Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

The "Fair" Tax is an anti-libertarian welfare scam

Expand Messages
  • Thomas L. Knapp
    ... the better. The fair tax while not perfect is clearly much better. Only if by clearly much better you mean it: - Results in the theft by government of
    Message 1 of 35 , Aug 28, 2006
      Quoth Boyd W. Smith:

      > There is an old saying that says that the perfect is the enemy of
      the better. The fair tax while not perfect is clearly much better.

      Only if by "clearly much better" you mean it:

      - Results in the theft by government of just as much money as the
      income tax (the "Fair" Taxers boast that their proposal is "revenue
      neutral");

      - Results in the same amount of, or perhaps more, redistribution of
      wealth than the income tax (the "Fair" Taxers boast that their
      proposal is at least as "progressive" as the income tax);

      - Puts every American on the dole so that they're recipients of
      monthly government welfare checks which the majority will likely fight
      tooth and nail to keep coming in perpetuity (the "prebate"); and

      - The "Fair" Taxers arguments about eliminating the IRS aside, _will_
      require a bureaucracy to administer (both to collect and to send out
      the welfare checks).

      The "Fair Tax" is at _least_ as bad as the income tax in every way,
      and worse in some ways. It's not a tax cut. It's not a tax
      elimination. It's just a strengthening of the tax system by linking it
      to a welfare program -- just like Social Security, which has been a
      "third rail" issue in American politics for half a century precisely
      because millions of Americans have a vested interest in keeping the
      checks coming.

      It may not be politically possible to get the income tax straight-out
      eliminated right now, but it is politically possible to get it CUT,
      which would be a far superior alternative to the "Fair" Tax.

      The Boston Tea Party's program calls for universal, bottom-up tax cuts
      as follows:

      "The Boston Tea Party calls for legislation adopting an annual,
      regularized increase in the personal exemption to the federal income
      tax of $1,000 or more, and the additional application of said personal
      exemption to all FICA/Social Security taxes paid by employees and
      employers."

      Members of Congress (mostly Democrats) routinely propose and vote for
      increases to the personal exemption, so it's politically doable.

      Increases to the personal exemption give EVERYONE who pays taxes a tax
      cut, from the janitor at the local factory to Bill Gates.

      Increases to the personal exemption remove people from the tax rolls
      and withholding treadmill entirely (every time the exemption goes up,
      more people's income falls below the taxable amount).

      Applying the personal exemption to Social Security payments would
      address the extreme regressivity of the Social Security system. The
      poorest people pay proportionately the most in Social Security taxes
      (since the requirement to pay is capped at a certain income level in,
      I believe, the $60K range), and they receive the fewest benefits (due
      to shorter lifespan).

      Eliminating the income tax is the best option. Failing that, cutting
      it is. Replacing it with a tax that doesn't cut taxes, doesn't remedy
      redistribution problems, doesn't eliminate (or probably even reduce)
      the associated bureaucratic and administrative costs, and puts every
      American on government welfare is just a scam if the goal is to reduce
      or eliminate taxation.

      Tom Knapp
    • kiddleddee
      ... _____________________________________________________________________ To paraphrase Emma Goldman and V (for Vendetta) - neither of whom is a liberal (both
      Message 35 of 35 , Sep 8, 2006
        --- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, "investorshelper"
        <investorshelper@...> wrote:

        > Ian
        >
        > PS The little poem was quite delightful; do you aspire to being a
        > Liberal? They love to interject such entertainment into discussion
        > about sober matters.
        _____________________________________________________________________

        To paraphrase Emma Goldman and V (for Vendetta) - neither of whom is a
        liberal (both are/were anarchists, actually): If a discussion does not
        allow for poetry, it is not a discussion I would want to be a part of.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.