John Linder, "National Sales Tax" architect, writes book with Neal Boortz

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

...and apparently the backlash against "The National Sales Tax" has resulted in the death of that label in favor of "The Fair Tax."



---BULLSHIT SECTION---

Editorial Reviews
Book Description

Wouldn't you love to abolish the IRS ...
Keep all the money in your paycheck ...
Pay taxes on what you spend, not what you earn ...
And eliminate all the fraud, hassle, and waste of our current system?

Then the FairTax is for you. In the face of the outlandish American tax burden, talk-radio firebrand Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder are leading the charge to phase out our current, unfair system and enact the FairTax Plan, replacing the federal income tax and withholding system with a simple 23 percent retail sales tax on new goods and services. This dramatic revision of the current system, which would eliminate the reviled IRS, has already caught fire in the American heartland, with more than six hundred thousand taxpayers signing on in support of the plan.

As Boortz and Linder reveal in this first book on the FairTax, this radical but eminently sensible plan would end the annual national nightmare of filing income tax returns, while at the same time enlarging the federal tax base by collecting sales tax from every retail consumer in the country. The FairTax, they argue, would transform the fearsome bureaucracy of the IRS into a more transparent, accountable, and equitable tax collection system. Among other benefits, it will:

* Make America's tax code truly voluntary, without reducing revenue
* Replace today's indecipherable tax code with one simple sales tax
* Protect lower-income Americans by covering the tax on basic necessities
* Eliminate billions of dollars in embedded taxes we don't even know we're paying
* Bring offshore corporate dollars back into the U.S. economy

Endorsed by scores of leading economists and supported by a huge and growing grassroots movement, the FairTax Plan could revolutionize the way America pays for itself. In this straight-talking book, Neal Boortz and John Linder show you how it would work -- and how you can help make it happen.


---BULLSHIT SECTION---



The Special "Fuck John Linder and the horse he rode in on" REALITY section:

APRIL 18, 2005

ECONOMIC VIEWPOINT
By Robert Kuttner

Beware A Sales Tax In The Name Of Simplicity
Taxes on consumption would hurt the middle class and the poor

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_16/b3929030_mz007.htm

President Bush is having a difficult time selling Social Security private accounts to America's middle class. But just wait for the backlash when he proposes his tax reforms. Packaged as tax "simplification" and savings incentives, the likely changes would shift the tax burden from the rich who tend to save more (they have more to save) onto the middle class.

It's an open secret that the commission is expected to offer a blueprint for the longstanding conservative goal of shifting taxation from income to consumption. The simplest mechanism would be a national sales tax. Unfortunately, to be revenue-neutral it would also require a sales tax rate of about 60%, according to calculations by William Gale of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. That's because taxable retail sales are less than a third of all economic activity. A revenue-neutral national sales tax would produce a massive shift of the tax load on to middle- and lower-income taxpayers. So it's a political nonstarter.

Rather, the commission is likely to pursue consumption taxation by stealth and indirection. By leaving the income tax nominally intact, but chipping away at taxes on capital income, the commission could produce a blueprint for a de facto consumption tax. Consumption-tax advocate Ernest S. Christian terms this approach Five Easy Pieces: Don't pursue consumption taxation directly, but slash taxes on capital gains and dividends, estates, all savings, and allow business to expense investments.

This scheme is nimble, but it defies all three of the President's stated goals. First, far from simplifying the tax code, it would add to its complexity. Even if tax deductions for savings were consolidated, it is not IRAs and Keoghs that are cluttering up the present tax system. Second, this approach would not increase the national savings rate. The new shelters would increase deficits in order to give well-to-do taxpayers yet another tax break. Anyone who has ever shifted ordinary savings into an IRA or Keogh knows that tax preferences for savings do not increase savings rates. They just give you a tax break for moving around assets.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. what's so fair about it?

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

2. There's nothing fair about it, but the interesting point is:

John Linder has stopped calling it "The National Sales Tax."

The name just WENT AWAY.

