Life is like a box of...stupid.

This was this guy's first boat, but he wasn't quite sure of the correct procedure for launching a boat at the ramp. However, he figured it couldn't be that difficult to do, so he stopped by his Union office for advice, and they just told him, "Don't let the trailer get too deep in the water when you're launching your boat".

Well later on, he couldn't understand what they meant by that, as he just could barely get his trailer in the water!

Here's a picture worth a "thousand' words! You're gonna love this guy!!! They walk among us, get married, have children and vote!

Oh, check out the sticker on back windshield. Some will say it explains everything. Others say, well...that's pretty much what everyone I've shown the picture to has said.

"The FairTax will not be revenue neutral (i.e. bring in the same revenue as the current system) at 23%"

The truth: The FairTax rate of 23% (when calculated inclusively like income tax rates) has been thoroughly researched to provide all the revenues now collected under both the income tax system and through FICA payroll taxes. Reports otherwise are largely based on the President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform which declared the rate would have to be much higher. What the Panel failed to make clear in an amazingly shameless sleight-of-hand is that they never studied the FairTax legislation as it exists in pending legislation. They ignored $22 million of FairTax research and, instead, quietly devised their own national consumption tax which they loaded with the exemptions and deductions they felt were "politically realistic". They also failed to calculate the effects of elimination of the FICA tax on annual taxpayer burdens or on the distributional effects of the FairTax across the income spectrum. Upon completion--and after declaring a national consumption tax flawed--they then refused to publish their underlying assumptions.

For more information on this topic, see these research papers.

Taxing Sales Under the FairTax - What Rate Works?

A Comparison of the FairTax Base and Rate

Comparing Average and Marginal Tax Rates under the FairTax and the Current System of Federal Taxation

Right to Choose

I've been hearing something lately about Tim Tebow and some controversy surrounding him and a CBS Super Bowl ad, but, not being a Gator fan in particular, or football fan in general, and not caring much at all about the Super Bowl, I didn't know what the controversy was. And, frankly, didn't care.

I came on the facts today. Apparently, the American Family Association (AFA) produced a a pro-life commercial to air during the Super Bowl featuring Tebow, regarding his mother's decision not to abort the pregnancy that resulted in Tebow's birth.

Oh, my goodness!! A commercial that actually promotes continuing a pregnancy instead of abortion! The world is coming to an end! We're all going to hell in a handbasket! Okay, so I'm being a little ridiculous here. In my opinion, not much more than the left.

So typical of the left, they are up in arms that CBS is broadcasting a decision that is contrary to what they believe. They are all for choice, unless it's contrary to what they believe. Joy Behar, of "The View", said that abortion would have been appropriate since Tebow's mother didn't know that her child wouldn't grow up to be a "rapist pedophile".

What a stupid statement. Why assume that an unaborted pregnancy would result in a "rapist pedophile" rather than a doctor who discovers a cure for cancer? Or a fireman who saves a life while fighting a fire? or a police officer who stops a "rapist pedophile"? Not every unaborted pregnancy will result in a child who goes wrong just as not every continued pregnancy will result in fine, upstanding citizens.

I applaud the Tebow's for putting it out there. I'll also say that if abortion had been a viable option when I was gestating, I might not be here writing this. Yes, my birth mother was unmarried when she got pregnant with me. She didn't have a lot of choice in those days. She could have had a back room abortion that might have killed both of us. She could have been left unable to give birth again (I know she had another daughter a few years later). Let's assume that I have possibly survived but left severely physically and/or mentally impaired, requiring constant, expensive care. Yep, that would have given her a good life. She choose to give birth and I was adopted by a wonderful couple who loved me as their own, loving and caring for me as their child, until the day they died. I know who my birth mother was (she too, has passed on) and I thank her for making the decision she did.

Abortion is only one of three choices I know of. The others are giving birth and either raising the child or adoption. I note in what I've read about the Tebow controversy that adoption has never been mentioned as an option by the left. Why does the left seem to believe that abortion is the only acceptable choice? What about adoption? It's as viable a choice as abortion.

I don't believe in abortion as a method of birth control. I also don't believe in a woman continuing to turn out child after child, continuing the welfare cycle. I won't ever say that the number of children produced by one woman or couple should be limited, but as long as she, or they, can take care of the children, it's not my business. Only when the family is continuing the welfare cycle does it become any of my affair and that's only because I'm helping to support that family through my tax dollars. I'm still working on that issue trying to find a solution that isn't contrary to my values, but also will help women and their children from falling into an abyss they can't get out of.

Personally, I'm Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. That means whatever decision a woman makes, to abort or to continue to give life, we should all shut our pieholes and respect her decision. I might not agree with her decision, but, guess what? It's HER decision, not mine, and no one else's. I don't believe anyone has the right to criticize a woman who makes the decision to abort or to continue a pregnancy.

And when the left makes statements like Behar's they just look and sound stupid. Why should I or anyone else listen to anyone making statements that are stupid?

~~~~~

Note: I just learned more of the Tebow story. I didn't know that Pam Tebow was a missionary in the Philippines when she became pregnant with her fifth child, who would become Tim. I didn't know that she was ill during the pregnancy and the doctors were insisting that she abort the pregnancy.

While I didn't know these facts, it still doesn't alter my opinion that the decision made was a decision that could only, and should only be made by the people involved - the parents. While if I were asked, I would offer the opinion that had Ms. Tebow chosen to abort the pregnancy, under the circumstances it would be understandable and (to me) an acceptable reason.

But, it's not my opinion that matters. It only becomes anyone's business because AFA chose to use the story as a plank in their Pro-Choice platform. The Tebow's obviously believe in Pro-Life (and are maybe even pro-choice, I don't know) and chose to allow the story to be used. In that, they had to expect that they would become the center of controversy.

That's not the way it should be, but it is. I'm not criticizing anyone on the side of Pro-Choice or Pro-Life. I'm not criticizing the Tebow's for "going public" with this story. I might have some criticism for AFA, but they were allowed to use the story, so, I guess not too much.

I do have criticism for those who think that Ms. Tebow made the wrong choice. She made the choice that was right for her; the choice that was core to her values and morals. Had she gone against those values and morals, who knows how it might have affected her life, the lives of her other children, and the people whose lives she touched since then?

I don't believe it's right to impose one's own morals and values on anyone else. I personally will not judge the women I know who have had abortions. It's a decision they made, based on their own values and beliefs, and their very particular situation at the time. Some have regretted it, but understood it was the right choice for them at the time.

And how dare anyone second guess anyone else's choices in life? Just because you might be pro-abortion, don't assume you have all the answers. You haven't walked in anyone else's life and can't assume you know what is best for them.

And I still say that Joy Behar's statement was just plain stupid.

Headlines In the News

Cold Wave Linked to Temperatures

bet some smart scientist figured this one out

Headlines In the News

If Strike Isn't Settled Quickly, It May Last Awhile

hmmm....sounds like that jet crash expert opined on this one

Headlines In the News

War Dims Hope for Peace

Yeah, I can see how that could happen

Muth's News and Views

JANUARY 20, 2010

AND THE JACKASS OF THE YEAR AWARD ALREADY GOES TO.

"I wanted to apologize for calling Senator-elect Scott Brown an 'irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea bagging, supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees.' I'm sorry, I left out the word 'sexist.'"

- Keith Olbermann, MSNBC/NBC anchor

AND THE RUNNER-UP IS.

"If [Massachussets voters] go for Republican Scott Brown it's deliberate, premeditated murder for health care!"

Chris Matthews, MSNBC/NBC show host

JUST NOT BUYING

"There's going to be a tendency on the part of (Democrats) to be in denial about all this, (but) "if you lose Massachusetts and that's not a wake-up call, there's no hope of waking up. . . . (M)oderates and independents even in a state as Democratic as Massachusetts just aren't buying our message. They just don't believe the answers we are currently proposing are solving their problems."

- Democrat Sen. Evan Bayh on Tuesday night's election results

SHOCKING!

"President Barack Obama's plan to fix the foreclosure crisis has been a dud, putting the housing market recovery at risk."

- Associated Press, 1/16/10

STIMULATING MORE BUREAUCRATS

