This article, by John McMillen, is an excellent rebuttal to claims made against the Fair Tax (http://FairTax.org). Please read. Anywhere you see the word ‘gentleman’, think ‘Democrat’:
I implore you to take the time to read this in its entirety to arm yourself with the facts, and to understand what a liberating opportunity American has, and can achieve with your support.
Below is a follow up to ‘The Right Voice’ blog radio interview I had Tuesday 8/18. It is an illustration of the misinformation we have to overcome in order to get your ‘support’ and the support of millions more Americans out there who don’t know what the Fairtax really is.
If you haven’t heard the interview, and have interest, here’s the archive link. After the audio starts to play, you will have to scroll horizontally on the time tracking bar to about the 18:40 time mark to get the beginning of my segment.
This is to illustrate what the Fairtax must overcome to get people to understand the truth about the Fairtax…………………………………….
I did a radio interview Tuesday night the 18th on a web radio called “The Right Voice.”
A fellow from West Palm Beach, Florida called in to filibuster and dominate the very limited amount of time I was allotted to try and get just a few simple facts out to your audience about the Fairtax bill in congress right now, House Bill HR-25 and senate bill S-155.
The gentleman called in and tried to make a case against the Fairtax with a made up scenario with the intent to totally disrupt, distract and destroy the Fairtax message I was attempting to convey.
He threw out the hypothetical example of a Billionaire with a taxable income of 1 Billion Dollars in the tax year 2014. He first made the false assertion that a billionaire would have paid a 40% tax rate on his on earnings of 1 billion dollar in 2014.
I called him on the 40% tax rate in his made up scenario, and pointed out that a Billionaire would not have filed his billion dollar income under the 40% tax rate rubric subject to an income tax, but those types of incomes are typically earned through investments, and they pay a much lower percentage rate under the capital gains tax provision of the IRS code.
So that was his first blatant misrepresentation purposely proposed to listeners in an attempt to deceive.
His whole point was to illustrate how ‘unfair’ the Fairtax is. So he continued his Billionaire example to try and make a point of unfairness of how the current lower income W-2 wage earning taxpayers would have the Fairtax tax burden unfairly dumped on their shoulders to provide the shortfall between what the Billionaire pays now, and what he would pay under the Fairtax. “Just another tax cut for the Rich, on the backs of the poor”…same ole rhetoric we always hear when a proposal to allow W-2 income earners to keep more of their hard-earned paycheck. It’s a diversionary tactic to prevent the busy public from understanding what a beneficial proposal the Fairtax really means to the average Joe.
So the gentleman continued with his skewed made up example. He insisted that the Billionaire would only spend a minuscule amount (1/1000th) of his income buying goods and services; claiming out of a thousand million dollars in income the billionaire would only spend one million dollars in purchases of goods and services in a year…as if that is the universal absolute reality of what Billionaires does with his or her money.
First, of all it is none of that gentleman’s business, nor mine, or anyone else’s business how a billionaire spends money he or she has ‘earned’ or “how much” they choose to spend! It is none of his business ‘how I spend money that have earned or how much I spend.’ It is none of his business ‘how you spend money that you have earned, or how much you spend.’
The gentleman completely ignored the bigger picture. Billionaires like Donald Trump for instance, create 10’s of thousands, if not millions, of jobs for thousands, if not millions, of Americans.
That gentleman has no way of computing how much money a billionaire’s investments generates in salaries of those thousands if not millions of employees that gets poured into our economy that circulates, and circulates, getting turned over and over many, many times to the benefit of Thousands and Thousands of earnest hard working Americans and business owners.
There are Trillions of dollars that are controlled by ‘Billionaires’ and ‘Millionaires’ that have fled the shores of America’s immoral covetous, confiscatory, IRS Tax code.
The gentleman purposely ignores or is completely ignorant of the Trillions of dollars under the control of ‘Billionaires and Millionaires’ that would flood back to America’s shores if we got rid of the IRS tax code, and quite punishing success, and only tax what you spend instead of what you earn.
