Soaring 250-feet above ground, Marines with the Reconnaissance and Sniper Platoons of 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit , get a bird’s eye view of the surrounding area during a special purpose insertion/extraction refresher Jan. 13, 2008, at Camp Buehring in Kuwait. U.S. Marine Corps photo byCpl. Scott M. Biscuiti.
RECENT CONTENT:
» Earmarks up and down
August 19th, 2008
» Stevens makes nice profit
August 19th, 2008
» Musharraf resigns control
August 18th, 2008
» Downturn is good news
August 17th, 2008
» Russian attacks looming?
August 17th, 2008
The few, the proud, the sponsors of the Fair Tax
By: Michael Hill | Submitted on: 05/02/07EDITORIAL - The Fair Tax Act of 2007 has been introduced to the House and Senate (H.R. 25 and S. 1025 respectively) and given that it represents what Neal Boortz accurately calls "the greatest transfer of power from the government to the People since the American Revolution" it is a good time to identify the sponsors and revisit the Fair Tax.
It is important to do this not only to thank the sponsors, but to also monitor to see which of them stays above the temptation to dilute, dissolve or demolish the Fair Tax Act should it ever come back from committee. Take a look at the cosponsors in the House, Senate and the Fair Tax web site for specifics.
I could go into the many ways that the Fair Tax equates to smaller and more transparent government, but the Fair Tax website is far more complete than an editorial can hope to be, and the fine work those folks have done shouldn't be diminished by a synopsis, and I think it best that they get linked as often as possible on as many sites as possible. One thing that my many years of watching politics in action has taught me is that by and large, politicians not only hope for you to remain ignorant of what they do, they count on it. So please take the time to read up on the Fair Tax. The more people know about it, the less shade Congress has to hide in.
The point of this particular editorial is to wonder what would motivate anyone to oppose the simplification of the tax code in such a way. The individual voter who opposes this would normally employ one of the misinformation excuses they get from their representation or the media, like the Fair Tax will raise prices or the rate of inflation, or that it discriminates against the poor, or that it rewards "The Rich" unfairly, or that it defunds Social Security/welfare/Medicare/etc.
All of those are incorrect myths of the effects of a national sales tax on new goods and services, and some of the misinformation is because of lazy journalism, but a good deal of the negative propaganda campaign against the Fair Tax is deliberate machination on the part of the powers that be. The Fair Tax website debunks every single one of the popular myths the media and many politicians cite for their opposition, and once again, since they are much more complete and exact in their work, I will refer those who either believe or proffer those myths to those who wrote the book on the subject.
But we haven't solved the "why" of the misinformation, and it is there that we find out some glaring truths.
The Fair Tax is revenue neutral, and even the most conservative and gloomy forecasts show it to actually generate more government revenue than the current tax structure. This means that none of the pet projects, give-aways, pork, and other darling expenditures need disappear or even diminish. All it means is that how the government gets that revenue is more transparent, and abuses to that system far more evident when they occur.
Since the company no longer pays income taxes, their portion of the employee's Social Security tax, or anything other than their own sales taxes on new goods and services, they save on costs there, and the amount they must add to the price of a good to comply with the sales tax is reduced by that cost savings, meaning the price of a good will not change appreciably from the tax itself.
Inflation will see a short term gain since the money supply will increase, but the Federal Reserve can offset this easily enough to even it out over an accompanying period. So prices don't change, and in the case of goods and services necessary for living, i.e. especially important to the poor, the prices will actually go down.
Abolishing the IRS and using the existing state agencies who collect sales taxes also saves the US taxpayer a sizable chunk of change in administration of the current tax structure.
So wait...prices either stay the same or go down, government revenue remains the same or goes up, the tax code is transparent and fair, and the cost of government in the form of the IRS goes down. What part of this equation is so bad that deliberately misinforming the public becomes necessary?
Why would any politician oppose it, unless of course there is truth to the rumor that not all is as it seems in Washington DC. Given that the idea behind this wonderful experiment called the United States of America is a government of, by and for the People, why would the People having a simpler and more fair system of taxation to pay for that which is of, by and for them be something to oppose?
I urge anyone reading this to contact both their Senators and their Representative to ask them directly about their stance on the Fair Tax. If you get the chance to attend a speech or appearance of any candidates running for the presidency, I would encourage asking them.
