the economic benefits of the FairTax Plan are compelling. The FairTax Plan
eliminates the tax bias against work, saving, and investment, which would lead to higher rates of
economic growth, faster growth in productivity, more jobs, lower interest rates, and a higher
standard of living for the American people.
An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people
-3-
The America proposed by the FairTax Plan would feature:
• no federal income taxes,
• no payroll taxes,
• no self-employment taxes,
• no capital gains taxes,
• no gift or estate taxes,
• no alternative minimum taxes,
• no corporate taxes,
• no payroll withholding,
• no taxes on Social Security benefits or pension benefits,
• no personal tax forms,
• no personal or business income tax record keeping, and
• no personal income tax filing whatsoever.
No Internal Revenue Service; no April 15th; all gone, forever.
We believe that many Americans will favor the FairTax Plan proposed by H.R. 25 and S. 25,
although some may say, “it simply can’t be done.” Many said the same thing to the grassroots
progressives who won women the right to vote, to those who made collective bargaining a reality
for union members, and to the Freedom Riders who made civil rights a reality in America.
We urge Congress not to abandon the FairTax Plan simply because it will be difficult to face
the objections of entrenched special interest groups – groups who now benefit from the
complexity and tax preferences of the status quo. The comparative advantage and benefits
offered by the FairTax Plan to the vast majority of Americans is simply too high a cost to pay.
Therefore, we the undersigned professional and university economists, endorse a progressive
national retail sales tax plan, as provided by the FairTax Plan. We urge Congress to make H.R.
25 and S. 25 federal law, and then to work swiftly to repeal the 16th Amendment.
Respectfully,
Donald L. Alexander
Professor of Economics
Western Michigan University
Wayne Angell
Angell Economics
Jim Araji
Professor of Agricultural
Economics
University of Idaho
Ray Ball
Graduate School of Business
University of Chicago
Roger J. Beck
Professor Emeritus
Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale
John J. Bethune
Kennedy Chair of Free
Enterprise
Barton College
David M. Brasington
Louisiana State University
Christopher K. Coombs
Louisiana State University
William J. Corcoran, Ph.D.
University of Nebraska at
Omaha
Eleanor D. Craig
Economics Department
University of Delaware
Susan Dadres, Ph.D.
Department of Economics
Southern Methodist University
An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people
-4-
Henry Demmert
Santa Clara University
Arthur De Vany
Professor Emeritus
Economics and Mathematical
Behavioral Sciences
University of California, Irvine
Pradeep Dubey
Leading Professor
Center for Game Theory
Dept. of Economics
SUNY at Stony Brook
Demissew Diro Ejara
William Paterson University of
New Jersey
Patricia J. Euzent
Department of Economics
University of Central Florida
John A. Flanders
Professor of Business and
Economics
Central Methodist University
Richard H. Fosberg, Ph.D.
William Paterson University
Gary L. French, Ph.D.
Senior Vice President
Nathan Associates Inc.
Professor James Frew
Economics Department
Willamette University
K. K. Fung
University of Memphis
Satya J. Gabriel, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics and
Finance
Mount Holyoke College
Dave Garthoff
Summit College
The University of Akron
Ronald D. Gilbert
Associate Professor of
Economics
Texas Tech University
Philip E. Graves
Department of Economics
University of Colorado
Bettina Bien Greaves, Retired
Foundation for Economic
Education
John Greenhut, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Finance & Business Economics
School of Global Management
and Leadership
Arizona State University
Darrin V. Gulla
Dept. of Economics
University of Georgia
Jon Halvorson
Assistant Professor of
Economics
Indiana University of
Pennsylvania
Reza G. Hamzaee, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics &
Applied Decision Sciences
Department of Economics
Missouri Western State College
James M. Hvidding
Professor of Economics
Kutztown University
F. Jerry Ingram, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics and
Finance
The University of Louisiana-
Monroe
Steven J. Jordan
Visiting Assistant Professor
Virginia Tech
Department of Economics
Richard E. Just
University of Maryland
Dr. Michael S. Kaylen
Associate Professor
University of Missouri
David L. Kendall
Professor of Economics and
Finance
University of Virginia's College
at Wise
Peter M. Kerr
Professor of Economics
Southeast Missouri State
University
Miles Spencer Kimball
Professor of Economics
University of Michigan
James V. Koch
Department of Economics
Old Dominion University
Laurence J. Kotlikoff
Professor of Economics
Boston University
Edward J. López
Assistant Professor
University of North Texas
Salvador Lopez
University of West Georgia
Yuri N. Maltsev, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
Carthage College
Glenn MacDonald
John M. Olin Distinguished
Professor of Economics and
Strategy
Washington University in St.
Louis
Dr. John Merrifield,
Professor of Economics
University of Texas-San
Antonio
Dr. Matt Metzgar
Mount Union College
Carlisle Moody
Department of Economics
College of William and Mary
An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people
Andrew P. Morriss
Galen J. Roush Professor of
Business Law & Regulation
Case Western Reserve
University School of Law
Timothy Perri
Department of Economics
Appalachian State University
Mark J. Perry
School of Management and
Department of Economics
University of Michigan-Flint
Timothy Peterson
Assistant Professor
Economics and Management
Department
Gustavus Adolphus College
Ben Pierce
Central Missouri State
University
Michael K. Pippenger, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of
Economics
University of Alaska
Robert Piron
Professor of Economics
Oberlin College
Mattias Polborn
Department of Economics
University of Illinois
Joseph S. Pomykala, Ph.D.
Department of Economics
Towson University
Barry Popkin
University of North Carolina-
Chapel Hill
Steven W. Rick
Lecturer, University of
Wisconsin
Senior Economist, Credit Union
National Association
Paul H. Rubin
Samuel Candler Dobbs
Professor of Economics & Law
Department of Economics
Emory Univeristy
John Ruggiero
University of Dayton
Michael K. Salemi
Bowman and Gordon Gray
Professor of Economics
University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill
Dr. Carole E. Scott
Richards College of Business
State University of West
Georgia
Carlos Seiglie
Dept. of Economics
Rutgers University
Alan C. Shapiro
Ivadelle and Theodore Johnson
Professor of Banking and
Finance
Marshall School of Business
University of Southern
California
Dr. Stephen Shmanske
Professor of Economics
California State University,
Hayward
James F. Smith
University of North Carolina-
Chapel Hill
Vernon L. Smith
Economist
W. James Smith
Dean of Liberal Arts and
Sciences and Professor of
Economics
University of Colorado at
Denver
John C. Soper
Boler School of Business
John Carroll University
Roger Spencer
Professor of Economics
Trinity University
Daniel A. Sumner, Director,
University of California
Agricultural Issues Center
and the Frank H. Buck, Jr.,
Chair Professor,
Department of Agricultural and
Resource Economics,
University of California, Davis
Curtis R. Taylor
Professor of Economics and
Business
Duke University
Robert Vigil
Analysis Group, Inc.
John H. Wicks, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Department of Economics
University of Montana
F. Scott Wilson, Ph.D.
Canisius College
Mokhlis Y. Zaki
Professor of Economics
Emeritus
Northern Michigan University

