How a newly elected Congressman views the will of the people who elected him to represent them.
Leaders Should Be Bold
Knowing the economic growth that the FairTax will bring to America, I am always pleased when one of America's major news outlets focuses on this legislation, as happens frequently. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial warning politicians against supporting the FairTax was no exception. While I certainly disagree with the editorial's conclusion, in the wake of Tuesday's midterm election results the WSJ's admonition is tremendously instructive to the new Republican majority set to lead the House.
The WSJ concludes, "Our advice to candidates would be to avoid the FAIR tax [sic] and focus on goals that are more achievable and less politically self-destructive."
We have a President in the White House and a leader in the Senate whose policies have been so thoroughly rejected that the party in power lost more seats in the House on November 2 than have been lost in any election since 1948, when Republicans suffered an even greater defeat. Despite this rejection of the direction of their leadership, the President and the Senate leader seem committed to continuing their course.
The American people have a different plan. Having appeared at hundreds of events as a congressional candidate over the past seven months, I have never once had a voter ask me to "focus on the achievable"—those things that the President supports and will sign. Never once has a voter asked me to do what is politically prudent. Over and over again, voters have asked—nay, demanded—that I do what is right…that I be bold…that I speak the truth irrespective of the consequences. That is what the FairTax is all about.
Would it be "easier" or "safer" to simply talk about tax reform generally rather than write down all of the specifics in a 131 page piece of legislation that is introduced in the House and Senate for all to read? Absolutely. It would be both easier and safer, but the American people deserve better, and the FairTax gives it to them.
Would it be "easier" or "safer" to simply make some minor changes to the current income tax code rather than trying to abolish and replace it? Absolutely. It would be both easier and safer, but the American people deserve better, and the FairTax gives it to them.
The payroll tax is the largest tax that 80% of Americans pay, but the FairTax is the only bill in Congress that is bold enough to take on that burden. American businesses face the highest corporate tax rates in the world and we are losing American jobs as a result, but the FairTax is the only bill in Congress bold enough to say that businesses don't pay taxes—only consumers do—and so in the name of transparency we should abolish corporate tax rates and be honest about how those taxes affect consumers.
The WSJ recognizes the merits of the FairTax. "[A] consumption tax like the FAIR tax [sic] is preferable to an income tax," it says. "If we were designing a tax code from scratch, the FAIR tax would be one consumption tax option worth debating," it concludes.
But not now, it advises. This is too soon, it warns. It is too hard, it cautions. I don't have all the answers but I have this one: not one voter in Georgia elected me to wait; not one voter in Georgia elected me to do what is easy. Shame on the WSJ for encouraging either.
With our economy in shambles, our debt growing by trillions annually, and our faith in government at an all time low, we must act. If it was easy, it would have been done already. It is hard. If it was politically safe, it would have been done already. It requires risk.
As I look at new Congressmen elected across this country on Tuesday I am filled with hope for our nation's future. These are men and women who will not wait, who will not be cautious, and who will gladly sacrifice themselves for a brighter future for our nation. I am proud to share those convictions, and I am committed to doing what must be done.
The time is now.
Rob Woodall is the Congressman-elect for Georgia's 7th U.S. Congressional seat. Rob is the former Chief of Staff to retiring Congressman John Linder (R-GA-7) and is the co-author of the New York Times Bestseller, FairTax: the Truth. The FairTax is the most widely cosponsored fundamental tax reform bill in either the U.S. House or Senate.
Sorry, while Fairtax sounds absolutely GREAT, it's far from it. In fact, it's an outright farce.
ReplyDeleteI was a supporter of Fairtax before most of you ever heard of it. I remember Fairtax from BEFORE Boortz wrote his book about it, and from before Fairtax.org was even an idea in Ken's head.
I was for it, until I found out more about it. SPecifically, that Fairtax cooked it's books, and deliberately pretended to get most of their money from taxing GOVERNMENT spending.
Yes, Fairtax pretends they will get most of their revenue NOT from people, but from GOVERNMENT. Every city government will have to pay very hight taxes on all of its spending -- including wages they pay. Whatever they spend, they have to send 23% of that to the federal government.
Not just city governments, but state government, and county government. Whatever they spend, including what wages they pay, they have to pay taxes on -- very HIGH taxes.
Even the federal government, has to pay ITSELF taxes, on all it spends.
Think I'm kidding, or wrong? I'm neither. See Fairtax own books -- in the fine print, here is what THEY say.
"The federal government ITSELF will become a MAJOR taxpayer."
Page 148, The Fairtax Book, by Neal Boortz
"Fairtax treats all governments alike ---- federal state and local --- as individual consumers"
Fairtax The Truth Book, page 138.