This repatriation to our American economy would provide thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of new jobs. This creation of more jobs would generate an increase in consumer spending, revive our American spirit and reinvigorate our economy.
The unshackling of what you do with you money would be a liberating, inspiring thing to the individual soul who alone would have the decision to purchase or not to purchase…or to save tax free tax penalties, or more confiscation from the interest income or capital gains. No more crippling regulations on investments. How much money you make and what you do with you own money is nobody’s business but yours.
You would get your paycheck; free of withholding that now amounts to 15, 20, 25% of a paycheck… The embedded tax that is currently in the cost you pay at retail right now is another significant amount…Fairtax analysts say it’s an avg. 22%…critics say it’s only 13%….who do you believe? I would welcome either one in a reduction in prices before the 23 cents on the dollar Fairtax is added back on…with 15% or 20% more in my take home pay to make purchase with! Add to that the fact that I will receive a little over $600 per month to pay the taxes on spending. That’s the amount for a family of 4. A family of 4 making 31,000 per year would pay zero in sales tax.
So, IT IS NOT REGRESSIVE… …as critics claim.
This is why we must abolish that immoral bureaucracy that dips into your earned paycheck to fund things you find abhorrent to you and your personal morals. Yet they add insult to injury by dictating how and what you do with your money.
The caller from West Palm Beach, FL attempted to launch a filibustering screed torpedo that he thought destroyed the Fairtax concept. He spewed misleading false assertions that without Billionaires paying the current amount to the Federal General Revenue fund under the current income tax, there is no way the Fairtax could be revenue neutral as we claim.
Let’s examine the facts and truth about that false and erroneous assumption.
A.) There are 2,089 Billionaires in in the world as of Feb. 5, 2015 today…http://www.independent.co.uk/…/there-are-now-2089-billionai…
B.) In 2014 the tax year the gentleman from Florida used, of those 2,089 billionaires, there were 537 billionaires living in the United States. (Source, same link as above.)
C.) What would all of those 537 billionaires the gentleman was berating have paid to the IRS in 2014 using his one billion dollar earnings figure @ a 15% capital gains rate equate to collectively? … let’s see…537 X 1 Billion = 537 Billion dollars in collective earnings taxed at .15% = $80,550,000.00 (That’s 80 Billion, 550 Million Dollars) total revenue those billionaires would have paid into the total General Revenue fund using Dennis’ made up scenario and Dennis’ made up figures.
D.) In 2014, the total tax revenue collected by the IRS was $3,064,301,358,000.00…(that’s, 3 Trillion, 64 Billion, 3 Hundred and one Million, Three Hundred Fifty Eight Thousand Dollars.)
E.) Now, what percent of all those billionaires’ tax contribution equate to in the total Amount of revenue collected by the IRS in 2014? $80,550,000.00 contributions by Billionaires divided by the total $3,064,301,358,000.00 collected by the IRS = ONLY 3% of the Total!
The gentleman’s point is impotent — a seriously misleading distraction ploy.
The lower income Americans will not have to make up an ungodly percentage left void by the shortfall in revenue collected under the draconian Income Tax Code vs what would be collected under the Fairtax as the gentleman so desperately attempted to illustrate with bogus numbers.
As you can see if the 537 Billionaires in the United States didn’t spend one dollar in the United States, we only have to make up $80,550.000.00 (80 and a half billion dollars) in revenue to be revenue neutral (raise the same amount of revenue as the IRS Income Tax code is raising currently) …and that’s if those billionaires didn’t contribute one dollar to the general revenue fund, which we know darn well they will.
F.) How does that $80,550,000.00 compare to the taxes owed under the income tax, but are not paid? Depending on which article you read, that amount is $280 billion/year, $410 billion/year or $500 billion/year… …and rising!