Quoted: Quoted: Your whole gas example is weak, and your logic flawed, and here is why. You assume that he can sell that gasoline for the lower price untill he refills, then raise his price. True, he could. But you forget that gasoline, like all commodities, fluctuates. That means it also goes down. Under your example, if gas goes up .25 a gallon and he keeps it at the same price untill he refills his tank he is not hurt. But as I said, gas fluctuates, and will go down. Guess what happens when gas drops .25 a gallon. Under your example, he will have to sell at the old price. After all, he sold at the old price when it went up, and if he does that but drops when the price drops he ends up losing money over the path of the fluctuation. And with everyone else basing prices on the commodity price, he will be .25 a gallon higher than everyone else. How long do you think he will stay in business? But if he raises as soon as wholesale rises, and drops as soon as it drops, over time the whole margin evens out. So what would you have him do? Lower prices as soon as they drop, but not raise prices when they rise? That is unrealistic and bad business. When you sell a commodity that fluctuates, you have to base price on what your replacement cost is, not your purchase price. Don't talk about how well others understand economics when you do not even understand how to sell a commodity. I will certainly talk about your lack of understanding of basic econ 101. First of all, you are still lazy.  You didn't check out Bruce Bartlett before you said he knew nothing about a subject about which he is an expert.  Now, you don't read very carefully.  It was not MY example, it was Boortz's example. What BOORTZ said ( you got that?  BOORTZ, not I ) was that the station owner HAD to sell his gas at a higher price because his COST OF GOODS SOLD had increased.   WRONG.   This is BASIC ECONOMICS.   His cost of goods sold does not increase until he BUYS at the higher price. Boortz doesn't understand that, and evidently neither do you. His COST for the gasoline is WHAT HE PAID.  That SHOULD be easily understood.  And that is why it is BASIC economics. If the going price for gas goes DOWN in the future, his COST remains unchanged.  If the going price goes UP in the future his COST is STILL unchanged. His COST is STILL what he PAID for that gasoline.  And he makes a GROSS PROFIT ( or  LOSS  ) based on his PAST cost of product, not his FUTURE cost. When he refills that tank, his COST will be whatever he had to pay per gallon of gas.  He will then adjust his retail price to obtain the GROSS PROFIT he desires. For the gas already in the tanks - what the station owner decides to do to the retail price of gasoline after wholesalers increase his wholesale price is simply a decision that station owner makes. He can be content with his normal profit and sell based on his cost, or he can take advantage of the fluctuation in price and make more profit. BUT HIS COST OF GOOD SOLD DID NOT INCREASE FOR THE GAS HE ALREADY BOUGT - and THAT is what Boortz said happened and he used that to justify why the station owner HAD to increase the price of gas that he had ALREADY PURCHASED at a lower wholesale price.