"Under our plan, all government purchases of LABOR, supplies, and services, would be subject to the fairtax."
Now, you have the GOP absolutely controlling the House of Representitives. There can be no excuse for Fairtax now. They can easily get hearings under oath for Fairtax.
They could have had hearings before, but they dared not -- no way were they going to be asked how much every city will have to pay in taxes. Or how much every state would have to pay. Fairtax hid that in the back of their books for a REASON -- they don't want people to know.
Why would Fairtax put somethign in their plan they had to hide in fine print?
Because the ACTUAL tax rate for a national sales tax would be 59% -- not 23%. And Fairtax knows it.
But they could not fool anyone with at 59% sales tax. People would reject such an insane tax. So Fairtax did what they had to do - lie.
Yes lie. They had to lie and say their tax rate would be 23%. They could only make it 23% by pretending to tax GOVERNMENT spending.
I want all you lovely Fairtax and tea party folks to DEMAND hearings UNDER OATH for Fairtax. Ask for a list of states,and how much each will have to pay. Ask for a list of every city, and how much those city governments will pay.
Fairtax simply won't ever EVER voluntarily answer those questions. They distorted the math, they lied to you, they know it, and they are not about to ask for hearing under oath.
In fact, they would AVOID such hearings.
So please, DEMAND hearings under oath for Fairtax.
Taxsanity,
ReplyDeleteWhy shouldn't government pay tax on its own consumption? Governments, like people, are end consumers of products and services. Unlike businesses, governments generally do not create taxable consumer products or services.
But governments sometimes do provide products and service that resemble taxable products and services: garbage collection for example. If government-provided garbage collection were to escape the FairTax, local government would always choose to provide the service rather than engage a private hauler. If a state Department of Transportation undertook road repair and were to escape tax, it would always use its own road repair crew rather than hire a private contractor and pay tax. There would never be privitization.
To equalize tax treatment between government providers and private providers, governments become "taxable employers" under the FairTax and must pay tax on wages and materiél.
In the case of the federal government, the tax becomes a wash. What the federal government pays more in consumption, it collects more in tax. The issue is with state and local governments. The authors of the FairTax could choose to relieve state and local governments of tax on their consumption (and risk flight from privitization). That step would enable state and local governments to, hopefully, pass considerable savings on to consumers. Consumers then would make up the difference in sales tax. The adage becomes: when you push in here, it bulges out there.
Let us say, taxsanity, that you are correct, and the replacement rate needs to be higher. That epiphany has but one significance. We are paying that rate already, but it is hidden. The FairTax does nothing more than move the true tax burden out front for all to see.
The FairTax indeed is the only tax, existing or proposed, that meets all four tests of sound tax policy: it is transparent, efficient, conducive to economic growth and fair.
I would add that for critics, their main sources of criticisms, the Factcheck.org article and the President's Council's report, were not about the Fair Tax but about a tax plan that included an income tax and a VAT but is passed off as "...the President's Council [or Factcheck.org] report said the Fair Tax..."
ReplyDeleteDon't believe me. Check it yourself: http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=-1&page=NewsArticle&id=8249 If you click on the link provided by the Factcheck.org article you'll see a plan with an income tax and a VAT, not the Fair Tax. Why would anyone in government want to lie about a tax plan that allows the taxpayer who earned that money to keep his own money rather than having to pay to work? [sarcasm on] Gee, that could be a puzzler! [sarcasm off]
I don't think fairtax.org has anything hidden. 59% rate... don't know how you come up with it. Check the legislation. I've not seen anything about a 59% rate.
The Fair Tax beats anything we have now. I think I can do a better job 'wasting' my money than anyone in government, couldn't you?
What do you propose instead? Tinker with the code some more? or, respectfully, the libertarian 'pipe dream' of getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with nothing? I don't say that to be mean or vicious, but if we who support the Fair Tax have to fight those on the left who don't want to give up their free ride and control of the entire population and those on the right who don't think the Fair Tax is 'ideologically pure' or support an income tax and it's further 'pay to work' enslavement, and we want to replace the income tax with a sales tax. What chance do you really think does any unknown plan have that just wants to get rid of the income tax and replace it with tariffs, etc.? Don't get me wrong, I think it would be a good idea. For now, both parties just give the tax code a little tinker here a turn of the screw there; we won't let you go free, we'll just make your enslavement a little more comfortable, "please vote for us, remember we loosened your shackles a bit" while they continue to add pages and complexity to the code.
The way I see it there are three choices. 1) support the Fair Tax 2) support an unknown plan that gets rid of the income tax and stands a snowball's chance in h-ll 3) keep our present enslaving system with it's pay to work or don't work features.
I've chosen number 1. You make your choice. That, unlike our income tax, is freedom.