“FairTax” Is Anything But Fair

NJTODAY.NET's online business directory

Since the publication of “The FairTax Book” by a radio announcer (who is paid to recommend products on his radio show) there are people who believe all of its claims, perhaps because of its concocted name and its one-sided claims. This “FairTax” was rejected by President Bush’s economic advisors in 2005, but continues to pop up again like a monster in a horror movie.

The “FairTax Book” failed to present any dollar figures for its claims, because the facts would refute their claim of “fairness”. The book only deals with percentages, not money figures, and plays fast and loose with its “exclusive / inclusive” percentages. The book first calls it a 23% tax, but later admits it’s a 30% tax. The book admits that the embedded tax actually varies according to each product but wants this flat tax on everything. The authors never testified before a Congressional Committee about their plan, where they could be questioned about its origins and effects.

The National Sales Tax is like an internal tariff that is applied to almost everything. It does not apply to sales of stocks, bonds, financial instruments, and existing property ownership. This is a free pass to the super-rich who reportedly own over 75% of the wealth in this country. If it was only applied to imports that could balance the budget, create more jobs, and end exporting jobs overseas. Now that would be a Fair Tax! The book claims that the rich spend more and will pay higher taxes, which is an argument for a graduated income tax.

The so-called “FairTax” is a very regressive tax to oppress most people with higher taxes. A 30% tax on food, drink, electricity, oil and gas, property taxes, services, etc. would prove intolerable. Now only those with an income over $350,000 pay a 30% income tax. This “Fair Tax” would lower taxes on the super-rich and raise taxes on everyone else (because it would not tax the dividends, interest, royalties, etc. received by the super-rich). Who wants that?

Someone earning $43,000 (the median wage) would pay $9,923 on the $33,077 spent with a 30% sales tax. The income tax on $43,000 could be $4,633, less than half of the “Fair Tax” amount! Just do the arithmetic on your calculator to learn the truth for your situation. Some might say this doesn’t include that promised monthly “prebate” from a monthly tax return, but I predict that monthly check would shrink the first time Congress needed more money. The claim about not taxing “used goods” is meaningless. There is no market for used food and drink, used haircuts, used gasoline, etc. You would pay this 30% surtax on property taxes, as if they aren’t high enough already! Your medical bills and prescription drugs would also have this new tax.

Ronald A. Sobieraj
Perth Amboy

Connect with NJTODAY.NET

Join NJTODAY.NET's free Email List to receive occasional updates delivered right to your email address!
Email ads@njtoday.net for advertising information Send stuff to NJTODAY.NET Like Us On Facebook Follow Us On Twitter Download this week's issue of NJTODAY.NET

15 comments for ““FairTax” Is Anything But Fair

  1. RSobieraj
    June 21, 2012 at 1:48 pm

    The so-called ‘FairTax’ book quotes a 23% tax (which is really 30%) for an item. But that figure is only valid for the first year. It should rise to around 40% to 50% after the first year. That is one reason it was rejected by George W. Bush in 2005. The candidates who supported this massive tax increase were rejected by the voters.

    That lobbyist’s claim that it would only be “14%” is totally false.
    The ‘FairTax’ would swindle employees out of the 9% that is the so-called employer’s portion of Social Security and Medicare taxes (but is really part of their pay – see Form 1040SE).

    That alleged “$2505” prebate is less than the current standard exemption and deduction ($14,800 single). 30% of that is about $4,300.

    The unproven claims by lobbyist James Bennett are incredible. If every one pays less, who will have to pay more. In actuality, most people will pay far more to allow the super-rich to pay less.

    I recommend a standard deduction of $50,000 as the solution to oppressive taxes. And raise the minimum wage to $12 (higher is better). You should probably also nationalize the Federal Reserve to prevent its currency manipulation. The ‘FairTax’ book doesn’t even mention the Fed!!!