On Linder's Web Site, he writes:

"I am the primary sponsor of the FairTax"

...which is a LIE, because he is the "primary sponsor" of the NATIONAL SALES TAX, which is the SAME THING, but the National Sales Tax got BAD PRESS, so they CHANGED THE NAME.

Why aren't people screaming about this? Bush's "Tax Advisory Panel" turns in their "recommendations" on SEPTEMBER 30th, and the National Sales Tax...or "Fair Tax"...WILL be on the list.

MORE info, from the National Retail Federation:

http://www.nrf.com/content/default.asp?folder=govt&file=talkPoint.htm&bhfv=2&bhqs=1

Consumption Tax as a Replacement for the Income Tax

Options for replacing the income tax with a consumption tax include proposals for a National Retail Sales Tax, a Flat Tax (as originally conceived by Hall & Rabushka, although a Flat Tax can be designed to be an income tax), a Value Added Tax, and a consumed income tax (like the Nunn-Domenici USA tax). Below are bullets setting forth some of the specific problems with adopting a consumption tax as a replacement to the income tax.

Consumption taxes are highly regressive, and, therefore, do not meet the President’s criteria of being fair to all. Because lower-income households tend to spend a higher portion of their income, they would pay a higher tax relative to income level than would upper income households. A recent NRF study of H.R. 25, a proposal for a national retail sales tax, found that if that bill were enacted, families with income less than $18,000 a year would get a tax cut (because of the bill’s rebate of the tax up to the amount of the poverty level), and families with income over $100,000 would get a tax cut (because they do not need to consume as large a percent of their income). However, families with incomes between $18,000 and $100,000 a year would have a tax increase. Families earning between $18,000 and $35,000 a year would have the largest tax increase because most families in this income category must use all of their earnings for living expenditures and have no ability to save, regardless of the tax incentive to do so.

The transition from an income tax system to a consumption tax system will cause the economy to decline for several years, and therefore, does not meet the President’s criteria of being pro-growth.

A study performed for the NRF’s Foundation by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) in 2000 found that following enactment of a national retail sales tax the economy would decline for three years, employment would decline for four years, and consumer spending would decline for eight years. Although the study showed that the economy would begin to grow in the fourth year, it found that the increase in economic growth over the ten-year modeling period was relatively modest compared to disruptions to the economy during the transition years and questioned whether the gain was worth the pain.

The 2000 PwC study found that following enactment of a flat tax, the economy would decline for 5 years, employment would decline for 5 years, and consumer spending would decline for 6 years. Economic growth in years 6 through 10 would be even more modest than under the national retail sales tax.

Consumption Tax as an Addition to the Income Tax

Several witnesses that appeared before the advisory panel suggested that a VAT be enacted as an add-on to the current income tax system, as a means to finance social security, pay for repeal of the alternative minimum tax and other income tax reforms, and fund other governmental priorities. This model is similar to that used in many European countries.

Adding a VAT in addition to the income tax will lead to a higher overall level of taxes as a percent of GDP, which will not foster economic growth.

An early NRF study of an add on VAT found that GNP would decline for four years after enactment and consumer spending would decline even longer. (Obviously, projections change depending on how the VAT is designed, but it appears clear that for several years the economy would decline compared to where it otherwise would be.)

According to a recent study by Dan Mitchell of the Heritage Foundation, the best evidence that a VAT will lead to substantial growth in the level of taxation comes from the European example. In the mid-1960’s, before any European country adopted a VAT, the burden of government in Europe was only slightly higher than it was in the United States. In Europe tax revenues were about 30% of GDP, while in the United States tax revenues were about 27% of GDP. The VAT proved to be a very easy tax to raise because it is built into the price of goods and hidden from consumers. Forty years later, taxes in Europe amount to approximately 41% of GDP, while taxes in the United States remain at about 27% of GDP. The European experience demonstrates that the VAT is a very easy tax to increase to fund increased government spending.

Adding a consumption tax to the income tax adds more regressivity to the tax system and does not meet the fairness requirement.