That might be true if the economy ran on a cash-valuation basis, but it does not.

So say you buy 10,000 shares of stock for $1/share. Your cost is $10,000.  Ten years later your inventory of stock is saleable at the market price of $5/share. Up until you sell the stock, how much are you worth? $10,000 is the wrong answer by the way.

In a two-party deal a resource, such as gas, is worth what a buyer and seller will come to terms for, no more and no less, not including externalities. That is the basic premise of economics. Supply and demand fluctuate, and the grease between the wheels is mutual valuation, not original costs.

When you take on inventory (an investment) you take on risk. Taking on risk demands a price premium for successful risks. The more risky an investment is, the higher a premium a successful risk will demand to cover losses from other investments with a similar risk profile.

Wow, I still can't believe there are some on this board who are so ignorant about the Fair Tax and economics in general.  You all do realize that if you choose to, you could go years without paying taxes?  If there was a way to get government off our backs this is the way to do it.  I have been behind the fair tax now for 4 years, it is a big idea that will go a LONG way in bring America's manufacturing back as well as helping the stock market.

I hate to say this, but the tax system we have now is the one that our politicians have been developing for over two-hundered years and they are never going to let us off the hook.

It concentrates power in Washington by collecting money and forcing the states to toe the line if they want any of it back.

The Fair Tax would be an improvement but better yet, go back to what the Founders wanted; a per-capita assesment on the states according to their populations.

Imagine Congress meeting and deciding how much money is needed to run the country for another year and then going back to their own states and presenting a bill for the state to raise the funds however they want.

State governments would have to be more responsible 'cuz they wouldn't be getting that revenue sharing from Washington.

This would take a lot of fun out of governing and shift the power back to the states and the people.

But then again, the elected officials, the socialists, tax lawyers, the accountants and a large faction of just plain ignorant will never let it happen.

Regards,
Mild Bill

tag

Quoted: ...snip... This is not about economics as much as CONTROL. ...snip...

"It--" politics in general--has nothing to to with economics, and it has nothing to do with control.  Everything that matters--the only thing that matters--is being elected or re-elected to an office...period.   In my humble opinion, one cannot possibly speak factually and reasonably about American politics until this is understood.

The Fair Tax will pass if, and only if, there is enough people to support it.  It doesn't matter if it's sensible or wise or fair; these points are completely irrelevant to the politician.  The absolute truth about American politics is that its driven by getting enough votes--by whatever means necessary--to win an election.

I appreciate greatly that my very simple point has been digested--not necessarily concurred--by at last one other person involved in this debate.  Thank you G-man.

John Linder of GA is the origin of this idea and is the co-author of the book with Boortz.

linder.house.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Resources.Home&Resource_id=1

I will be buying it ! I have been waiting a long time for this !

Quoted: "It--" politics in general--has nothing to to with economics, and it has nothing to do with control.  Everything that matters--the only thing that matters--is being elected or re-elected to an office...period.

Getting elected to public office IS power and it IS control.

Quoted: Wow, I still can't believe there are some on this board who are so ignorant about the Fair Tax and economics in general.  You all do realize that if you choose to, you could go years without paying taxes?  If there was a way to get government off our backs this is the way to do it.  I have been behind the fair tax now for 4 years, it is a big idea that will go a LONG way in bring America's manufacturing back as well as helping the stock market.

You have really bought in, hook, line and sinker.

It doesn't matter what the METHOD of taxation is!  The government is GOING to collect revenue. It is going to get exactly the amount it wants to obtain.

Do you folks just not get it?

You are like a man who has the flu and you think changing brands of tissues is going to make a big difference and do away with the virus.

Just look at what the this poster says:  " You all do realize that if you choose to, you could go years without paying taxes?"

How does one avoid the tax?  By not PURCHASING ANYTHING.

THAT will really help manufacturing and really help the stock market, now won't it.

The answer is NOT the method of taxation.  The solution is SMALLER government.

This fair tax issue is just switching from one poison to another.  It may be a little better in the short run, or it may not be.

People will save money in one way.  The won't have to pay accountants to file PERSONAL income taxes.  But then MOST people don't pay CPAs to do accounting.

But corporations will still have to pay accountants.  They will just be figuring differently.  Instead of concentrating on corporate income taxes they will be concentrating on federal sales taxes.

All the of dollars that now go through payroll taxes will now just take a different route.  And the bean counters will be just as busy.

And then the federal government will be issuing a monthly check to every family,

We ALL get to be on welfare.

Hello, Trojan horse.

Quoted: And then the federal government will be issuing a monthly check to every family, We ALL get to be on welfare. Hello, Trojan horse.

That is the biggest pile of bull you have said yet.

Listen, I share your disgust with a government that has been running away.  However with the Fair Tax, I will now have extra money to put into investments-tax free Pay off my credit card debt that I racked up beforehand-Tax Free.

I swear a good idea comes along and there will be someone screaming that the sky is falling.

Quoted: Quoted: And then the federal government will be issuing a monthly check to every family, We ALL get to be on welfare. Hello, Trojan horse. That is the biggest pile of bull you have said yet. Listen, I share your disgust with a government that has been running away.  However with the Fair Tax, I will now have extra money to put into investments-tax free Pay off my credit card debt that I racked up beforehand-Tax Free. I swear a good idea comes along and there will be someone screaming that the sky is falling.

Lousy ideas come along and suckers fall for them.

Right.  Economic "experts" like you with with credit card debt want a new tax scheme.

And evidently you don't comprehend what is going to happen:

"• Rebate to all households each month the federal sales tax they pay on basic necessities,
up to an independently determined level of spending (a.k.a., the poverty level, as
determined by the Department of Health and Human Services), which removes the
burden of federal taxation on the poor and makes the FairTax Plan as progressive as the
current tax code,"

THAT my friend, is EVERYONE will be on the federal dole.

And it is just as "PROGESSIVE" as the current tax code.

Know what that means my delusional friend?  It REDISTRIBUTES wealth.

Also, it is REVENUE NEUTRAL which means the federal government will continue to grow.  The "fair tax" plan does not DECREASE FEDERAL REVENUE, it merely changes from one kind of oppressive tax to another kind of oppressive tax.  

Government just keeps chugging along, growing and growing.

Quoted: Fair Tax Does not compute...