    • RSobieraj
      June 27, 2012 at 1:34 pm

      The Fair Tax Hoax

      The so-called ‘Fair Tax’ is just a clever fraud. It promises benefits that it can’t deliver. If there are no inclusive taxes then prices can not fall by “23%” as they falsely claim.

      1) It claims a National Sales Tax will result in more money for employees (no income tax), and, the prices of goods will drop. But the price of goods can only drop if their costs also drop. This is simple economics. For prices to drop 23% the costs will have to drop by a lot more (mark-up). This can not happen.
      2) The Federal Constitution was adopted to give the general government its own taxing powers so it would not depend on payments from the states. The ‘Fair Tax’ should be ruled unconstitutional because of this. Note how they tried to sneak this past their readers!
      3) The ‘Fair Tax’ was rejected by President Bush’s economic advisors in 2005 and will never be passed. The candidates who favored this tax were rejected in the presidential primaries.
      4) The US never had a National Sales Tax. One proposal for this was rejected in the 1930s. The Supreme Court could strike it down based on the Federalist Papers (articles 15 to 22).
      5) The ‘Fair Tax’ book distorts the historical record in arguing for its flawed proposal.

      6) The ‘Fair Tax’ is a swindle to raise taxes on 80% of the people to benefit the super-rich. This would create another Great Depression where most people are impoverished from high taxes. Lower wages and fewer jobs created today’s “Great Recession”.
      7) You can search the Internet for “Bruce Barlett Fair Tax” to find more criticisms. But Bartlett favors another high and regressive national sales tax (the Value Added Tax). The VAT does not place taxes on top of taxes like the ‘Fair Tax’ does. You may visit the FairTaxFraud.com site for more information.

  2. jbennettatty
    June 15, 2011 at 5:18 pm

    Sobieraj, in arguing against the FairTax, overlooks seveeral critical points. Sobierag’s median income earner of $43,000 has several things going for hime with the FairTax. Not only does nto income tax go away, so do the payroll tax and embedded tax costs that average 12.5% of every good you buy and every service you use. Sobieraj also disregards the Family Consumption Allowance feature, commonly known as the “prebate.”

    Let’s adjust Sobieraj’s figures. If the $43,000 earner today pays $4,633 income tax (Sobieraj) and $3,289.50 in payroll tax, he pays a total of $7,922.50 in taxes – leaving him $35,077.50 to spend.

    The $43,000 earner under the FairTax would bring home the entire $43,000. If goods cost 14% more because of the FairTax (remember that embedded tax costs of 12.5% come out pre-tax), our earner has in effect $37,719 to spend. Add his family consumption allowance of $2,505 (it gets even better if the household is bigger), our $43,000 earner has purchasing power of $40,224.

    Our earner under the FairTax has improved himself by $5,147. This static analysis doe not even consider the positive dynamic effect the FairTax would have on the economy.

    Mr. Sobieraj is free to defend today’s income and payroll taxes if he wants. Most would not. The FairTax is the only tax that is transparent, efficient, friendly to economic growth and, yes, even fairer than today’s income tax.

    But don’t just take my word – or Boortz’s – for it. Read the Tuerck Beacon Hill papers on the FairTax.Org website, or any of the other well-researched studies.

    • RSobieraj
      July 5, 2012 at 4:59 pm

      The worker earning $43,000 also received about $4,000 which isn’t included in the “100% of your pay”. That is the “Employer’s Portion” of Social Security and Medicare but which the worker pays (see Form 1040SE). That is around $8,000 for Social Security and Medicare. With $4,600 for Income Tax that is $12,600 out of $47,000 in earnings. How much of that FairTax’s $9,923 will be used for Social Security and Medicare? If the worker gets a $2,505 ‘prebate’ then the ‘FairTax’ will be only $7,418. That is less than the payments for Social Security and Medicare alone! Who is going to make up the shortfall from what a worker pays now?

