Based on the number of people Neal Boortz drew to a book signing in Austin - and Fair Tax t-shirts were much in evidence - if they get all of the major Fair Tax figures including Rep. Linder, Boortz and fellow talker Herman Cain promoting the events and making appearances, the turnout could be pretty impressive and hard for the media and the candidates to ignore.
Efforts on this level to mobilize a grassroots movement in support of a single issue are almost unprecedented, especially with the level of involvement of political figures and major talk radio personalities. There's clearly some money and a lot of thought behind the campaign to catapult the Fair Tax into the national spotlight. This might be exactly what supporters of the Fairness Doctrine are afraid of.
Back to my reminiscences of the signing...
After the presentation we all lined up by letter group like good little citizens, and the line moved surprisingly fast. Within 40 minutes I was face-to-face with Neal Boortz. We exchanged a few words whose import I may explore later, and I was off to rejoin my family with a signed book in hand. Neal is still flying around the country in his personal plane, signing books and promoting the Fair Tax movement and their plans for the primary season. I'm back home trying to figure out how I can justify a trip to Iowa in the Summer.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jim in Marietta
A quick note. Neal's plane is NOT a jet.
2 - Clavos
At last!!
I'm so glad to hear that Boortz, Linder and the Americans For Fair Taxation are doing something substantive to get this idea out to the public for examination and discussion.
It's not yet a perfect plan, but it's "bones" are better than anything else proposed. Perhaps, with good public exposure, a real dialogue can be started.
I lived in Atlanta in the 70s. I've been a fan of Neal's since the days of his guest appearances on another Atlanta talk show, before he had his own. He's a very smart man, and the Fair Tax is a very smart idea.
3 - jaz
"and the Fair Tax is a very smart idea."
for those who own or sell, yachts?
to be fair, i'll hold off until and unless i've read the book...
however, i'm always skeptical when the folks who get excited over something, are those who need something the least
it's like a little alarm bell, very reliable
4 - Clavos
I'm surprised at you, jaz, you don't usually go off half-cocked like that.
Read the book.
Or, at least look here.
And now I'm suspect because of what I do for a living?
Where's your fairness now??
Sheesh.
5 - jaz
Clavos, try reading exactly what i typed...again
which part of "to be fair, i'll hold off until and unless i've read the book..."
is unclear?
and no, your own case is your own case...the genrality i made is about those who "own" as well as "sell"...an economic definitive based on a pair of circumstances...both of which denote a greater than average income...do they not?
i have read much of the online source material on the topic, but not the particular book in question
hence my disclaimer, which you appear to have missed
so, that clear it up for you?
the point i made, was that when those who need something the least, yell for it the most...it's a perfect time to be careful, be skeptical, and read the fine print...look at both long and short term, and double check all the figures
the vast majority of the time, under such circumstances...someone has "palmed an ace"
take it for what it's worth, and not as any kind of personal slight, if such had been my intent, there woudl be no doubt about it
6 - Clavos
I saw the "to be fair" line, but you still put a snarky attitude in the whole comment, which is what I took personally.
the genrality i made is about those who "own" as well as "sell"...an economic definitive based on a pair of circumstances...both of which denote a greater than average income...do they not?
OK, as you know, since you apparently read my comments pretty consistently, I also "own" as well as "sell".
Yes, that denotes a "greater than average" income, but I fail to see how (despite all your protestations to the contrary) that translates to promoting something purely for self interest.
For the record, the Fair Tax focuses on taxing unecessary (as defined so far by the authors) purchases more than the food, shelter, and clothing purchases. It's a consumption tax, which is one reason why it will be more fair than our present system.
And as far as my own bias: A consumption tax like this one is likely to negatively impact an industry like mine severely, and yet here I am, promoting it.
7 - jaz
which is why i'll read it most carefully
do they propose to tax stock purchases as part of the "consumption"?
other minor issues...i remain skeptical since each of the previous proposals for something like this that is read always holds flaws that break the theorem after observation and dissection
most of them DO have some good things within them, then get royally fucked in the details, or the unintended consequences
the bit about the "alarm" may appear snarky...but it is how i think about the issue, and will continue to do so as long as observations match thoughtful consideration
now, show me some proposal where middle income folks get excited (middle after removing the top and bottom 5 to prevent skewing of numbers by the mega wealthy and the destitute) and i'll not be quite as snarky
but when things like this come out, and it's those who really need it the least who are screaming their glee the most...perhaps you can understand why i begin as a Skeptic
so i'll read what comes, and think about it myself, but as i stated, a first indicator will be if stock purchases count as "consumption" or not
the Tao of D'oh.
8 - Clavos
I just did a quick scan through my copy of the book. I can't find a specific reference to stock transactions, but the repeated mantra throughout the book is that it will be applied to "all goods and services."
It's a good question, and as I said upthread, the opportunity to get the idea out to the public so it can really be dissected and discussed is good. Your question is one reason why.
On a first reading, the Fair Tax looks good.
It should be discussed at a national level. If, after such discussion and debate, it's rejected, so be it.
9 - Clavos
now, show me some proposal where middle income folks get excited (middle after removing the top and bottom 5 to prevent skewing of numbers by the mega wealthy and the destitute) and i'll not be quite as snarky
Within that definition, I'm "middle income," as are most of the folks I know who are supporting the idea.
10 - jaz
really? 30-50K per annum?
fair enough, more reason for me to give the book a read
good to know you at least understand my possible objections, and why
11 - Dave Nalle
A quick note. Neal's plane is NOT a jet.