"The Social Security Administration spent $30 million in stimulus money in 2009 to hire 585 new bureaucrats who will be responsible for certifying whether people are eligible for disability so they can be paid by the taxpayers not to work."

- CNS News, 1/20/10

WELL-MEANING INCOMPETENT

"The President's now-infamous 72-hour delay in speaking publicly about the Christmas Day attack may have added to a growing concern that President Obama may mean well, but he and his administration are lacking the level of competence we need."

- Rich Galen, Mullings.com, 1/19/10

BYE-BYE BOXER?

"California's Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer's days in the Senate may be numbered. After representing the Golden State for 18 years, Ms. Boxer is finally facing a formidable field of GOP opponents. . . . As voters become more familiar with the Republican candidates, Ms. Boxer's numbers seem likely to fall even farther."

- Allysia Finley, Political Diary, 1/20/10

JESSE "THE INVESTIGATOR" VENTURA

"Former Navy SEAL, professional wrestler, and Minnesota governor, Jesse Ventura, recently launched a new television show on the truTV cable channel. . . . Predictably, mainstream critics have universally condemned the series. . . . Contrary to the rants of modern critics, however, Ventura's Conspiracy Theory is not 'reality' television or 'mindless, good fun.' It is better investigative reporting than anything I've seen on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN or FOX NEWS in a long, long time."

- Columnist Chuck Baldwin

SAYONARA SOUTHERS

"The man President Obama appointed to lead the Transportation Security Administration withdrew his name on Wednesday, a day after a 2008 video surfaced of him comparing the war on terror to global warming.

"Errol Southers' nomination was stalled by Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, who put a hold on it citing concerns Mr. Southers would give TSA collective bargaining rights. While the nomination was being held, it was also discovered that Mr. Southers gave misleading statements to Congress about a federal security database he twice accessed for personal reasons.

"Another blow, however, was delivered to Mr. Southers when the conservative-leaning CNSNews.com posted a 2008 video interview that he had granted to Videojug.com, an information-sharing video Web site. Mr. Southers was asked in the interview, 'How high should the war on terror be on our list of national priorities?'

"He replied, 'It should be high on our list of priorities because of, speaking globally, the threat that exists.' But Mr. Southers added later, 'I do think, however, it deserves to perhaps have some parity with global warming, with education, with the economy.' That statement, and others in the video, surely would have become part of the debate over his nomination, but Mr. Southers withdrew it on Wednesday morning."

- Amanda Carpenter, Hot Button, 1/20/10

MUTH'S TRUTHS

I haven't been this ticked off in a long time. According to a January 4th report on WRGB-TV 6 in Albany, NY, Richard and Margie Cressy were "arrested on child endangerment charges" after authorities received an anonymous tip. And just what heinous abuse were the Cressys inflicting on their four children, ages 8 to 14? You're not going to believe it.

These dastardly, diabolical monsters had dared to..

Read the rest HERE

FED-EXCESS

It's a new year, but the same old FedEx disinformation campaign. Here's what the anonymous writers for the "Brown Bailout" project wrote on Tuesday:

"When Congress returns to Washington this week, UPS lobbyists will be back to their old games, lobbying Congress for an unfair, anti-competitive bailout that could threaten the nation's overnight delivery network and cripple entire sectors of our economy. If UPS succeeds in getting the 'Brown Bailout' passed, consumer shipping costs could rise and service and reliability could suffer. Put simply, this could hurt businesses and individuals across the country."

Now here's how the release SHOULD have been written:

When Congress returns to Washington this week, FedEx lobbyists will be back to their old games, lobbying Congress to keep an unfair, anti-competitive corporate welfare subsidy that creates an uneven playing field in the overnight delivery market and uses federal labor law to give FedEx an undeserved and unfair marketing advantage. If FedEx succeeds in retaining this corporate welfare subsidy, the uniquely and quintessentially American concept of equal justice under the law will continue to suffer. Put simply, this would hurt the free market for all businesses and individuals across the country.

There, that's better. And accurate and truthful, to boot.

FAMOUS LAST WORDS

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies."

- Groucho Marx

Headlines In the News

Miners Refuse to Work After Death

Is that Union rules?

FairTax in the News

Explain This to IRS: Tax Agency Is $32 Billion Short

Tamara Lytle Contributor

From on-line newsletter “Sphere”

(Jan. 6) -- The Internal Revenue Service suddenly reduced the amount of revenue it reported from delinquent collections by $32 billion, or about 27 percent, providing little information about what happened to the money, according to a report released Wednesday morning.

