Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves…”     Lysander Spooner

May 11, 2007

Dare to be Fair

by Stephen Littau

Americans for Fair Taxation had an open contest to Fair Tax supporters called “Dare to be Fair” to create their own YouTube videos. This video did not make the cut for the top six videos (I suspect that the video is too long) but is very well produced and does a great job of making the case for the Fair Tax and answers the critics.

The second video was my favorite of the top six. It’s more humorous video (who thought the Fair Tax could be sexy?)

www.fairtax.org

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/05/11/dare-to-be-fair/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

12 Comments

  1. I have to agree with Tom Knapp about the Fair Tax. It’s hardly pro-liberty.

    http://knappster.blogspot.com/2006/08/fair-tax-is-welfare-scam.html

    http://knappster.blogspot.com/2006/09/fair-tax-redux.html

    (sorry to put two links in, but Tom puts it better than I could)
    It is a national tax. National. Tax.
    I have a problem with BOTH of those words.
    As Tom points out, it is designed to be revenue-neutral. That is not a plus.

    Oh, and this may be a minor point, but the second video is advertising the BOOK by Boortz and Linder, not exactly the Fair Tax itself.

    Update: this post was originally flagged as Spam. Sorry, Tom, for any inconvenience, including the time you spent writing the next post

    Comment by Tom Gellhaus — May 11, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
  2. First – that second video is NOT an ad for the Fair Tax, it looks more like an ad for the book about it by Boortz and Linder.

    Second – I totally agree with Thomas Knapp about the Fair Tax (he had 2 great articles months ago on it, I can post links if anyone wants). The Fair Tax is revenue neutral – that is NOT a good thing.

    The Fair Tax is a National Tax.

    National. Tax.
    Both of those words should tip people off that this is NOT a step towards greater liberty.

    Comment by Tom Gellhaus — May 11, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
  3. “The Fair Tax is a National Tax”

    Of course it is. What do you call the system we have now? I just happen to think it is a fairer way to collect taxes. I find the idea of keeping my entire paycheck (minus other deductions) very appealing. I don’t think anyone likes paying taxes but the reality is the government has to be funded somehow (right?).

    I also disagree that the fact that the Fair Tax is revenue neutral is a bad thing. Until other adjustments are made, it would have to be revenue neutral or it would not work. I understand your point though. I too would like to see more fiscal responsibility with spending but the authors of this bill felt overhauling the tax code was a big enough challenge in of itself. Spending will have to be dealt with seperately.

    Not a step toward greater liberty? Let me see, no more fear of being audited by the prying eyes of the IRS, no more basing business decisions or investments on whether or not its a “taxable event,” no more taxes on purchasing used items, no more taxes on investments, no taxes on business, and the ability to have some control over how much you actually pay in taxes–I fail to see how this is not a step toward greater liberty.

    For whatever flaws the Fair Tax has, its a much better system than the burdensome, social engineered tax code we have now which encourages class warfare.

    Comment by Stephen Littau — May 11, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
  4. sorry about the double post, I would not have put in the second one, but 3 hours after I put in the first, it still had not shown up, so I thought it was lost.
    Is there a time delay when HTML links are inserted ? I only needed one comment, you see they are both basically the same.

    Comment by Tom Gellhaus — May 12, 2007 @ 5:29 am
  5. Stephen, I must respectfully disagree with you; there would be some prying organization demanding to see your books. Since there are some transactions that are taxed, and other transactions which are not taxed, the government must monitor all potentially taxable transactions to ensure that the taxable ones are properly taxed.

    Couple that with the historical fact that every time a new form of taxation has been instituted, the ld forms are not retired. Rather the new form of taxations takes its place right next to the other ways of siphoning wealth off of productive people.

    I am convinced that should the “Fair Tax” be adopted, the legislation that was actually signed into law would have “both” an income tax and a sales tax, and we would be in the worst of worlds.

    The destruction wrought by taxes are more a function of the size of the taxes rather than the nature of them. Thus, I would focus my political energies on reducing government spending.

    Comment by tarran — May 12, 2007 @ 7:35 am
  6. The “double jeopardy” criticism of the fair tax has always struck me as weak and logically inconsistent. It’s predicated upon the idea that government will maximize it’s take from public, and yet given that data point we’re lead to believe the government can be convinced to reduce it’s government spending?

    The destruction wrought by taxes are more a function of the size of the taxes rather than the nature of them.

    More of a function? Perhaps, but the amount of the destruction being wrought by the payroll tax and taking it’s cut before the victim sees a dime is non-trivial. Reducing government spending is a noble goal, but why is that endeavor mutually exclusive with the fair tax?

    Comment by Bret — May 14, 2007 @ 1:25 am
  7. Bret,

    I don’t think the government can be convinced to reduce its take. The only time that seems to happen is when one government collapses and another takes its place. Occasionally in monarchies or despotisms the ruler might be convinced to reduce taxes. I have never heard of any representative government ever reducing its spending.