      1) The misnamed ‘FairTax’ will swindle employees out of the 9% that goes for Social Security and Medicare (the meaning of their claim “100% of your pay”).
      2) The ‘FairTax’ is a scheme to defund and destroy Social Security and Medicare.
      3) The ‘FairTax’ swindle results in lower wages and higher taxes. That is why there are no budget or dollar figures in the “FairTax” book.
      4) The 30% National Sales Tax on municipal, county, and state spending will cause an increase in local property, sales, and income taxes. Note how they keep this hidden in their book!
      5) A National Sales Tax on states goes against the promises made in the Federalist Papers articles 15 to 22 where the Federal Government taxed imports and certain luxury goods produced domestically, not state and local property or businesses. That is why they needed the XVI Amendment for income taxes.

      The bottom line is that voters have rejected the “FairTax” swindle and the few politicians who support it. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time. I recommend tripling the Standard Deduction for true tax fairness and simplification ($30,000 single, $45,000 married filing jointly), but only Congress can decide what is a fair tax for Americans. They can also triple the limits for Social Security taxation to $75,000 and $99,000 (which hasn’t been raised since 1986).

  3. Hank Van Gieson
    June 10, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    It is total idiocy to try to compare the 130 page Fairtax legislation to the 70,000 pages or so of income tax rules, regulations, and Court findings. Apples and oranges. If you want to make a valid comparison, try comparing the 130 pages of HR25 to the 37 pages of the original income tax legislation passed in October, 1913.

    • Adakin Valorem
      June 12, 2011 at 8:25 am

      “Total idiocy”, Hank? The only reason why anyone is even discussing tax reform is because the original 1913 income tax legislation was simply a 3% tax that applied only folks earning a gazillion bucks a year (in current dollar value) and look at what that version’s 37 pages of legislation has metastasized into today.

      The 1913 bill has nothing to do with the monstrosity of a tax code that we have today.

      What’s important is that if congress is going to bother to reform our current, massively complex and draconian tax code, that we replace it with the simplest, best, most user friendly and least intrusive revenue collection method available. That’s what we are discussing here, Hank. Don’t get sidetracked with something done almost 100 years ago.

      With the current system, your income taxes are SEIZED.

      With the FairTax, your taxes are PAID! There IS a difference.

      With the current system, someone else has an implicit ownership claim against everything you ever earn, create or accrue.

      With the FairTax, you voluntarily choose to purchase goods and services with untaxed earnings, knowing in advance what the transaction tax will be. And with the ‘Prebate’ feature, you are reimbursed… actually “pre-imbursed”… for the sales taxes you may pay on your purchases up to the poverty level, thereby making it the FairTax a progressive tax system.

      The FairTax is fair because if Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Oprah Winfrey, you, or me buy that Coke, fries and a Big Mac, we will all pay the same amount of tax.

      No longer would someone in Washington need to know your personal business, your earnings, your marital status, whether you own or rent, or what you invest in or what you buy. Your privacy is yours again.

      No longer does a mortgage payment get preferential treatment over a rent payment. No longer is hard work and achievement punished as income increases.

      No longer would risk-taking and investment capital be penalized while failure is rewarded. Everyone pays the same sales tax and everyone gets the same prebate.

      Bottom line: the FairTax is fair because it takes the politics out of revenue generation. With the FairTax, Washington would no longer be able to use the tax code to reward their cronies and punish their enemies. The FairTax gives people the freedom to choose when and how much they want to pay for the government they desire. And that’s what really scares the daylights out of the people inside the Beltway!