"There is an astonishing lack of transparency as to what is included in these revenue figures and how they are computed," said National Taxpayer Advocate Nina E. Olson as part of her annual report to Congress. "The failure to highlight and explain revisions of such magnitude erodes confidence in IRS's data reporting."

The IRS reported more than $121 billion in delinquent tax collection revenues from 2005 to 2007. But in its 2008 IRS Data Book, it quietly revised the number downward to less than $89 billion. Olson's report said that was part of a larger picture of the IRS now having a handle on what type of collection activities really bring in revenue.

IRS spokeswoman Michelle Eldridge said the IRS will explain the discrepancy this spring in its next Data Book. The $32 billion was taken off the revenue total because some of it involved double counting, she said. For instance, if four officers of a firm owed $1,000 for not paying payroll taxes and one of them paid the bill, it might be accidentally credited as $1,000 in revenue multiplied by all four officers.

Pete Sepp, vice president of the National Taxpayers Union, said the IRS appeared to be "obfuscating" whether additional funding for collecting delinquent taxes had actually yielded any results. "It's either a terrible deception or a terrible oversight. One way or another, Congress should get an answer."

A taxpayer could call and ask. But don't count on the phone being answered.

According to Olson's report, the IRS only plans to answer 71 percent of the calls it gets this year. That's barely above the 69 percent level in 1998 when Congress got so fed up with complaints about taxpayer service that it reformed the agency. And the numbers have gone down in recent years – during the 2009 tax filing season, only 64 percent of callers got through.

"It's a terrible indictment in this day and age that an agency can't even answer its phones," Sepp said. "That's setting the bar awfully low and would probably bankrupt any customer-service-oriented business."

When the call does go through, the IRS estimates that the taxpayers will be on hold for almost 12 minutes.

"This level of service is unacceptable," said Olson, whose office is part of the IRS but is charged with protecting the interests of taxpayers.

Eldridge said that although the percentage is down, the total number of calls answered was up – from 34 million in 2007 to 40 million in 2008 and 39 million last year. The past two years involved more callers with questions because of the rebate and other changes made in economic stimulus legislation.

And many of the calls that weren't answered were because taxpayers were redirected to IRS.gov, which could help them track their coming refund or answer questions. "While they are waiting on the phone lines, we are giving them other options," Eldridge said.

Olson also rapped the IRS for ramping up its filing of liens against taxpayers. She said a study has shown the lien increases have not brought in more revenue. Filing liens against people with little or no property ends up damaging their credit and making it harder for them to pay taxes in the future. The IRS should look at their ability to pay, including their other debts like credit cards, before deciding on a lien, she proposed.

Eldridge said studies other than the one cited by the taxpayer advocate office show the liens are an effective tool.

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said the IRS seems more inter ested in helping big banks getting bailouts than small businesses.

"The placement of liens on the little guys shouldn't be automatic and computer-generated while the big banks get the benefit of agency discretion and concern in the executive offices. One, it's unfair, and two, it's bad for the economy," he said.

"The IRS has to use its discretion to determine when liens are the best course to improve tax collection and when they're just a knee-jerk enforcement tactic that will do more harm than good."

Grassley sought answers Wednesday, including the whereabouts of the $32 billion.

"This single data point seems to indicate that not only does the IRS have a problem in knowing who owes what, the agency apparently also isn't able to properly track the taxes that have been collected," Grassley said. "The problem deserves the attention of IRS top management, as well as policy-makers who are intent on giving the IRS more and more responsibilities."

Democrats in Congress are considering a health care bill that would make the IRS involved in enforcing a new requirement that people carry health insurance.

Howard Gleckman, a tax policy expert at the Urban Institute, said the concern is valid.

"It is absolutely true we are asking the IRS to take on a huge rule when it is having a hard time doing the job it is there to do," he said. "On the other hand, if someone in the government is going to do this, the IRS is probably the best place. The IRS already has contact with almost every American."