Adding a consumption tax to the income tax will increase complexity. Small businesses have enough trouble meeting the burdens of collecting and remitting payroll and income tax withholdings. To also impose on these businesses the burden of collecting and remitting a VAT or national retail sales tax will greatly increase their compliance burdens.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Maybe ** will change it back .. like the world struggle against

extremism is now a war on terra again.

[EVDebs]

3. According to David Cay Johnston's book Perfectly Legal...

we already HAVE a flat tax (of between 18-20%), all taxes considered.

We have the highest concentration of wealth at the TOP in the world, according to Kevin Phillip's Wealth and Democracy.

And Warren Buffett is in favor of raising corporate taxes; he knows his side has won and 'globalization' is killing the middle class.

[napi21]

5. I heard Boortz's book is very popular. He is too, here in Ga.

I haven't listened to him since AAR came on-line, but I used to listen to him. Although he's a Limpballs wannabe, he's not nearly as bad! Sometimes, I actually agreed with him, like when he ridiculed the schools for suspending a first grader for having a 1" long plastic gun on a key chain, or some other really dumb decision. He is, however, a very rich radical when it comes to ANY taxes HE has to pay!!! He's an extreme RW nut!

I've tried to keep an open mind when it comes to new ideas on tax plans, and I haven't heard enough of the details on this National Sales Tax, or whatever else they want to call it. I'm willing to listen, but so far, what I've heard doesn't make sense to me. Something tells me, the rich would be more opposed to this than the middle class or the poor. If they are talking about 25% on all purchases and services, can you just see someone willing to pay an additional 25% on their $500,000 house, or their $100,000 car? That doesn't include all the CPA firms, IRS employees, and tax attorneys who would be unemployed!!!

It's just never gonna happen!

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

7. It's not 25%...that's the biggest lie of all.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/newsevents/cite_why_believe.cfm

Published: August 23, 2004

Following is a release of Kerry-Edwards 2004 (Part 1 of 2):

Today, George W. Bush continues to do what he does best: Launch misleading, false attacks and distortions. This time, the Bush campaign is putting out another misleading attack ad, aimed at covering up its record of hurting working families.

"On a day when millions of Americans will lose overtime protections, George W. Bush is falsely attacking John Kerry to cover up the fact that the Bush tax cuts have hurt working families, placing an even greater tax burden on them. The bottom line is that George Bush is out of credibility, and the American people just won't believe his attacks. John Kerry wants to reduce taxes on 98 percent of all Americans and 99 percent of all businesses. He's fought for middle class tax cuts his entire career. Bush and Cheney, however, can't come close to making the same claim," Kerry spokesman Phil Singer.

-- Bush Has Increased the Tax Burden on Middle Class Families

-- Bush's "National Sales Tax" Plan Could Result in a 60 percent Sales Tax

-- Bush's Policies Have Put a $4,332 Hidden Tax on Families

-- Both Bush and Cheney Benefited from Higher Gas Prices, Cheney Offered Tax Which Would Have Raised Gas Prices

-- Using BC04 Method, Cheney Voted for Tax Increases 144 Times, Including Largest Increase in Peacetime History

BUSH TAX RESULTS EQUALS HIGHER BURDEN ON MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES

WASHINGTON POST NOTED THAT BUSH SHIFTED TAX BURDEN TO MIDDLE CLASS. Washington Post: "Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found." (Washington Post, "Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle," 8/13/04)

NON-PARTISAN CBO REPORTS BUSH SHIFTED TAX BURDEN TO THE MIDDLE CLASS

-- Wealthiest taxpayers saw share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. (CBO)

-- Middle-class families saw their tax burden jump from 18.7 percent of Federal taxes to 19.5 percent of Federal taxes. (CBO)

-- Bush tax cuts are 70 times larger for top 1 percent of taxpayers than for middle-class families. (CBO)

BUSH'S SALES TAX EQUALS 60 percent HIKE IN SALES TAX ON FAMILIES

Bush Has Refused to Rule Out a National Sales Tax After Expressing Support for It. In response to a question during a campaign event about instituting a national sales tax, Bush said it was an "interesting idea" that "we ought to explore seriously." When asked about the exchange on Larry King, Bush refused to rule it out, restating that it was, "an interesting idea." (Bush in Niceville, FL, 8/126/04; CNN, "Larry King," 8/15/04)