G.) Tax-refund fraud is expected to soar again this tax season, and hit a whopping $21 billion by 2016, from just $6.5 billion two years ago, according to the Internal Revenue Service. Source:
H.) Scrapping those two sources of Fraud alone would equate to 3.7 times more money in collected revenue than the $80,550,000.00, because we know these people an millions more who are currently paying no federal income tax, will be purchasing daily. So the revenue stream will be there daily. And that even if those Billionaires in America didn’t spend a single dime! That money would sure be welcomed to shore up Veteran’s benefits, or Social Security, or Medicare.
Why do people come onto talk shows to deceive the people with talking points they’ve read on a hit piece blog somewhere, without figuring things out for themselves to verify that false information?
That gentleman from Florida appears to be far less intelligent and sincere than he tried to present himself to be.
I cannot understand, why? Why do people want to keep such a corrupt system as the IRS INCOME TAX?
Why do they want to call into a show to muddy the waters and distract from people’s understanding of the true facts with their misleading fabricated scenarios to demonize the Fairtax?
Why do we want to keep allowing one of the largest behemoth agencies of Government to be used to steal from those who produce and give to a constituency of non-producers dependent on politicians for their sustenance?
Go to http://www.Fairtax.org and learn the truth about the Fairtax
There was some editing for clarity.
As a trainer for Level 1 of the Center for Self Governance and the Chair of the Cape County Tea Party, I’m a constructionist / originalist when it comes to the Constitution. Therefore, when talk of an Article V Convention comes about, I feel that my support of the Constitution must extend to the Convention as well. If I support the brilliance of the Founders in the creation of this republic and the limitation of the Federal Government, I must support them in their correct prediction that the Federal Government would become and out-of-control behemoth (the rottweiler), and the people would have but one arrow left in their quiver: The Article V Convention for Proposing Amendments To The Constitution.
However, I think those who advocate the current effort at a Convention are wrong to believe that they can limit the topics of the proposed amendments at the Convention… …at least that’s the way I read the Constitution. Congress can only call the Convention, and the Convention is for Proposing Amendments… …no qualifiers… …no adjectives.
I also feel any application by a state that attempts to limit the topics of the convention is invalid. Missouri has called for an Article V Convention only if it’s for a Balanced Budget Amendment. Congress can only open a Convention for Proposing Amendments (sans specific topics). Therefore Missouri’s application is self-invalidating as soon as a Convention opens for Proposing Amendments.
But, I’m no constitutional scholar like BHO… …I’m just a computer geek.
Here is some more information received from my friend Karen on the Constitutional Convention:
The proposed “Article V Convention” is nothing new. It was first proposed by Ford and Rockefeller in 1963. It has been tried multiple times in my lifetime, with each attempt given a different name. Conservatives have succeeded in blocking it each time. History of these attempts are archived here.
An Q&A discussion of the subject by a Constitutional scholar, and an in-depth article with references, using the Framer’s original source documents can be read here. If there are questions, there is a place to contact the author.
It should be noted that since the 1787 Convention of States, the rules for using this method have not been changed. The 2/3 ratification rule does not apply to this alternate method. Still, only 9 states are required for ratification, as originally stated.
The framers did not follow the rules in the Articles of Confederation that said all 13 states must agree in order to ratify a new Constitution. Since we were governed by men of integrity when it came to content of the Constitution, we dodged a bullet.
How will those rules be changed, if the ones financing and promoting this new Convention of states are in control? Will they insist the old Convention rule of ratification by 9 states be enforced?
Like I said, I support the idea of the Convention, but the Conservatives and Libertarians better be ready for the Progressive cancer that will invade its proceedings.
From Missouri Voter Jason:
Here are my thoughts about the proposed constitutional amendments.
#1. “Right to Farm.” The language is so broad that it is, to me, meaningless. There are statutes on the books (Section 537.295 of the Missouri Revised Statutes) that address the issue of “nuisance suits” that seem to be the core argument in favor of the amendment. I’m leaning against the amendment, but am open to argument in favor.