Tamara Lytle spent 11 years as a reporter with the Orlando Sentinel and 14 years with the New Haven Register. She has freelanced for publications including U.S. News and World Report, and AARP Bulletin.

Did You Khow?

From FairTax Chairman, Leo Linbeck’s testimony to the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, 2005

“The FairTax makes the cost of government transparent. Today, small changes to the code shift tens of millions of dollars to particular taxpayers in ways not as visible as direct appropriations, but just as effective. With each special exemption, credit, deferral, deduction or definition that results, marginal tax rates are increased on everyone else. Complexity adds to the hidden nature of the taxes today. The FairTax is the simplest possible system, and that reinstates the principle that Americans have a right to understand the law to which they are subjected. When taxes are simple and transparent, they more readily reflect the cost of government to taxpayers, are less subject to lobbying and harder to raise. The same cannot be said for the flat tax or for business transfer taxes (BTTs), which while also based on consumption, perpetuate the myth that business entities do not pass the taxes forward.”

Ronald Reagan Would Have Loved the FairTax says son, Michael

He came to office with the nation’s economy badly wounded, record high interest rates, cars lined up around the block at gas stations, 10%+ unemployment, and - for the first time since World War II - gas rationing.

Many believed that the best days of the nation were behind us.

He told us to “stand tall” and he led by example. He laughed with opponents, winning them over to his generous personality and good nature, if not always his vision for a stronger nation, a smaller government and a renewed role for the American citizen.

He went to work to simplify the income tax code, to reduce the size of government and to “tear down this wall.” He accomplished all three—and more.

President Ronald Reagan had a vision for the nation and his vision harkened back to the principles of liberty, individual responsibility, and government as an honest servant of the people.

Today we struggle with more than one of every ten Americans out of work, with a growing national debt pledged against the future earnings of generations of yet-to-be-born Americans, and with Americans divided on almost every issue but one—a sinking certainty that our best days are behind us.

Like President Reagan, Michael Reagan, his eldest son, believes that transformational changes must be accomplished with all Americans working together. “If you love America, you love all Americans,” President Reagan said.

Michael Reagan says that if it had been developed, he is sure his father would have been a strong advocate for the FairTax. He has now agreed to help lead the FairTax National Victory Campaign. Given President Reagan’s record and Michael Reagan’s work to keep his legacy alive, it makes perfect sense.

“We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward restoring for our children the American Dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him... But we cannot have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure,” said President Reagan.

We know that the FairTax is much, much more than a “good start;” it's the single most important answer to the unemployment that saps worker’s hope for the future, the crippling debt that hobbles healthy economic growth, and the fear that our children and grandchildren will now inherit a country in rapid decline.

We also know that the FairTax has the potential to unite a divided American people--both out of enlightened self-interest and in the common belief that it is the right thing to do for our future as a still great nation.

Welcome Michael Reagan!

2010: The Year of the FairTax

JANUARY 15, 2010

When it comes to federal taxes, it all begins with the House Ways and Means Committee, chaired by Rep. Charles Rangel. It’s one of the most powerful Congressional Committees in Washington. The authority of Ways and Means is breathtaking when it comes to wealth produced by American citizens.

The FairTax also falls under the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee. Because FairTax supporters are now pressuring Mr. Rangel through our petition to hold a hearing on the FairTax, click here to add your name, supporters may want to learn more about this committee.

Here are some of the enumerated authorities and duties of this powerful committee:

(1) Federal revenue measures generally --The Committee on Ways and Means has the responsibility for raising the revenue required to finance the Federal Government. This includes individual and corporate income taxes, excise taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, and other miscellaneous taxes.