+1,000


GR

Quoted: I'm going to have to agree with the JPFO on this one. We need to drastically reform the IRS and the tax-code, but a national sales tax is just asking for disaster. Now here is something I can agree to: From the JPFO website: What type of tax do we propose instead? Now comes the moment where we're supposed to propose our alternative. “Be constructive,” someone will demand. “If you don't like their proposal, what have you got to offer that's better?” Here's our alternative: Nothing. Ban the income tax, definitely. Banish it. Disband the Internal Revenue Service and auction their buildings to the highest bidder. Let all the IRS auditors, clerks, and armed enforcers get honest jobs. But don't replace the income tax with any tax, of any variety. The United States survived until 1913 without an income tax. It survived until World War II without wage withholding (a federal trick “for the duration of the war” that increased tax collections enormously). The income tax has enabled and encouraged wild governmental spending sprees. And irony of ironies, the federal government has now gotten so drunk on reckless spending and its attendant debt that (5) an amount equivalent to all the income taxes collected west of the Mississippi River accomplishes nothing but helping pay the interest on that debt! You pay and pay and you're not even getting government services for your money. Just paying off debt that should never have been incurred – and probably wouldn't have been incurred if Americans hadn't been forced to hand over so much money to government. If you want smaller government, then don't spend your time thinking of “better” ways to feed big government. If you want freedom, don't fall for ploys that simply enable to government to find new routes into your pocket and your life. If you want to tame the beast of tyranny – starve it into submission. Ban the income tax. Trash the unFairTax. And put the government back on a leash.

HOOO-RAH!!!!

GR

Quoted: Quoted: I'm going to have to agree with the JPFO on this one. We need to drastically reform the IRS and the tax-code, but a national sales tax is just asking for disaster. Now here is something I can agree to: From the JPFO website: What type of tax do we propose instead? Now comes the moment where we're supposed to propose our alternative. “Be constructive,” someone will demand. “If you don't like their proposal, what have you got to offer that's better?” Here's our alternative: Nothing. Ban the income tax, definitely. Banish it. Disband the Internal Revenue Service and auction their buildings to the highest bidder. Let all the IRS auditors, clerks, and armed enforcers get honest jobs. But don't replace the income tax with any tax, of any variety. The United States survived until 1913 without an income tax. It survived until World War II without wage withholding (a federal trick “for the duration of the war” that increased tax collections enormously). The income tax has enabled and encouraged wild governmental spending sprees. And irony of ironies, the federal government has now gotten so drunk on reckless spending and its attendant debt that (5) an amount equivalent to all the income taxes collected west of the Mississippi River accomplishes nothing but helping pay the interest on that debt! You pay and pay and you're not even getting government services for your money. Just paying off debt that should never have been incurred – and probably wouldn't have been incurred if Americans hadn't been forced to hand over so much money to government. If you want smaller government, then don't spend your time thinking of “better” ways to feed big government. If you want freedom, don't fall for ploys that simply enable to government to find new routes into your pocket and your life. If you want to tame the beast of tyranny – starve it into submission. Ban the income tax. Trash the unFairTax. And put the government back on a leash. HOOO-RAH!!!! GR

Sure am glad some people get it.

Quoted: That might be true if the economy ran on a cash-valuation basis, but it does not. So say you buy 10,000 shares of stock for $1/share. Your cost is $10,000.  Ten years later your inventory of stock is saleable at the market price of $5/share. Up until you sell the stock, how much are you worth? $10,000 is the wrong answer by the way. In a two-party deal a resource, such as gas, is worth what a buyer and seller will come to terms for, no more and no less, not including externalities. That is the basic premise of economics. Supply and demand fluctuate, and the grease between the wheels is mutual valuation, not original costs. When you take on inventory (an investment) you take on risk. Taking on risk demands a price premium for successful risks. The more risky an investment is, the higher a premium a successful risk will demand to cover losses from other investments with a similar risk profile.

What you said is all very nice.  But it has nothing to do with the subject.

It is unfortunate, but understandable in this TV age, that few people have decent reading comprehension.

I am not making a case either way.  Whether the gas station owner sells his OLD gas at his OLD price, or whether he sells his OLD gas at the NEW, HIGHER price and takes advantage of the increase is the going price is NOT the issue.

The simple issue is this:  Neal Boortz, the co-author of this book and a big proponent of a flat sales tax, is clueless about basic economics.