Find out if they support the Fair Tax, and if not, why not. Ask why one party is absent from the list of sponsors, and the other party has so few of their members on the list of sponsors. Lots of questions to be asked, and remember that we get the government, and the tax burdens thereof, that we deserve.
...a good deal of the negative propaganda campaign against the Fair Tax is deliberate machination on the part of the powers that be.
It is important to do this not only to thank the sponsors, but to also monitor to see which of them stays above the temptation to dilute, dissolve or demolish the Fair Tax Act should it ever come back from committee. Take a look at the cosponsors in the House, Senate and the Fair Tax web site for specifics.
I could go into the many ways that the Fair Tax equates to smaller and more transparent government, but the Fair Tax website is far more complete than an editorial can hope to be, and the fine work those folks have done shouldn't be diminished by a synopsis, and I think it best that they get linked as often as possible on as many sites as possible. One thing that my many years of watching politics in action has taught me is that by and large, politicians not only hope for you to remain ignorant of what they do, they count on it. So please take the time to read up on the Fair Tax. The more people know about it, the less shade Congress has to hide in.
The point of this particular editorial is to wonder what would motivate anyone to oppose the simplification of the tax code in such a way. The individual voter who opposes this would normally employ one of the misinformation excuses they get from their representation or the media, like the Fair Tax will raise prices or the rate of inflation, or that it discriminates against the poor, or that it rewards "The Rich" unfairly, or that it defunds Social Security/welfare/Medicare/etc.
All of those are incorrect myths of the effects of a national sales tax on new goods and services, and some of the misinformation is because of lazy journalism, but a good deal of the negative propaganda campaign against the Fair Tax is deliberate machination on the part of the powers that be. The Fair Tax website debunks every single one of the popular myths the media and many politicians cite for their opposition, and once again, since they are much more complete and exact in their work, I will refer those who either believe or proffer those myths to those who wrote the book on the subject.
But we haven't solved the "why" of the misinformation, and it is there that we find out some glaring truths.
The Fair Tax is revenue neutral, and even the most conservative and gloomy forecasts show it to actually generate more government revenue than the current tax structure. This means that none of the pet projects, give-aways, pork, and other darling expenditures need disappear or even diminish. All it means is that how the government gets that revenue is more transparent, and abuses to that system far more evident when they occur.
Since the company no longer pays income taxes, their portion of the employee's Social Security tax, or anything other than their own sales taxes on new goods and services, they save on costs there, and the amount they must add to the price of a good to comply with the sales tax is reduced by that cost savings, meaning the price of a good will not change appreciably from the tax itself.
Inflation will see a short term gain since the money supply will increase, but the Federal Reserve can offset this easily enough to even it out over an accompanying period. So prices don't change, and in the case of goods and services necessary for living, i.e. especially important to the poor, the prices will actually go down.
Abolishing the IRS and using the existing state agencies who collect sales taxes also saves the US taxpayer a sizable chunk of change in administration of the current tax structure.
So wait...prices either stay the same or go down, government revenue remains the same or goes up, the tax code is transparent and fair, and the cost of government in the form of the IRS goes down. What part of this equation is so bad that deliberately misinforming the public becomes necessary?
Why would any politician oppose it, unless of course there is truth to the rumor that not all is as it seems in Washington DC. Given that the idea behind this wonderful experiment called the United States of America is a government of, by and for the People, why would the People having a simpler and more fair system of taxation to pay for that which is of, by and for them be something to oppose?
I urge anyone reading this to contact both their Senators and their Representative to ask them directly about their stance on the Fair Tax. If you get the chance to attend a speech or appearance of any candidates running for the presidency, I would encourage asking them.
Find out if they support the Fair Tax, and if not, why not. Ask why one party is absent from the list of sponsors, and the other party has so few of their members on the list of sponsors. Lots of questions to be asked, and remember that we get the government, and the tax burdens thereof, that we deserve.
Michael Hill is a professional software system developer and amateur politcal pundit/writer. He is also a veteran of Desert Storm and the NATO operations in the Balkans. He considers himself a conservative in the Buckley-Reagan mold, a staunch advocate of the Jeffersonian concept that the government that governs best is the one that governs the least, and firm believer that the free market and individuals operating within it will accomplish anything the government can economically, just faster, cheaper, and more reliably.