#5 “Unalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms.” While I think the language of this amendment has been poorly drafted, it aims to solidify the right to keep and bear arms and removes an impediment to concealed carry. I favor the amendment.
#7 “Increase Sales and Use Tax for Transportation.” I am opposed to this tax increase. I’m taxed enough already. More philosophically, I question whether sales tax should be used for transportation expenditures. I generally prefer charging service users, and a fuel or tire or other ratable tax more directly associates the funding source with the expenditure purpose. (The advent of hybrid and electric vehicles, however, foils the purpose of the gasoline tax in making road users pay for roads; so, another (fair) way of apportioning the cost of roads to users needs to be developed.) If more money is needed for roads (and I must be persuaded of the need), then a roads-related tax needs to be proposed. I am opposed to using road-related funds for mass transit projects, aviation, ports, and the other transporation systems that would be funded by the proposed sales and use tax amendment. Again, philosophically, I would generate funding for these type projects from the users of those modes of transporation.
#8. “Veterans Lottery Ticket.” I am opposed to the state operating a lottery, so the specification of a particular kind of lottery ticket to fund the state veterans homes, etc., is not something I support. I believe these expenditures should be covered by everyone in the state (which means sales and/or income tax sources), not just those who gamble.
#9. “Security of Electronic Communications and Data.” I support the amendment to include “electronic communications and data” in the list of protections against unreasonable search or seizure. This amendment, incidentally, is consistent with the recent US Supreme Court ruling (Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie) that held a warrant was required before a cell phone could be searched by the authorities. This ruling essentially extends Fourth Amendment (US Constitution) protections to at least some forms of electronic communications and data. Amending the Missouri constitution to explicitly include electronic communications and data brings the state constitution into the modern world where we have not only papers and effects that are safe from warrantless search, but electronic information as well.
Call your Congressman! Gun Owners Of American reports that the House Judiciary Committee to vote on CCW Reciprocity Soon!
The House Judiciary Committee will soon be voting on legislation that will guarantee the right of citizens to carry firearms out-of-state. And the vote could come as early as today or tomorrow!
GOA has alerted you to H.R. 822 — introduced by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) — and explained the weaknesses in his bill. Many of you have taken action on our alerts and informed your Representative that there is a better approach.
That approach has been championed by Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia, the author of H.R. 2900 — or the Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act. The Broun bill has several advantages:
- It would allow residents of California, New Jersey and other “may issue” states to get out-of-state carry permits (say, from Florida or Utah) and carry in their home states — an benefit they would not enjoy under the Stearns’ bill;
- Broun also protects the right of gun owners in non-permit states like Vermont and allows them to carry out-of-state without a permit; and
- Finally, the Broun bill does not rely on an expansive, erroneous interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Passing gun legislation that uses the Commerce Clause for authority could undercut efforts at promoting Firearms Freedom Act legislation throughout the country which specifically declares the Commerce Clause has no authority over the production of intrastate guns.
We need to continue putting heat on Congress, now that this reciprocity legislation is beginning to move. You’ve already sent your emails, but now it’s time to change things up and send postcards. If the House committee passes the Stearns bill, then it will probably come to the floor of the House some time next month.
So there is plenty of time to inundate Representatives’ offices with postcards and mail — urging them to support H.R. 2900 — or to amend the Stearns bill so that it contains the gun owners’ protections in the Broun bill.
So, GOA members, please be looking for the latest mailing from GOA headquarters which should begin arriving this week. And please take the enclosed postcard and send it to your Representative. Then, take the extra two postcards and have pro-gun family members and friends send them, as well. That will multiply your efforts by 200%.
Heard about the Violence Policy Center’s “research” which supposedly debunks concealed carry? Click here to see GOA’s most recent Fact Sheet, which blasts the VPC faux report and sets the record straight.