Independent Study Finds National Retail Sales Tax Would Have to be 60 percent to Cover All Federal Taxes. Brookings Economist William Gale writes, "To replace all federal taxes on a revenue- neutral basis over the next 10 years would require a sales tax rate of about 60 percent." (William Gale, "A Note on the Required Tax Rate in a National Retail Sales Tax," 8/12/04)

Nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation Says A 57 percent National Retail Sales Tax Would Be Required. Congress' non- partisan Joint Committee on Taxation analyzed H.R. 2525 - a national sales tax proposal. They found that it would require a 57 percent tax rate in order to be revenue neutral. (Joint Committee on Taxation, Memorandum, 4/7/2000)

BUSH'S HIDDEN TAX EQUALS $4,332 OUT OF THE POCKETS OF FAMILIES

[OneTwentyoNine]

10. They were talking 23%,plus local and State sales tax...

That adds up to over 31% where I live. Problem is that won't be enough on the Federal level. It might start at 23 but it won't be their for long. Thats 31% on a new house,new car new everything. They claim it will end cheating on income tax. Bawhahahah,are you kidding,someone self -employed could EASILY do a job for someone,collect the 31% tax and pocket it for him or herself--31% additional in their pocket isn't chickenfeed. Actually it will ENCOURAGE more cheating because you'd NEVER get caught if you did it right.

Rich asses like Pillboy go from paying 35% income taxes (which would be over 8 million)to paying NOTHING except sales tax. Does ANYONE suppose Rush could by enough stuff (legally) to make up for the 8 million the Feds would lose in 365 days?

HELL NO,so where would it come from?? Simple the working and lower class would pay MORE in than what they pay now.

[bballny]

6. If rich repubs

are pushing this tax you know it is not for the middle and lower classes. Rich people don't do anything for you. Arianna Huffington learned this and that is why she changed.

[dawg]

8. Please don't fall for this!

To begin with, he's proposing a 30% tax not a 23% tax. He just "calls" it a 23% tax. For example - the tax on a $100 item would be $30. The total you would pay would be $130. Instead of dividing by the original price of the item to come up with 30%, he divides by the $130 total that already includes the tax to come up with a 23% rate (30/130 = 23%).

Just showing someone that simple calculation should be enough to demonstrate that these guys aren't being straight with us (and therefore don't have our best interests at heart).

Remember the 30% and now do this. Get your 2004 federal income tax return. Find your total tax after credits (line 62 less any amounts on lines 65 & 66). Divide by your total income on line 22. Now add 7.65% for your FICA taxes. The total I came up with was 10.80%, but I'm not a good example. 15% would be more typical. Then compare that to 30%. Most of us spend almost everything we make, so the only people who could possible benefit from this are the very wealthy.

Unfortunately, I know lots of people who would just love to give this tax plan a try - primarily because they feel it would force low income blacks and Mexicans to pay more. I guess bigotry trumps self-interest every time.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

11. It's not even 35%...economists are saying 50 or 60 PLUS state tax

I've been bookmarking URLs since the election.

One DUer commented that it was "too much information," that I should make a "fact sheet" distillation from the tons of articles I've found, and I'm beginning to think that might not be a bad idea.

One thing's for sure: there are MANY people who need to study this issue before September 30th. This little "fair and simple plan" would be the final death blow to the middle class as we know it.

[OneTwentyoNine]

9. But...but...GM,FORD,LEARJET are ALL going to LOWER their prices...

Thats the bullshit about that "fair tax plan" that makes me roll around on the floor from LAUGHING SO FUCKING LOUD.

Yep..acording to old Neal ALL these big ole' corporations will suddenly LOWER their prices once the fair tax is in place. Yes,their cost of doing business under this plan is so drastically reduced that they want YOU--YES YOU to reap their gains in lower prices for goods.

IF ANYONE with some kind of sanity believes that SHIT for a second contact me,I've got a beach front house in Malibu I want to sell you.