  4. Adakin Valorem
    June 10, 2011 at 12:49 am

    First, I’d like to point out that no where in commentary is it mentioned that the FairTax (F.T.) REPLACES the existing tax code, completely abolishing all income taxes, death taxes, capital gains taxes, withholdings, employment taxes, business taxes, sole proprietorship, limited partners, corporate, etc, etc. All those taxes are gone. Suddenly all those companies would be free to make their business decisions solely based on the intrinsic value of the opportunity without consideration of any tax ramifications. That one feature alone would eliminate billions of dollars worth of unwarranted tax consulting and compliance costs that currently add to the cost of every product and service that we consume. The F.T. IS A REPLACEMENT of the existing tax code. The 23% figure is targeted to make the F.T. revenue neutral so as to provide exactly the same amount of tax revenue generated when that 23% baseline was calculated. The F.T. is NOT an additional layer of taxation. In addition, the F.T. does have four exemptions to its tax on the sale of all goods and services to the retail end-user. Those four exemptions are: a) Used Items, b) Investments, c) Tuition, and d) Business-To-Business transactions.

    I guess what’s needed at this point is to dissect each of Mr. Sobieraj’s claims since he’s being so “objective and truthful” in his commentary.

    1) The FairTax Book is by “a radio announcer (who is paid to recommend products on his radio show).” But then, the only radio announcers I know of that DON’T get paid to recommend products work for the same folks that fired Juan Williams. You know, those entirely objective folks over at National Public Radio that are funded by your tax bucks.

    2) “This “FairTax” was rejected by President Bush’s economic advisors in 2005”… No, actually the President’s ad-hoc tax commission examined their own version of a national sales tax, one that exempted numerous products and services so as to allow items like food, drugs and medical services to go untaxed. Eliminating these items required the sales tax on remaining goods and services to be in the range of 40% to 60%. The F.T.’s prebate feature provides a ‘blanket’ exemption for whatever item YOU choose to exempt, up to the poverty level. It’s fair in that whether you are Bill Gates, Oprah or you and me, everyone gets the prebate amount refunded. Its basically the equivalent to you getting your tax refund back every April 15th, with the difference being you don’t have to go begging and groveling to the government to prove that its owed to you.

    3) Once again, this author debates the 23% vs 30% discussion. Look at it this way… it’s the same amount of money regardless. Example: a glass that is 2/3 filled with water requires how much more water to fill it? A) 33.3% more, or B) 50% more? The answer is BOTH. Adding 33.3% of the capacity of the glass would fill it. But also adding 50% more water than what was in it to begin with, would also fill it. One is an external unit of measure while the other is an internal unit of measure. Currently our income taxes are measured ‘internally’… You are in the 25% tax bracket so for every $100, you get to keep $75. But if that was an external measurement, your $25 would be 33% of the $75 you got to keep. Either way, it’s the same amount of money. The only reason the F.T. people use the 23% is to remain consistent with unit of measure used for the tax that it replaces.

    4) “The National Sales Tax is like an internal tariff that is applied to almost everything.” Yup, that it is… and its exactly the type of tax that our founding fathers permitted before the 16th Amendment was passed. What’s nice about tariffs (be they internal or external) is that YOU get to choose to pay that tariff only when you buy something subject to the tax. Again I refer you to the exempted items which include: “the sales of stocks, bonds, financial instruments, and existing property ownership” as well as tuition, used goods and “B-to-B” sales. Sobieraj says that “This is a free pass to the super-rich who reportedly own over 75% of the wealth in this country” but that same “free pass” is available to everyone else as well. Besides, the folks that usually buy used stuff aren’t the “super-rich” anyway. It’s people like you and me that would be able to spend our untaxed earnings on non-taxable purchases such as education, homes and cars to get us to and from our jobs.