In trying to explain basic economics to a caller, he tried to say that a gas station owner HAD to sell gasoline that he ALREADY BOUGHT AND PAID FOR at a higher price, because the NEXT PURCHASE of gasoline would be at a higher price.  Boortz went on to say that the station owner's COST had increased and BOORTZ said "How will the station owner be able to buy gas at the higher price unless he charges more for the gas he already has?"  Now anyone who can exercise their senses can see how ridiculous that statement is.  

The issue is NOT about whether the station owner SHOULD or SHOULD NOT take advantage of the situation.

The issue is:  Boortz is absolutely CLUELESS about what the gas station owner's COST OF GOODS sold is.  That is basic ECON 101 -  and he is CLUELESS.

And this economically challenged individual is spouting this "fair tax" plan.

And a bunch of others who are similarly lacking are jumping on the bandwagon.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And then the federal government will be issuing a monthly check to every family, We ALL get to be on welfare. Hello, Trojan horse. That is the biggest pile of bull you have said yet. Listen, I share your disgust with a government that has been running away.  However with the Fair Tax, I will now have extra money to put into investments-tax free Pay off my credit card debt that I racked up beforehand-Tax Free. I swear a good idea comes along and there will be someone screaming that the sky is falling. Lousy ideas come along and suckers fall for them. Right.  Economic "experts" like you with with credit card debt want a new tax scheme. And evidently you don't comprehend what is going to happen: "• Rebate to all households each month the federal sales tax they pay on basic necessities, up to an independently determined level of spending (a.k.a., the poverty level, as determined by the Department of Health and Human Services), which removes the burden of federal taxation on the poor and makes the FairTax Plan as progressive as the current tax code," THAT my friend, is EVERYONE will be on the federal dole. And it is just as "PROGESSIVE" as the current tax code. Know what that means my delusional friend?  It REDISTRIBUTES wealth. Also, it is REVENUE NEUTRAL which means the federal government will continue to grow.  The "fair tax" plan does not DECREASE FEDERAL REVENUE, it merely changes from one kind of oppressive tax to another kind of oppressive tax.   Government just keeps chugging along, growing and growing.

It does not resistribute wealth!  Good gawd man, you need to inform yourself on the facts before spouting such BS.  NO ONE PAYS TAXES on the necessities of life.

Also because I have credit card debt are you implying that I have no grasp of economics?  If I may ask what makes you such an economic expert as well??

We cannot fix government spending right off the bat, but we can change the way money is collected, that is the first step, the second is to curb spending.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And then the federal government will be issuing a monthly check to every family, We ALL get to be on welfare. Hello, Trojan horse. That is the biggest pile of bull you have said yet. Listen, I share your disgust with a government that has been running away.  However with the Fair Tax, I will now have extra money to put into investments-tax free Pay off my credit card debt that I racked up beforehand-Tax Free. I swear a good idea comes along and there will be someone screaming that the sky is falling. Lousy ideas come along and suckers fall for them. Right.  Economic "experts" like you with with credit card debt want a new tax scheme. And evidently you don't comprehend what is going to happen: "• Rebate to all households each month the federal sales tax they pay on basic necessities, up to an independently determined level of spending (a.k.a., the poverty level, as determined by the Department of Health and Human Services), which removes the burden of federal taxation on the poor and makes the FairTax Plan as progressive as the current tax code," THAT my friend, is EVERYONE will be on the federal dole. And it is just as "PROGESSIVE" as the current tax code. Know what that means my delusional friend?  It REDISTRIBUTES wealth. Also, it is REVENUE NEUTRAL which means the federal government will continue to grow.  The "fair tax" plan does not DECREASE FEDERAL REVENUE, it merely changes from one kind of oppressive tax to another kind of oppressive tax.   Government just keeps chugging along, growing and growing. It does not resistribute wealth!  Good gawd man, you need to inform yourself on the facts before spouting such BS.  NO ONE PAYS TAXES on the necessities of life. Also because I have credit card debt are you implying that I have no grasp of economics?  If I may ask what makes you such an economic expert as well?? We cannot fix government spending right off the bat, but we can change the way money is collected, that is the first step, the second is to curb spending.

