05 August 2007 at 10:14 AM EST

Tancredo Co-Sponsored the FairTax

Posted by Mike Tate in The ABC News Iowa Debate | Comments (3) | Permalink

The topic is the FairTax. Tancredo co-sponsored the FairTax legislation. His issue statement on the FairTax is clear (from the issues page): "Simplifying the process would dramatically reduce the costs of compliance, make American companies more competitive, and put billions back into the economy by encouraging investment."

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Comments

I agree with Tom. The fair tax is the way to go. We not only as a nation but as individuals need to invest more. This tax would be fair for all.

My own response to ABC slighting THE issue of illegal aliens, was to review the Fair Tax, another issue strongly supported by you. Like the expensive illegal alien problem, the Fair Tax involves our prosperity and trillions of dollars. So this is a really big thing voters would support more if they were better advised.
Support is growing for the Fair Tax. For blog readers, Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, has a lot of detailed very useful info on it. It is a way we can really start to repair what globalization has done to our export-import imbalance.
As you and others have pointed out, the Fair Tax gets rid of the IRS and replaces incredibly loop-hole-ridden federal taxation with a sales tax that's progressive and designed to ease burdens on lower income people.
After WWII, the tax on capital gains was amazingly 90%. Business tax breaks were thus absolutely needed. They forced big investors to build factories and expand business INSIDE the US. This built the strong America Ronald Reagan loved to cite.
The problem now though is that Giuliani's Wall Street has been sending the President's tax cuts out of the country to build factories and hire workers. In recent years we have been exporting over 700 billion dollars per year. At 700$ per year, per worker abroad, this pays 1 billion people. At 7,000$ per worker, it supports 100 million wage earners out there. The true figures, somewhere in between, are either a big disaster or a gigantic one.
Your Fair Tax looks like it could use a few more supporters! I'm so glad your campaign is promoting it.
Presented with a way to change our balance of payments disaster, voters should hear more about your Fair Tax! It's our other trillion dollar problem. You have really shaken up the campaign with the first one. No other candidate has had such a profound impact! You're doing a great job.
While the illegal alien problem was ignored in the debate, you cleverly worked in a reference to it by expanding on health care issues. This did get the best crowd reaction. Wouldn't it be great if voters would support your Fair Tax issue like that.

It is my opinion that, while less unfair than the current system, it is by no pure measure "fair" with its main revenue source (sales tax, which I like) convoluted by a very politically susceptible system of monthly refund checks going to households based on the poverty level.

Both 'households' and the 'poverty level' are political concoctions subject to constant redefinition.

Why not forget the households concept and forget the highly politicized refunds and just lower the sales tax rate accordingly? Why the heck would we conservatives go through years of work to end up with essentially the same thing: a system that still requires tracking you by household and income and allowing leftists to exploit the sin of class envy. Instead of raising income taxes on the successful, the politicians will just raise the sales tax on everybody and then rebate to whomever will vote for them - it is virtually the same situation.

I understand the politics behind the effort to avoid taxing lower income folks but I don't agree with it. Republicans are just as guilty as the Dems in this regard. For example, their support for the earned income tax credit and Bush's proud remarks about how many folks no longer pay any federal tax.

We will never get serious about controlling overall long-term taxation and spending if our short-term goal is to insulate half of the voting population from the burdens of supporting the ever growing federal government appetites.

One flat rate...all the time...for everybody...based on consumption rather than income or wealth! That is as close as a government can get to instituting fairness in the taxation of individuals.

No need to define and, even worse, to "track" households.

No need to set up yet another federal bureaucracy, especially not one which would have the socially divine and politically delicious role of sending money to every household in America every single month - just try to get rid of that new federal department once established!

I hear the cries: "You cold-hearted SOB, what about the poor?" Well, I'm not worried about it.

To start with, if the Really Fair Tax which I've just described ever happened to come into fruition, I am quite sure it would only have been because a slew of new politically-required spending-side goodies would also be simultaneously created to address whatever imagined hardships might result from the tax system conversion. If it were politically possible to avoid that new spending, great! If not, then at least we'd have a system where EVERYONE would be paying taxes at the cash register and hopefully building resentment toward a wildly spending government.

Of course, if you end up poor enough because of the new sales tax that you are willing to go to the government and ask it to acquire somebody else's money for you to spend, then you will need to provide them with enough information to show need, etc. But, those who do not want or need government assistance should not need to disclose their income, whether employed, household status or anything else - at least not for purposes of taxation.

If it is only the ones feeding off the trough that are required to be tracked by the government, perhaps that will be one more incentive for those folks to achieve self-support.

"Won't that create a stigma for those receiving federal assistance?" you might ask. Regarding the able-bodied, I reply "Let's hope so!"

Some envision the Really Fair flat tax as somehow 'regressive', but they are wrong. Yes, the lower income folks will pay more under a flat sales tax since they pay nothing now under the current system. But to say the tax is regressive is not technically correct since the tax rate will be the same no matter how much a fellow spends.

A fabulous side benefit of the flat sales tax is that the guilt-ridden rich liberals who feel we should increase taxes on people who earn more would now have an extremely therapeutic and potentially entertaining means to satisfy themselves while simultaneously impressing their comrades:

Let's say that Kennedy wakes up today feeling guilty that the rich might not be paying enough tax. Under my plan, he can go right out and buy another fancy car and -abracadabra- he is not only boosting the economy but he is also directly contributing more to the federal revenue stream. When he's feeling particularly guilty, he can buy another yacht!

Rich guys would be free to contribute as much tax to the feds as needed to assuage their guilt just by purchasing more stuff. And if they are honestly conscience-stricken then they can further comfort their souls by later donating the stuff to charitable organizations who would no longer need to pay a gift (income) tax or need to bend over backward (or muzzle themselves) to maintain non-profit status. At the same time the rest of us will be more free to save/invest on a tax-free basis in our effort to become the next guilty, conspicuously consuming rich guy. It's a win-win-win situation in the long run!

Fair Tax: NO.
Really Fair Tax: YES!

The comments to this entry are closed.