(2) The bonded debt of the United States --The Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction over the authority of the Federal Government to borrow money. Title 31 of Chapter 31 of the U.S. Code authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct any necessary public borrowing subject to a maximum limit on the amount of borrowing outstanding at any one time. This statutory limit on the amount of public debt (“the debt ceiling”) currently is $8.18 trillion. The Committee’s jurisdiction also includes conditions under which the U.S. Department of the Treasury manages the Federal debt, such as restrictions on the conditions under which certain debt instruments are sold.

(3) National Social Security programs --The Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction over most of the programs authorized by the Social Security Act, which includes not only those programs that are normally referred to colloquially as “Social Security” but also social insurance programs and a whole series of grant-in-aid programs to State governments for a variety of purposes. The Social Security Act, as amended, contains 21 titles (a few of which have either expired or have been repealed).

(4) Trade and tariff legislation --The Committee on Ways and Means has responsibility over legislation relating to tariffs, import trade, and trade negotiations. In the early days of the Republic, tariff and customs receipts were major sources of revenue for the Federal Government. As the Committee with jurisdiction over revenue-raising measures, the Committee on Ways and Means thus evolved as the primary Committee responsible for international trade policy.

The Constitution vests the power to levy tariffs and to regulate international commerce specifically in the Congress as one of its enumerated powers. Any authority to regulate imports or to negotiate trade agreements must therefore be delegated to the executive branch through legislative action. Statutes including the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Acts beginning in 1934, Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Trade Act of 1974, Trade Agreements Act of 1979, Trade and Tariff Act of 1984, Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Implementation Act, Uruguay Round Agreements Act, and Trade Act of 2002 provide the basis for U.S. bargaining with other countries to achieve the mutual reduction of tariff and nontariff trade barriers under reciprocal trade agreements.

Revenue Originating Prerogative of the House of Representatives

The Constitutional Convention debated adopting the British model in which the House of Lords could not amend revenue legislation sent to it from the House of Commons. Eventually, however, the Convention proposed and the States later ratified the Constitution providing that “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.” (Article 1, Section 7, clause 1.)

In order to pass constitutional scrutiny under this “origination clause,” a tax bill must be passed first by the House of Representatives. After the House has completed action on a bill and approved it by a majority vote, the bill is transmitted to the Senate for formal action. The Senate may have already reviewed issues raised by the bill before its transmission. For example, the Senate Committee on Finance frequently holds hearings on tax legislative proposals before the legislation embodying those proposals is transmitted from the House of Representatives. On occasion, the Senate will consider a revenue bill in the form of a Senate or “S.” bill, and then await passage of a revenue “H.R.” bill from the House. The Senate then will add or substitute provisions of the “S.” bill as an amendment to the AH.R.@ bill and send the “H.R.” bill back to the House of Representatives for its concurrence or for conference on the differing provisions.

Membership on the Committee spans the nation. FairTax supporters will recognize the name of Rep. John Linder, the original co-sponsor of HR 25, the FairTax Act, as a member of Ways and Means.

Here are the Members of the 111th Congress, Ways and Means Committee:

Democrats

Charles B. Rangel, NY Chairman

Fortney Pete Stark, CA

Sander M. Levin, MI

Jim McDermott, WA

John Lewis, GA

Richard E. Neal, MA

John S. Tanner, TN

Xavier Becerra, CA

Lloyd Doggett, TX

Earl Pomeroy, ND

Mike Thompson, CA

John B. Larson, CT

Earl Blumenauer, OR

Ron Kind, WI

Bill Pascrell, Jr. , NJ

Shelley Berkley, NV

Joseph Crowley, NY

Chris Van Hollen, MD

Kendrick Meek, FL

Allyson Y. Schwartz, PA

Artur Davis, AL

Danny K. Davis, IL

Bob Etheridge, NC

Linda T. Sanchez, CA

Brian Higgins, NY

John A. Yarmuth, KY

Republicans

Dave Camp, MI

Wally Herger, CA

Sam Johnson, TX

◊ Kevin Brady, TX

Paul Ryan, WI

Eric Can tor, VA

◊ John Linder, GA

Devin Nunes, CA

Pat Tiberi, OH

◊ Ginny Brown-Waite, FL

Geoff Davis, KY

Dave G. Reichert, WA

Charles W. Boustany, Jr. , LA

Dean Heller, NV

Peter J. Roskam, IL

◊ current FairTax bill (H.R. 25) supporters

The FairTax Rate: a 23% tomato or a 30% tomato?
05/31/2007

As the FairTax gains more national attention, questions have again arisen about whether the FairTax rate is 23 percent or 30 percent. In the toxic environment that often accompanies public policy debates, FairTax.org has even been accused by some of misleading the public, even though full descriptions of "tax-inclusive" and "tax-exclusive" calculations abound on our Web site. We hope the following explanation puts all such questions to rest -- at last.