    5) “The so-called “FairTax” is a very regressive tax to oppress most people with higher taxes. A 30% tax on food, drink, electricity, oil and gas, property taxes, services, etc. would prove intolerable.” Again, there is no mention of the fact that the F.T. replaces existing taxes and nor does it ADD a 30% additional layer of taxation to our existing burden. Besides, there IS an embedded tax factor in everything we buy. For example: Think about what a new $300,000 home would cost if there were no embedded taxes factored into the cost of building it. Imagine if the builder, all of the sub-contractors, the developer, the architect, engineer, real estate broker, and appraiser no longer had to pay taxes on their profits or fees. Or if the material suppliers selling the lumber, the concrete, the plumbing, the roofing, the wiring, and the appliances didn’t have to pay taxes on the profits that they made in their “B-to-B” dealings with the homebuilder. Once all these embedded costs are removed, that $300,000 home would suddenly cost around $234,000. Now add back the 23% FairTax and we’re back to around $304,200. And you are paying for it with UNTAXED earnings!
    For someone in the 25% income tax bracket plus 7.65% FICA tax, would first have to earn almost $90,000 in order to be able to pay that 20% down payment ($60,000) in after tax earnings. Remember that 90k less 33% is $60k. Likewise for the monthly payment. A 5% 30 year fixed rate home loan for the $240k financed would cost around $1290/month. Again if you are in the (25%+7.65%) tax bracket you first have to earn over $1900 in order to make that $1290 payment after taxes are withheld. Yeah, you would have a mortgage interest deduction, but that is only applicable to the interest and only is applicable to 25% of it. So you still have to earn almost $1450 in order to make that $1290 payment.

    6) “Someone earning $43,000 (the median wage) would pay $9,923 sales tax.” I guess Mr. Sobieraj didn’t want to point out that $9,923 IS 23% of his $43,000. But that is only if the taxpayer voluntarily choses to spend all of her earnings on taxable items. If that same person bought a used car for $10k and paid $3k for some courses at the local community college so as to increase his or her job skills, they suddenly would have paid only $6,900 which is 23% of $30,000 worth of spending. Of course the author says, “The claim about not taxing “used goods” is meaningless.” Tell that to the guy or gal that was able to keep $3000 in her pocket instead of having to pay it out in taxes on that used car and tuition. In addition, the prebate would be refunding at least a portion of that amount $6,900.
    7) “Your medical bills and prescription drugs would also have this new tax”…
    Notice he doesn’t say “replacement tax” but says “new tax” implying that the F.T. is an added tax. Also consider your Doctor’s current tax bracket. Don’t you think you could get a better deal if 40% of his earnings didn’t disappear before he ever got to spend it on his family, or his home or himself? I would expect my doctor to reduce his fee and then let me add the replacement sales tax to the bill.

    The FairTax is fair because if Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Oprah Winfrey, you, or me buy that bottle of Pepsi and a Big Mac, we will all pay the same amount of tax. No longer would someone in Washington need to know your personal business, your earnings, your marital status, whether you own or rent, or what you invest in or what you buy. Your privacy is yours again. No longer does a mortgage payment get preferential treatment over a rent payment. No longer is hard work and achievement punished as income increases. No longer would risk-taking and investment capital be penalized while failure is rewarded. Everyone pays the same sales tax and everyone gets the same prebate.
    And that’s what really scares those inside the Beltway!

  5. Hank Van Gieson
    June 9, 2011 at 10:57 am


    Stop and think about what you are saying. On the one hand, you believe that everyone should be affected equally by the Fairtax, yet you seem to understand that the prebate will create a group of workers that would pay no net federal tax. You don’t accept my 45 million worker estimate, so come up with your own estimate. How many workers are there that earn less than the AFFT adjusted poverty level? It sounds noble to talk about helping the poor, but I believe that everyone, rich and poor alike, should help defray the cost of the federal government. What the Fairtax scheme does is not only create a huge group of “free loaders”, but guarantees them full retirement benefits when eligible, no matter if they contributed one dime or not. Nanny state in the extreme, and it’s a very bad idea!

    How about just supporting a revenue neutral 10% federal consumption tax which replaces just the income tax, does not tax governments, uses a targeted prebate, no inventory tax credits, and phases in over five years or so? I call it Fairtax-Lite, and it would eliminate a whole lot of criticisms floating around about HR25. And while we are discussing it, I would prefer a VAT to a sales tax. Both raise the exact same amount of revenue at the same rate, but the VAT has far less evasion potential due to the self policing nature of the collection method.