Sorry about creating confusion there, I was using "jetting around" as an adjective to imply he was moving quickly, while not thinking that it implied he was in a jet. Thankfully some kind editor fixed it for me.
Dave
12 - jaz
went to the website....and found this
"This nonpartisan legislation (HR 25/S 25) abolishes all federal personal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes and replaces them all with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax " collected by existing state sales tax authorities."
it appears that either SS and medicare are to be abolished, or a portion of this new revenue would be used to fund those programs from some kind of general fund, rather than specific sources
first blush impression ...will be reading more, but i have looked at all this before, just wasn't certain if it was the same proposal
so far it appears to be exactly what i had initially thought, and not something i can get behind due to the details
the ONLY part i seem to Agree with so far, is that a dialogue on this Issue, real discussion and debate, should take place
but there doesn't appear to be a good solution here
13 - Dave Nalle
To clarify a few more things about the Fair Tax, the 'prebate' system would result in the poor not only effectively paying no tax, but would end up providing a national subsidy to those under the poverty line and a smaller subsidy to those with incomes up to $20K a year.
As radically different tax plans go it is the only one to provide real assistance to the poor rather than just being neutral towards them, which is why a lot of Democrats are getting interested in it.
And yes, the tax does apply to purchases of stocks and other investments, but I believe that it does recognize current tax free or tax delayed investment options, so any tax consequences would be delayed in the usual way with a 401K or an IRA.
Dave
14 - jaz
the last bit about 401ks and the like is good to hear, and once i get to the list of what they will tax, precentages and the like...as well as what is supposed to be exempt...i can make a better analysis
the website is bookmarked for study
15 - Dave Nalle
Oh, good point. One thing Boortz mentioned in his presentation is that they've made some revisions to the Fair Tax plan in the last few months in response to critics. Use the website rather than the 2005 legislation or the book as your reference. It's what will be in the next incarnation of the legislation.
Oh, as for what's exempted, the answer is nothing. No exemptions, no deductions. 401K and IRA contributions are essentially just not considered part of income if I recall correctly.
Earlier you mentioned Social Security and Medicare. Those are included in the total tax rate.
Just for the record, I think the rate on the Fair Tax is too high. IMO passage needs to be accompanied by massive spending cuts which will lower government spending enough to bring the total rate down to 25%. I believe that currently with Medicare and SS included it's a whopping 29%, but I need to go look at the site for the latest info.
Dave
16 - Dave Nalle
Ok, I take it back. Don't bother with the website. A lot of what's on there refers to the 2005 legislation which has now been superceded. For up to date and detailed info, see instead this PDF of the 2007 legislation.
Dave
17 - Clavos
jaz,
really? 30-50K per annum?
According to the 2000 Census figures from the Census Bureau, the top household income level for the bottom 5% of households was $21,600 in 1998. For the top 5%, the same figure was $145,199.
This were roughly the parameters that I had in mind in #9.
18 - jaz
/sigh
and didn't i say after you remove the top and bottom 5% from the equation to avoid skewing figures cuz Bill Gates twists the formula in a disproportionate way than a homeless person with no income?
but, not important...my point stands, and i'm reading the website to learn more...
however, another alarm bell - when talking about their"projected figures" on the website we find ..."This study employs a dynamic supply-side economic model to estimate the impact of the FairTax on major economic indicators: "
now, all predictions/extrapolations are suspect, due to being based on "supply side" assumptions from "trickle down" advocates
19 - Clavos
Dave,
Just for the record, I think the rate on the Fair Tax is too high. IMO passage needs to be accompanied by massive spending cuts which will lower government spending enough to bring the total rate down to 25%.
I thought the proposed Fair Tax rate is 23%?
And that it's based on a figure of 22% for all the current so-called "hidden" taxes?
20 - jaz
the type of thing that concerns me...and i'm trying to find answers to...
example: a corp pays $60 for a barrel of crude for refining, add 23% makes the price $73.80, price at the pump, call (for the sake of the example) $3.00 per gallon due to paying more per barrel, now add the 23% at the pump bringing it to $3.69...that's a simplification, but you can see the concern
still digging into it
21 - Clavos
jaz,
Correct, you did.
I gave the top income of the top quintile, to boot.
My bad. (hangs head in embarrassment)
Still, the top income of the fourth quintile, a narrower (lower) top than you specified,is $83,693.
In fairness, the $21,600 figure is also a top income for the lowest quintile, not 5%; but my point was the upper end of the middle is higher than you mentioned, I just can't find figures for 5%.
Still, 80th percentile is over $80K.
22 - Clavos
jaz #20:
Did you back out the "hidden" taxes? According to the proponents, they add up to 22% of the retail price. Gasoline pump price especially, is heavily taxed now.
23 - Clavos
jaz #20:
Corp doesn't pay the 23%. Tax is only levied on retail sales.
24 - jaz
Clavos, you keep hitting "top", i spoke of the "average" mean (middle)
as for the "hidden" stuff, that's part of what i'm trying to work out here...what's being called "hidden", and what is being "projected"
again, i remain skeptical in the extreme of any study or set of figures based on "supply side" assumptions due to the hideously erroneus track record of such economic philosophy...supply AND demand are required to both be inherent factors or the equations do not balance properly, much less give accurate assessments
25 - jaz
"Corp doesn't pay the 23%. Tax is only levied on retail sales."
another palmed ace, why would you exempt corporate and wholesale purchases except to shift the burden from businesses paying their share and placing the burden on the retail consumer
without it being levied on ALL purchases for non-essentials at the citizen level, then it hardly seems "fair", does it?
more reading to do...