Let’s use an example to illustrate the difference between tax-inclusive and tax-exclusive tax rates.

Assume there is a worker named Joe who earns $125 and spends all of his earnings. Let’s further assume that the government requires him to pay $25 in taxes.

If the government put a tax on Joe’s income, he would earn $125 before tax and would have $100 after tax to spend at the General Store. Thus, Joe has to earn $125 to have $100 to spend. Joe would also have to file an income tax return.

If the government put a tax on what Joe spends, he would earn $125 and would have $125 to spend at the store. Of the $125 paid by Joe to the storekeeper, $100 would be for the goods he bought at the store and $25 would be taxes that the storekeeper would send to the government. Joe would not have to file a tax return, as the storekeeper sends the tax in to the government.

Either way, Joe pays $25 in taxes and the government gets $25 in taxes. With a tax on income, Joe pays the $25 directly to the government, and with the tax on spending (sales tax), he pays the $25 in taxes indirectly when he buys something from the General Store. The General Store sends the tax that Joe paid to the government.

We may report the tax rate as $25/$125 = 20 percent, which is the tax-inclusive rate (meaning that the tax is included in the base). Alternately, we may think of the tax rate as $25/$100 = 25 percent, which is the tax-exclusive rate (meaning the tax is excluded from the base). The 23 percent FairTax rate set out in HR 25/S 1025 is a tax-inclusive rate, as is the current personal income tax, whereas most state-level sales taxes are quoted on a tax-exclusive basis. For ease of comparison, FairTax.org gives the tax rate both ways. Both rates are relevant, since the FairTax is replacing an income tax system, and 23 percent correctly represents the tax burden compared to the current system.

To review some of the research that determined a 23% (inclusive) rate is correct, please read Taxing Sales Under the FairTax: What Rate Works? This paper is a collaborative effort of 5 respected and independent economists.

Headlines In the News

Something Went Wrong in Jet Crash, Expert Says

uh...duh?

Headlines In the News

A series of actual headlines. Do editors proofread what they print?

Man Kills Self Before Shooting Wife and Daughter

First Year in Office

Well, Actually.....

A five part series on some of the arguments against the Fair Tax. Taken directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak, the Americans For Fair Taxation website. If you disagree, go there and either register your disagreement, or research to find out why Fair Tax says what it does. In other words, don't argue it here, and do your own research!

Today, I'm offering the arguments. Every Friday for the next five weeks, I'll give the argument again, and the answer as provided by Fair Tax.

The FairTax Five

The gloves are off as critics try to pick apart the FairTax. Trouble is, it's just a replay of the same five FairTax myths:

1. "The 23% rate is misleading. It's actually 30%"
2. "It's not enforceable and evasion will be rampant"
3. "It will not be revenue neutral at 23%"
4. "The FairTax is not politically viable"
5. "The FairTax is regressive and shifts the tax burden onto lower and middle income people"

What is the FairTax plan?

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 296) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

The FairTax:

• Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
• Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
• Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
• Allows American products to compete fairly
• Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
• Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
• Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
• Abolishes the IRS

Exciting Announcement!

From Americans for Fair Taxation:

Michael Reagan, the eldest son of former President Ronald Reagan, has just agreed to act as the Honorary Chairman of the FairTax National Victory Campaign!

I wanted to tell you first.

Mike believes, and we agree, that if the FairTax had existed during his father’s time, President Reagan would have been a strong proponent.

It’s not a hard conclusion to reach given that his father said this: “Our federal tax system is, in short, utterly impossible, utterly unjust and completely counterproductive, it reeks with injustice and is fundamentally un-American... it has earned a rebellion and it's time we rebelled...”

Mike has now agreed to help us get the second American tax revolt moving into high gear. That means a lot of Congressional communications, media work, radio, telephone recordings and television. It means a broader base of supporters behind the beloved legacy of Ronald Reagan, one of our greatest Presidents.

We have needed a strong public “face” and voice for the FairTax and it is hard to imagine a better champion for our needed cause.

I’ve written you before that this will become the “Year of the FairTax” and this is a big step forward toward that goal.