    Stay tuned!

  6. xav8r
    June 8, 2011 at 10:45 pm


    For the Fairtax to work there can not be protected classes of citizens or entities. The only exception is education. The Fairtax must apply equally to all consumers. As soon as you protect a group of people or an entity like state government you open the door for lobbyists to exploit it in the names of others and the courts would have a hard time justifying not exempting others based on the “fairness” angle. I know you feel it is unfair to tax retirees savings. I get that. When I discovered this fact I was troubled but I decided to take the broader view that is was good for my kids future and for the country generally. And I hope the benefits the Fairtax would bring will somewhat offset this downside. SS and Medicare are on the ropes. We all will eventually have to pay the piper or lose the system entirely. Better to do it soon with a well thought out plan than wait for the morons in Washington to come up with their own idiotic solution that they give about a weeks worth of thought to.

    As far as your statement to the 45 million that will not pay into the system you know that is a huge exaggeration. There will always be a group of people not paying into the system. When I graduated from aviation school I was in that class of people for several years and I bet most people reading this would have been there too. It is a revolving door. There is always a permanent base of mentally and physically disabled and those of circumstance that are there but they are no where near 45 million and is roughly 8% of the population and we need to help them and the Fairtax helps them much better than the current system.

    If we don’t start thinking beyond ourselves we will soon be in real trouble. The Fairtax only address revenue. Spending is another topic.

  7. Hank Van Gieson
    June 8, 2011 at 4:02 pm


    Sorry, but the math isn’t the same. By treating the prebate as a tax refund in advance, which it isn’t, you are under estimating your sales tax burden by around 5% (.23 x .23 = 5.3%). You may buy into the Fairtax myth that the prebate is just a tax refund, but I would be equally correct to think of it as an alimony offset, or whatever. The prebate is a $600 billion annual cash grant entitlement that can be spent and taxed on anything, or saved as circumstances permit.

    I also don’t think this is the time to roll over and just accept all the unacceptable and unfair features in HR25. This is the time to discuss alternatives and try to improve on the legislation. In 12 years, there hasn’t been one single Congressional hearing under oath, where all of the criticisms could have been dealt with.

    You seem to be a reasonable person, and I’m amazed that you believe we would be able to control how much sales tax we pay and when we pay it. Look, there are no “used” services which make up almost half of the family budget. There are no used groceries, no used restaurant meals, no used home heating oil or used gas for your car, nothing used at Wal-Mart, etc. etc. If you plan on living, you will pay all those taxes, and not by choice! I reviewed last years budget and couldn’t find one singe “used” purchase. How about you???

    You say you have studied the Fairtax for 3 years or so and can’t find anything wrong with the plan. Here are a few things to consider as we move forward.

    (1) Forcing retirees to resume paying for their SS benefits with their sales tax dollars is most unfair. Major breach of faith by our government. Of the 23% sales tax, 8% goes to pay for future SS benefits. Why not just have retirees pay a 15% sales tax and forgive the other 8%? Wouldn’t that be more fair?

    (2) Do you understand that the Fairtax scheme to have the federal government tax all State/Local government consumption would certainly be found to be unconstitutional? There is no precedent for such an attack on the States,and under the long held doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity, that part of the plan would be tossed by the Supreme Court.

    (3) The “prebate” would create a group of 45 million workers that would pay no net federal tax, yet they would all qualify for full retirement benefits. Is that the kind of “nanny state” you support? At least under current tax law, less than 1 million workers pay no income tax and can qualify for refundable tax credits in an amount that totally offsets their FICA contributions.

    Best regards,


  8. Hank Van Gieson
    June 7, 2011 at 10:53 am


    It’s not that simple, my friend. When comparing tax burdens, you should treat the prebate as additional income, not as a tax rebate. Unlike a tax rebate, the prebate is a monthly entitlement check that increases your spendable income and is taxed when spent.