The advent of the Tea Party Movement and the November 2010 Election were a clear repudiation of the past 43 years of enslaving our children and grandchildren to the current greed of those on the government dole!
It was a repudiation of the ‘kick the can down the road’ mentality in Washington, DC.
1968 was the last year that Congress and the Presidents actually spent less than they collected. Since… …they’ve proven for 43 years that they can do two things:
What they’ve proven they can’t do is… …live within their means.
But, in the current debt limit debate, for spending to be cut, Democrats are expecting that
tax increases revenue enhancements.
Republicans, you’ve heard of the Tea Party, and you know the results of the November 2010 elections. So, let me answer these questions for you:
Should we raise our debt limit? …ABSOLUTELY NO!! Not without a Balanced Budget Amendment.
Should we increase taxes? …ABSOLUTELY NO!! Not without a Balanced Budget Amendment.
Congress, we know you can spend money. Before you raise one tax, you will show us that you can be responsible stewards of our labor.
The bags of money at the Humane Society of the United States (H$U$) are again attacking Missouri’s voters with a feel-good Constitutional Amendment that will undermine our republican system of government.
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to prohibit the repeal or amendment by the General Assembly of a statute enacted by citizen initiative passed by the voters of Missouri, except by either a three-fourths vote of the members of each house or a vote of the people through a referendum or unless such statute explicitly provides that the general assembly may repeal or amend it by a majority vote of the members of each house?
The proposal is estimated to result in no direct costs or savings to state and local governmental entities.
Why is the Washington-based H$U$ nosing back into Missouri? Because after they successfully got 51.6% of
mostly uninformed Missouri voters to vote for their Puppy Mill Prevention Breeder Bankruptcy Act, the Missouri Legislature debated, deliberated, and passed legislation to clean up the mess left behind. Prop B reduced the number of required daily feedings from two to one; increased space requirements beyond USDA regulations to force breeders out of business; unconstitutionally limited the number of dogs that could be bred; arbitrarily increased the number of breeding dogs before licensing is required from 3 to 10; likely cause the destruction of 86,000 dogs… …and did not fund any of it. Missouri’s representatives and a Democratic governor wisely enacted legislation to sweep up the debris.
Now, the H$U$ is back. They’re paying to get the Orwellian named “Your Vote Counts” act on the ballot, and it will do just the opposite of making your vote count. It will take away the power of your vote and enact ‘mob rule’. Mob rule, or true democracy, is two wolves and a sheep voting to decide what they will have for dinner.
Under Missouri’s constitution, we elect Representatives to vote and enact the laws we follow. We have the Citizens Initiative Petition (CIP) to allow for voters to enact legislation when the Legislature won’t act.
“If approved by voters in November 2012, the initiative would mandate protections for future citizen initiatives — the Legislature would no longer be able to undo the will of the people without mustering a three-fourths majority.”
How much of a voice do you feel you have in U.S. Senator elections? Ever get a real, personal reply to one of your e-mails or letters? Well, that’s how you’ll feel when you disagree with the latest CIPs enacted w/ 50% +1 of the vote and funded by deep pockets from out-of-state.
You won’t be able to go to your local legislator, make a cogent argument, and get them to work with other representatives to enact corrective legislation.
Do you feel like you have more of a voice with your Missouri Representative and Senator? Well, you do. I regularly get direct personal replies from Donna Lichtenegger and Jason Crowell.
But, when an H$U$ backed initiative gets passed that will cause the destruction of 86,000 dogs, not one Representative or Senator would waste any time trying to save them.
Their October 2010 advertising hid the facts above and promoted a fallacy that Missouri didn’t have laws to protect dogs when there are laws and 22 pages of regulations for dog breeders. What will they hide when they start advertising for 2012.
From the article, the strange bedfellows of backers are:
$7,257, Citizens in Charge
Best Friends Animal Society
Stop Child Predators
Americans for Tax Reform
National Taxpayers Union