Yes it allows for the redistribution of wealth.  That is why the proponents characterize it as "progressive."  The fair tax system still requires those who create wealth to pay MORE tax, which will then be REDISTRIBUTED to the unproductive members of society.  The fair tax plan does NOTHING to address the MAJOR problems in our tax and spend system.  It is simply a different method that will supply the federal government with AS MUCH or MORE tax dollars than they now receive.  

You will counter that the wealthy do not have to consume items and can escape the tax.  I would reply that there are many things that are technically true, but practically absurd.  If wealthy people do NOT spend their money, the economy collapses.

You are the one who is not informed.  Under the fair tax plan, tax IS paid for the necessities of life.  And then those in power will determine just what things are actually necessities and they will determine just how much people should spend on them.  And THEN they will give every family a monthly payout based on THEIR determinations.  Lower income families will more than likely receive more of a subsidy than they actually paid.  Wealthy people will receive less.  Do you really think that the unproductive members of society consume and pay the same amounts for  food, water, housing, electricity and health care? (More redistribution of wealth.)  

And since EVERYONE receives a FEDERAL PAYOUT each month, it encourages even MORE DEPENDENCE ON GOVERNMENT.

I never claimed to be an expert on economics.  Some would describe the B school I attended and graduated from as prestigious.  I don't particularly describe it that way, but then familiarity breeds contempt.  I did not major in economics.  But then that isn't necessary to see the problems in this system.  I have also owned and operated my own profitable business for the past 23 years.  My gross sales are substantial.  (At least to me they are.  GM would not think so.)  As far as your credit card debt, well, in my way of thinking, someone who has a good grasp of economics does not incur credit card debt (unless circumstances are very, very unusual - perhaps your circumstances are like that.)

Oh, and all those proponents that are listed in a post in this thread....  virtually every one of them is an ivory tower academic.  I would be surprised if they ever once had to meet a payroll.

Finally,  I would like to say I should have refrained from being quite so contentious in this discussion.

My apologies to all.

I hope those of you who are attracted to this fair tax plan will listen to both sides.  Doing away with the IRS does NOT take care of this nation's problems.

I guess I have said all I care to say on the subject.

Quoted: Fine by me, but would it apply only to retail purchases? Would businesses be able to buy stuff to use in manufacturing, or for resale, without paying any tax? Under this plan it sound like many businesses would pay no taxes.

NO no no no no.....please understand...businesses do not 'pay' taxes, individuals pay them, indirectly, FOR businesses. When 'businesses pay taxes' all they are really doing is withholding money from peoples wages, and passing that money on to the government. And if one is inclined to worry about evil fat cat executives, then you'll be pleased to know they will pay tax on every new good or service they spend their money on. To explain why they won't just go buy their yachts in the Bahamas, (and to keep me from typing for pages) you need to read the book!

Boortz was signing the book a couple miles from my house today.  Looked like a zoo.  Went to the Target in the same shopping center and bought diapers instead.  

This is all very nice but the truth of the matter is that there is no mathematical reason whatsoever for the government to collect a direct tax on income.
The federal U.S. operates one of the biggest scams in the history of taxation. It prints money and by doing so creates debt. It then assigns the debt to the citizens of the U.S. along with usury.
Direct taxation of income was never declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. The Sixteenth Amendment prevents Congress from taking the income tax from an indirect tax, where it is constitutional, and placing it in the category of a direct tax, where it is un-constitutional and never belonged. The court also stated that Sixteenth gave Congress no new power to tax. See Stanton v Baltic Mining Co. [240 U.S. 103] and Treasury Decision 2303.
The court basically said in Stanton, look we already said you can’t directly tax income of individuals and lo and behold, if you read the tax code, it is the only section of the code that does not contain a liability.
Still, even if you believe otherwise, which most people do, there is simply no reason for the government to impose this tax based on the way our monetary system is structured.
Taxation is what it always has been; a means to enrich the powerful and subjugate the masses.
Please don't flame me without stating that you have read the law and have experience in the field of economics. If you don't then you are simply repeating the lie that has been fostered for close to 90 years.
Educate yourself and we might actually be able to win both the tax and the gun issue.

www.restoretherepublic.org