    For example, a retired couple living on $26,000 from two SS checks plus $20,000 from other income, they pay zero federal tax under current law. Under the Fairtax, their total income increases to $51,000 due to the prebate, and if they spend it all on taxable goods and services, their sales tax burden would be $11,730, offset by the $5,000 prebate, for a net federal tax burden of $6730. Zero today versus $6730 under the Fairtax?? Which do you think retirees with average incomes will prefer?

    • xav8r
      June 7, 2011 at 10:55 pm

      You can calculate it either way. Whatever way suits you. The math works out the same.

      As to your 2nd point on retirees (which I will be soon) it is a practical truth in the way the FairTax works is that it is truly a progressive tax in that lower incomes pay less tax and higher incomes pay more and the individual is completely in control of how much or little tax they pay. It is as simple as that. It does not distinguish a retirees money as being any different from any other household. So for current retirees they will have to take a philosophical view as I have that the FairTax will greatly improve the standing of our country in so many ways so we can leave it better for our children and to do this will cost real money for current retirees. For future generations of retirees the money they save will be saved tax free and so tax will be paid when it is spent at retail after retirement. There are tangible benefits for retirees but you are correct it will cost them (us).

      You can read more about the tangible benefits for retirees here.

      The bottom line is do you believe that the FairTax can create a climate of prosperity for our country? To me this is the more important question and in the 3 years I have looked at this plan I have seen nothing that would make me think it would be anything but good.

  9. xav8r
    June 6, 2011 at 6:58 pm

    Yes, you did leave out KEY details but I will assume it is from ignorance and not maliciousness.

    It is easy to check how much your Fairtax bill would be and compare it to what you are paying now. After all everyone who reads about the FairTax wants to know how it will affect them.

    I’ll list a simple example and you can figure out how to apply it to your life.

    First pull your last years 1040 tax return and your W-2 and/or 1099’s and add the total Federal income tax paid (not withheld but what you actually paid from your 1040) to the total amount you paid in Social Security and Medicaid taxes from your W-2/1099. This is your total tax bill to the Federal government under the current system. I bet some people will be shocked!

    Now you can calculate your Fairtax bill.

    Go to this website to get your prebate amount.

    As an example for a family of 4 the first $29,140 spent at retail will be TAX FREE through the prebate. Take your total income from your W-2/1099 and subtract $29,140. The remainder is taxable. Multiply the remainder by 23% and this is your potential tax bill. Only if you spend every cent at retail.

    I will be willing to bet that most will find that their Fairtax bill using this WORST CASE scenario of spending ALL of your income at retail is slightly less than what you pay now.

    Don’t be a lemming, check for yourself. The Fairtax is really as simple as what I just described.

  10. Mark Curran
    June 6, 2011 at 11:54 am

    Fairtax is not even rational. As a former Fairtax “cult member” let me assure you Fairtax is far, far more defective than simply not fair.

    For one thing, in the footnotes, and fine print, they have massive tax on city, counties,and states, on their salaries beneifts and pensions. Yes– PENSIONS.

    Fairtax has a 300 billion dollar tax, on city, state, and county spending, including a PENSION tax. What is even more goofy, this part of this crazy tax, must be paid (get this) IN ADVANCE.

    Sound crazy? Sure, and it is. But this is just ONE of the crazy aspects that they hide in the footnotes and fine print.

    HR25, section 2s, subsections 7, 12, and 17, cleverly (deceptively) define the government 1) as a person, then 2) as a taxable person, and taxable employer that must pay taxes on all wages, salaries, benefits, insurance and pensions.

    Fairtax document “Comparing the Fairtax Base” page 10, footnote 19, says “[we] Fairtax adopots a pre-payment approach to taxing government investments>” Then they define government wages as “an investment”.

    What’s more — their own official spokesmen have admitted this entirely — in fact, they act surprised anyone didn’t know this already. “Why not tax the government” said David Kendall, a major Fairtax supporter. “I see nothing wrong with asking city and states to pay”

    Trouble is, they aren’t asking, they are hiding this in the footnotes and fine print. They will admit this is a 600 billion dollar pillar, upon which their Fairtax math is based. Actually, the goofy part about it, it would be more like 800 billion.

    THis is wacko — and hidden. They don’t mention this in their speeches, they don’t mention it in their videos, and it’s only refered to in a very subtle way in one or two sentences in their books.

    New York City, for example, would have to pay 1.1 billion dollars IN ADVANCE. And another 1.5 billion or son, on top of that.

    All cities would have to pay likewise. All counties. All states.

    Yet Fairtax has never told ANY city or state about it. NEVER.

    Keep in mind, Fairtax spokesmen have admitted this, and not only admit it, they act like “So — it’s in our legislation, just read it”.

    This is not the only goofy thing. When you start to examine Fairtax “research” you see there literally is NONE. The “extensive research” they claim in the Fairtax BOok — and in almost every speech since — was done by Dale Jorgenson, of Harvard.

    Dale Jorgenson HIMSELF has repudiated Fairtax and that whole bunch of nonsense REPEATEDLY, and immediately, when the Fairtax Book came out. Yet Fairtax speakers, supporters, and bloggers, maintain to this day that Dale Jorgenson supports their plan. Nothing, and I mean nothing, could be further from the truth.

    Fairtax hired a group from Beacon Hill — a public relations firm — to put their BS in a form that fools stupid people, frankly. But even Beacon Hill admits the plan is for the GOVERNMENT to pay massive taxes, for every city government to pay, for every county government to pay, for every state government to pay. Furthermore, they have to pay (according to footnote 19) in ADVANCE.

    WHere are city counties and states supposed to get this money? Fairtax lunatics say, with a straight face — “well, have them do their OWN fairtax”. It’s like talking to the Three Stooges. So the federal government would put a 23% tax on all personal AND governmental spending, then every city is supposed to do that too. Every state – is supposed to put a tax on every city?? Every state is supposed to put a tax on every county?

    That’s right – this would be idiotic and profoundly goofy casscading and impossible taxes.

    Why would Fairtax advocate such drivel? They arent! Fairtax leaders are actually scared to death their their gullible and,lets say, stupid, supporters are going to get hearings under oath.

    The last thing these con artists want are hearings under oath.

    Fairtax leaders are very well aware their own plan is nonsense, policital balderdash, that it has NO research, that its footnotes and fine print are goofy.


    • Adakin Valorem
      June 10, 2011 at 8:55 am

      FAIRTAX Research Papers:

      FairTax.org has conducted extensive policy research and commissioned a variety of issue papers on the economic impact of the FairTax on various sectors of industry and individual taxpayers. This work has been conducted in a nonpartisan manner, and the results are made freely available here. We are also providing transcripts of testimony about the FairTax delivered to the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Committee on Small Business.

      Beacon Hill Insitute in Boston has recently completed comprehensive research on the major facets of the FairTax: estimation of the tax base and rate for the FairTax compared to other tax reform proposals, its impact on the economy, on the states, on the distribution of the tax burden and on charitable giving. Click here to learn more.

      Laurence J. Kotlikoff, Professor of Economics at Boston University, fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and former senior economist, President’s Council of Economic Advisers, has published extensively in the field of public finance and tax reform including papers on the FairTax, which are targeted to lay as well as professional audiences. Click on the link below to read specific research on this proposal.


      By the way… Regarding “hidden” details? The current tax code encompasses almost 70,000 pages. The FairTax Bill (HR-25/S-13)is 130 pages. And the font size is all the same through out the entire bill.

      All the “hidden” “fine print” that Mr. Curran mentions is the same size as all the other text. Here, see for yourself: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR00025:

Leave a Reply