    To me the Fair tax is at best a waste of time or at worst a dangerous method of growing the size of government. I see few benefits to it; most people simply do not care how much they are paying in tax! It creates a new form of taxation to add to the income tax. I don’t think the income tax will ever go away. It may, at best be repealed for a decade or so, then will be brought back at the next fiscal crisis.

    In the end, it is a frivolous exercise. The damage done by taxation is based on the amount taxed. How the tax is collected is far less important. Thus, while the Fair Tax does not prevent reducing spending at all, nor does it promote it. Thus every ounce of political capital and energy spent on adopting it is, in my mind, wasted.

    Comment by tarran — May 14, 2007 @ 6:31 am
  8. “The damage done by taxation is based on the amount taxed. How the tax is collected is far less important.”

    I strongly disagree with that statement for the following reasons.
    We spend several hundered billion $$ per year in wasted compliance costs. Using a recent and conservative estimate of $265 billion/year, that is substantially more over a 10 year planning horizon than the last round of hotly contested Bush tax cuts. Are you saying that relieving that burden from American taxpayers is trivial?

    Also, we have a system which provides a competitive advantage in an increasingly global marketplace to foreign producers over and above our own domestic producers. Are you saying that you support, as a matter of public policy, the US providing an advantage to foreign producers?

    Social Security and Medicare are headed for a financial disaster if we do not address the demographic dilemma which we are in. Of course, this problem never would have existed if those two programs had been set up on an actuarially sound basis to begin with. However, there is nothing that can be done about that now. The FairTax is the only proposal which I am aware of which addresses just this actuarial and demographic dilemma by replacing the revenue base of payroll taxes with a broader based tax on the entire economy.

    Furthermore, the current system facilitates and enables our legislators by allowing them to divide and conquer, passing out preferential tax treatment to friends while punishing enemies. By hiding much of the true cost from those bearing that cost, it reduces the public outrage which would otherwise occur. We will never get to Constitutionally limited government under a continuation of the current system (which is probably why the Founders had the wisdom not to allow this type of system). We may not get there with the FairTax, but we certainly have a far better chance of it.

    The mehod of taxation is hugely important, both from an economic, as well as a Constitutional freedom standpoint.

    Comment by Philip Hinson — May 17, 2007 @ 11:13 am
  9. We each need to be more responsible: For our family, education, retirement, and MISTAKES. A good sailor never became one by sailing on calm seas. The government and silver spoon elite also need a reality check. Just as they want to take away funds from our troops, we too should throttle the funds to them. By controlling what we buy they would get immediate feedback as to our collective approval, or lack thereof. If they get less, we get more. Somehow that makes me smile :)

    Comment by willie — May 17, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
  10. Have you ever had an “Audit” done to you by the IRS? Or FAR worse had a “Cash Audit” done to you??
    It is one of the most intrusive, demeaning things that can EVER happen to you!
    What government agency has the power to levy taxes AND confiscate your money? ONLY the IRS!
    The elimination of the IRS ALONE is reason enough for me to support the Fair Tax.
    But hey,,, that’s just ME!!

    Comment by Bruce Hevner — May 18, 2007 @ 7:53 am
  11. The creation of the FairTax is predicated on the the elimination of all other Federal taxes. It seems this would be most readily and permanently enacted by amending the US Constitution. The very same amendment that authorizes the FairTax would eliminate all the other taxes.

    Whether or not the Federal Government will obey the Constitution is always a risk, but that is true regardless of the tax system, and is hence a canard when arguing for or against the FairTax (e.g. the “double taxation” concern in a previous post). Unless the 2nd Amendment is repealed, I sincerely doubt the government would try to reimplement an income tax in such blatant violation of the newly amended Constitution.

    Under FairTax, it will be obvious to everyone when taxes rates are raised (or more likely, lowered as the US economy goes into hyperdrive). “Stealth” tax increases such as the Alternative Minimum Tax that hit more and more productive Americans every year will no longer exist.

    Finally, regarding this:
    “The damage done by taxation is based on the amount taxed. How the tax is collected is far less important.”

    FairTax is proposed at a rate that is revenue neutral. Since the criminal class, supra-wealthy, and illegal aliens will be paying taxes, it is necessarily true that vast majority of WORKERS in this country will pay less tax, since they will no longer shoulder as much of the burden as they do today. So, for very many of us, the “amount taxed” will decline.

    If your concern is the total revenues of the goverment, FairTax makes it far more simple than the current system to control – just demand a change in the rate. EVERYONE can understand that.

    Comment by David — May 18, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
  12. [...] Littau presents The Liberty Papers»Blog Archive » Dare to be Fair posted at The Liberty [...]

    Pingback by The Carnival of Fair Tax Supporters II | Blog for Cox: The Official John Cox Campaign Blog — May 27, 2007 @ 4:27 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML