|
Request for Comments #3 (Benefits and problems with various tax reform proposals)
from Individual Group
Back to List
| Posted: May 17, 2005 |
By: Kenneth E. Howe |
Subject: HR 25
File: 1924PrairieParkwaySW.doc
|
| Posted: May 18, 2005 |
By: Ben Doolin |
Subject: The FairTax Please
Comment: Dear Sirs,
Having followed these proceedings closely I've heard no one say that a consumption tax is the wrong way to go, in fact the opposite is true.
For a consumption tax, the two options mentioned most are VAT and Sales Tax. The primary difference is the complexity, cost and hidden nature that are included with the VAT.
This leaves us with a National Sales Tax. Opponents of a National Sales Tax complaim primarily about the taxation of the poor and sticker shock for consumers.
The Fair Tax has a prebate that 'untaxes' the poor up to the poverty level.
The Fair Tax replaces the payrol tax which will reduce the cost of American made goods by about the same amount as the sales tax will add AND workers will have no federal withholding or payroll tax deductions leaving them net ahead by about 25%.
The FairTax removes lobbiest power over tax laws.
The FairTax is simple, it's clear, it's pro-growth, it's pro-investment, it's pro-jobs, it's fair.
The FairTax has very many other benefits too and very few problems (like the suggestion that people will cheat) but even the problems noted by critics are vast improvements over the current system (the IRS claims current 'cheat' rates at 30% and under the FairTax, 90% of taxes will be collected and paid by audited pubilc corporations).
So, there really is only one right answer, The FairTax - Please.
Thank you,
Ben Doolin
|
| Posted: May 18, 2005 |
By: Brooke Logan |
Subject: Benefits of the FairTax
Comment: Please carefully consider the FairTax for the reasons below:
Eight years of study by the country’s leading economists has shown that the FairTax:
Raises the same amount of money for the federal government as the current system.
Frees up $250 billion each year in compliance costs for individuals and business owners to invest, spend,and save.
Reduces production costs of U.S. products by an estimated 22 percent.
Makes U.S. goods more competitive at home and overseas.
Brings jobs home. Our current income tax exports our jobs, rather than our products, but the FairTax allows U.S. exports to sell overseas for prices 22 percent lower, on average, than they do now with similar profit margins. Lower prices sharply increase demand for U.S. exports, thereby increasing job creation in our country’s manufacturing sectors.
Allows you to keep 100 percent of your paycheck, pension, and Social Security check – allowing families to save more for home ownership, education, and retirement.
Benefits churches and schools by reducing payroll taxes and taking advantage of lower-cost goods and services.
Collects taxes on the over $1 trillion dollars in illegal economic activities of non-filing criminals, drug dealers, and others.
Thank you!
|
| Posted: May 18, 2005 |
By: Steve Mathesius |
Subject: The FairTax solution
Comment: Dear Chairman and Panel members,
The benefits of a national sales tax, and explicitely the Fair Tax, make an overwhelming argument. There are many benefits to the Fair Tax proposal but here are a few that standout as important to me:
Eliminating payroll taxes will provide transparency to the tax system and be easily understood.
It will eliminate the burden of tax filing entirely which today costs a lot of time, money, and stress.
The Fair Tax will be progressive in the sense that the "prebate" given to individuals makes up for the sales tax that low-income families will pay at the cash register.
The Fair Tax will encourage savings which will help families and the economy in the long-term.
Finally, the Fair Tax will help U.S. manufacturers and service providers be on a level playing field with imports. It will accomplish this by eliminating U.S. corporate and payroll taxes that U.S. producers must build in to the cost of goods/services. It will then apply tax collection at the retail sales level to domestic and imported goods equally.
There are also specific reasons why the Fair Tax is the best solution. I see that there are three main types of solutions being proposed: Consumption Taxes, Flat Taxes, and reform of the current progressive income tax.
Other consumption or sales tax proposals do not go far enough in the sense that they have not been as well researched and do not include the repeal of the 16th amendment as a staple. I believe other sales tax proposals have compelling arguments, but none as compelling as the Fair Tax proposal (HR 25/S 25).
Flat tax proposals do not eliminate the burden of the IRS. Flat taxes tend to shift more of the tax burden to the poor. Flat taxes will not encourage savings nor help U.S. companies have a fair chance in the marketplace.
Reforming the current code with mild steps like changing the top tax rate will do very little to improve things. Such mild changes may be easier to do politically but do not accomplish any real change in the system. Keeping the current progressive code largely intact will simply lead to more years of tinkering and frustration.
This is the time to act boldly to reform the tax system by replacing it with the Fair Tax.
I know the Fair Tax has been well received by my family and friends here in Wisconsin, after I have explained it clearly. Replacing the system IS possible!
Sincerely,
Steve Mathesius
Milton, WI
|
| Posted: May 18, 2005 |
By: Keith Jarett |
Subject: Head of Household filing status for Child Support payers
Comment: Head of Household filing status for Child Support payers
Summary:
I recommend that any taxpayer who pays child support and is fully current on payments be allowed to elect Head of Household filing status.
Discussion:
None of the income tax proposals, with the partial exception of Martin Feldstein's proposal (at /meetings/docs/7) to tax husbands and wives separately, addresses the frequent unfairness of today's filing status categories.
Filing status is used as a proxy for ability to pay. For example, married couples are presumed to have higher expenses, so they pay less than a single taxpayer with the same income.
The problem is that filing status is a highly inaccurate measure of ability to pay. Single taxpayers often have other people to support. Divorced fathers are often counted as single even if they are paying child support amounts that can equal or exceed the expenses a married couple would have. Conversely, a non-working spouse is considered an expense even if he or she actually generates a net savings for the couple by eliminating expenditures on child care or household maintenance.
I recommend that any taxpayer who pays child support and is fully current on payments be allowed to elect Head of Household filing status.
For the record, I would not be affected by this change. It just seems like a reasonable step toward fairness, and it encourages people who owe child support to due the right thing. At the same time, it does not open the whole can of worms about marriage penalties vs. marriage bonuses.
If you decide to recommend eliminating joint returns, based perhaps on Martin Feldstein's observation that most other countries tax people as individuals rather than as family units, please consider providing HoH filing status or a similar incentive for taxpayers who pay child support and are current.
Keith Jarett, individual
Systems Engineer
Lafayette, CA 94549
Fax: (925) 256-1024
email: kjarett 'at' hotmail.com
|
| Posted: May 19, 2005 |
By: Paul Moore |
Subject: Consumption base taxation
Comment: Taxation should have the singular goal of providing revenue to a government. Our current system is more focused on social engineering and special interest groups than on revenue collection. Over the life-span of income based taxation we have seen that the trend is always towards complexity based on principles and assumptions which are not always in the beset interest of the tax system or the country as a whole. With previous tax reforms the increase complexities have been removed, only to see different complexities replace them. Knowing that history tends to repeat itself, staying with an income based tax system makes little sense, because we will be entering this same debate and spending money on the same problems in roughly 20 years.
Consumption base taxation resolves many of the problems we have in the current tax code, while drastically decreasing the compliance costs for both corporations and individuals. It also seems that a straight consumption based tax would eliminate or at least greatly decrease the decent into complexity experienced from income-based taxation systems. While it is unwise to dismiss the turmoil which will be created by such a radical alteration to our tax system, our responsibility to leave a better world for our children requires us to bite the bullet and do the right thing.
Thank you for taking the time to read my comments. Words do not accurately express the hopes I have riding on this report and the resulting changes to make America a better and stronger place in the future. I have two small children, and dream that 15 years from now I can explain what “Tax Day” was and see the blank stare of disbelief in their eyes.
Good luck, part of our future is in your hands.
|
| Posted: May 19, 2005 |
By: Jim Caldwell |
Subject: It's Time for the Fair Tax
File: TaxAdvisoryPanelLtr.pdf
|
| Posted: May 20, 2005 |
By: Joseph G. Clemis |
Subject: Abolition of the 16th Amendment
File: NewTaxt.doc
|
| Posted: May 20, 2005 |
By: Henry Ross |
Subject: taxes on people over 70 yrs.
Comment: feds taxing SS. by 50% over $34,000 & 85%
over $44,000 Is a shamful act after we paid for it, in our working life. the lawmakers Wrote laws they don't need SS.There pension must be part of SSA.
|
| Posted: May 20, 2005 |
By: Bryan Gottfried |
Subject: APT Tax Sounds Promising
Comment: Of all the tax reform proposals I have read about, the "APT" tax appears to be the simplest, fairest, and easiest to implement. All of the other proposals seem to have at least one feature that may prove to be an unintended and negative consequence of redormgin the tax code. Please give serious consideration to implementing the "APT" tax system. Thank you.
|
| Posted: May 20, 2005 |
By: Chris Peterson |
Subject: Fair Tax
Comment: I am writing to give full support to the Fair Tax. This is the ONLY plan that is being considered that accomplishes all of the Presidents goals for this panel. Thanks.
Chris
|
| Posted: May 20, 2005 |
By: Eric Winchell |
Subject: Replacing the system
Comment: I fully support replacing the entire system with a FairTax-type plan. The economic benefits are backed by nearly all independent economists who have studied the plan (fairtax.org). Saving and investment would rise, there would be 80% fewer forms to be processed, and major resources in the tax industry would be freed to pursue other business. I would rather pay taxes in REAL time, as I spend it, rather than with the current delayed system. I would rather not have to THINK about exactly what tax I owe for days out of every year. I would rather there be ONE tax for individuals (and businesses) as opposed to a consumption tax plus others such as a payroll and capital gains taxes. We only need one. Then give rebates to everyone up to the poverty level. No Tax Reform Panelist made a case against the execution of collecting this tax. They just tried to raise an surface worry, when it's very simple -- 80% FEWER forms makes it more manageable. If the real "cheat" ratio stays the same, the actual tax revenue would go UP simply because collection agents are far fewer in number than 180 million forms from individual citizens and therefore easier to manage by the IRS. What is the hangup?
|
| Posted: May 20, 2005 |
By: Eric Winchell |
Subject: Replacing the system
Comment: I fully support replacing the entire system with a FairTax-type plan. The economic benefits are backed by nearly all independent economists who have studied the plan (fairtax.org). Saving and investment would rise, there would be 80% fewer forms to be processed, and major resources in the tax industry would be freed to pursue other business. I would rather pay taxes in REAL time, as I spend it, rather than with the current delayed system. I would rather not have to THINK about exactly what tax I owe for days out of every year. I would rather there be ONE tax for individuals (and businesses) as opposed to a consumption tax plus others such as a payroll and capital gains taxes. We only need one. Then give rebates to everyone up to the poverty level. No Tax Reform Panelist made a case against the execution of collecting this tax. They just tried to raise an surface worry, when it's very simple -- 80% FEWER forms makes it more manageable. If the real "cheat" ratio stays the same, the actual tax revenue would go UP simply because collection agents are far fewer in number than 180 million forms from individual citizens and therefore easier to manage by the IRS. What is the hangup?
|
| Posted: May 20, 2005 |
By: William H. Bennett |
Subject: Fair Tax
Comment: PLEASE support the Fair Tax! The current tax system is broken and cannot ( should not ) be fixed. We do not need an income tax at all. We need to tax purchases. Purchases make this country work. If I could keep my entire paycheck ( which would almost double my take home ) the first thing I would do is start buying all the stuff I couldn't afford up till now. Now if everyone in the country did that...how many jobs would it create....how many more purchases would there be from those new jobs? Abolish the IRS. It's not helping...it's hurting.
|
| Posted: May 20, 2005 |
By: Don Ressler, CPA |
Subject: FairTax
Comment: I support the Fair Tax (national sales tax). I believe it is an equitable method of taxing our nation. By giving a "prebate" it does a great job of removing taxes from low income people.
The Fair Tax also does away with our bloated tax code. The current tax code causes businesses to make decisions for their businesses that do not make good business sense just to save taxes. The Fair Tax will allow businesses to concentrate on running their business instead of on avoiding taxes.
Thank you,
Don Ressler, CPA
Controller, Southwood Lumber & Pallet, Inc., Orrille, OH
|
| Posted: May 20, 2005 |
By: Ann McDaniel |
Subject: Tax Reform (Fair Tax)
Comment: I strongly support Tax Reform and I am a supporter of the Fair Tax. The IRS has become way to complicated and more people spend time and money to avoid taxes. Under a consumption tax everyone pays and tax avoidance is less of an issue. Fairer to all cicizens.
|
| Posted: May 20, 2005 |
By: Aimee Cooper |
Subject: I support the Fair Tax plan!
Comment: I have supported the President. I have supported the war efforts. I have supported MY country. Now I would like to ask for something in return. Please put this tax plan into effect. Tax all the new purchases that I make, but leave the decision whether to make those purchases up to me. It's time for a change. We are in an information age!! You are being supplied with information that could reshape our economy for the generations to come. Take advantage of it.
|
| Posted: May 20, 2005 |
By: John Cooper |
Subject: Fair Tax Reform
Comment: This makes too much sense. How can you read the proposed fair tax plan and oppose it. Unless you like the idea of living in a commune.
America needs this plan!!
|
| Posted: May 20, 2005 |
By: Michael Atkins |
Subject: The Fairtax is, well, fair!
Comment: Ladies and Gentlemen of the committee,
I am writing to urge you to consider and recommend the consumption-based Fairtax for immediate passage by the Congress.
The benefits of taxing consumption instead of production include moral and economic superiority. Funding the government with money generated by the labor of its citizens is, whether this is acknowledged or not, a form of slavery. Government should be funded to the level that citizens choose to participate. Government exists for the people, not the people for the government.
It would remove the regressive burden of the payroll tax from poorer Americans. It would be inherently progressive based on the spending of individuals (more tax on a Lexus than a Hyundai). It would bring the so-called "underground economy" out of the underground. Drug dealers, prostitutes, thieves...would all pay taxes when they consumed just like the rest of us.
In closing, please do not make the mistake of believing that people are ambivalent on this issue. Anyone I've been able to discuss the Fairtax with have all come out of the discussion as a supporter. We are not apathetic when it comes to the way governemnt gets its money.
|
| Posted: May 20, 2005 |
By: James Serrano |
Subject: reforming the tax code
Comment: I'm not going to beat a dead horse, you have heard numerous reasons to get rid of the income tax code, how about a fair tax or consumption tax based or needs. You only pay for what you use, no more tax forms, no favoritism on tax deductions etc and everyone pays there fair share, not to mention a pay raise in everyone check who works by not paying social security or income tax.
|
| Posted: May 20, 2005 |
By: Kenneth W. Hines |
Subject: Tax Reform
Comment: I would like to express my support of the FairTax (HR25/S25). I am in favor of transparency, less complexity, fairness, anonymity and freedom to choose in our tax code. I think this bill has been well researched and addresses these issues. As far as home mortgage interest deductions are concerned, why not make the whole mortgage tax free, not just the interest. With federal taxes not deducted from our paychecks and mortgage payments tax free, the American Dream will be more easily attained by a great many more Americans.
|
| Posted: May 20, 2005 |
By: Jerome Vinecourt |
Subject: Tax Reform
Comment: I would encourage you not to be afraid of major reform in the tax system. I personal like the “fair tax” national sales tax. Just tinkering with the current tax system will be a waste of time. A few years from now all the tinkering you do will be undone. But if you do a major overhaul like the “fair tax” it will be very hard to undo. I won’t go into all the benefits of a national sales tax now; I just want you to know that change is very necessary.
Thank you
Jerome Vinecourt
PO Box 467
Burton, OH 44021
440-834-4723
|
| Posted: May 20, 2005 |
By: Michael Musselman |
Subject: Fairtax
Comment: I support the Fairtax proposal. It is the only proposal that fair to all taxpayers and promotes economic growth.
|
| Posted: May 20, 2005 |
By: Tim Stewart |
Subject: Support FairTax
Comment: I support a National Retail Sales Tax (FairTax) which would replace the income tax and abolish the IRS. This would be a giant step forward in increasing privacy, cutting the size of government and broadening the tax base. It would be revenue neutral and everyone would know how much tax they are paying. If everyone paid taxes everyone would be interested in keeping them low. The price of goods would be lower because there would no longer be the substantial amount of hidden taxes in products. The FairTax is pro-business, pro-savings and investment and pro-family. I urge you check it out at www.fairtax.org
|
| Posted: May 20, 2005 |
By: Roger McGuire |
Subject: taxes
Comment: Please add a mark in the column for the Fair Tax Proposal @ www.fairtax.org for this old Grandpa. I think it would help my grandkids greatly. Thankyou, Roger
|
| Posted: May 20, 2005 |
By: David Ohme |
Subject: I support the
Comment: Our country needs to drop the anchor we have been dragging. The anchor is the current taxation system. Let the people keep the money the earn. They will spend it, trust me.
|
| Posted: May 20, 2005 |
By: Gene Tovey |
Subject: Fair Tax
Comment: The current tax law is not fair and is very complicated.
Too many loop holes.
If a person with a 6th grade education cannot figure his or her taxes in less than a hour, than it is too complicated.
A tax form should be easy to complete and fair to all.
The current 'fair tax' is the berst solution to raising $'s for the government and to all tax payers. And it catches alot of people who do not presented pay any tax, travelers and foriners.
|
| Posted: May 20, 2005 |
By: Nevin Harrison |
Subject: Tax Reform
Comment: Dear Pannel' I favor the National Sales Tax. Called the FairTax HR25. WHY Becauser it would repeal the 16th Admentment. Most Americans fear the IRS. We should not need to fear our Government. The rich spend more so they would pay more instead of avoiding the income tax. I have studies the FairTax. It would be the best thing for the people and the country. Thank You Nevin
|
| Posted: May 21, 2005 |
By: Betty Jean Green |
Subject: FairTax
Comment: As a retired public school teacher, I favor the FairTax consumption tax because it eliminates the IRS and its complicated compliance. It encourages economic growth. Revenue comes from those who can afford to spend. The poor pay no tax on necessities.
|
| Posted: May 21, 2005 |
By: Betty Malone |
Subject: common sense taxation
Comment: Completing Income Tax returns costs more than 6 billion man-hours & $700 billion for “consultants”! The tax code is so complicated it cannot be fairly administered or confidently complied with, but can be used to “punish” political opponents. Everyone, including minimum wage earners, pays more than 20% in federal taxes, built into the things we buy.
The Fair Tax is naturally “progressive,” since a monthly “prebate” (compensating households for the NRST on necessities) will cover the full amount of the Fair Tax paid, up to almost $19,000 per year in spending. Only those spending more than $250,000 per year will pay the maximum 23% rate.
The Fair Tax expands the tax base by a third, making “tax cheats,” criminals & illegal aliens tax PAYERS for once. It won’t even bother them, because the net prices of things will be essentially the same. Conversion costs are “zip,” because retailers in almost all states already collect sales taxes. Company income taxes will end, as will "contributions" to Social Security & Medicare.
The IRS will be reduced to auditing collections by the states. There are no “loopholes” for people to exploit, to avoid paying the Fair Tax.
By funding all of Uncle Sam’s operations, the Fair Tax will disconnect Social Security & Medicare from the number of people in the workforce, dramatically improving the actuarial validity of those schemes. Since used goods will be untaxed, payment of the Fair Tax will be voluntary. It will also be obvious to everyone how much Uncle Sam is costing them.
The end of withholding will grow paychecks by “half,” so spending – sales, production & employment – will increase. But savings will be with untaxed income & will grow untaxed, so there will be more incentive to save & savings will increase too. Eliminating the 20-some percent federal tax component in the things we produce will boost exports, reversing our balance of payments & the flow of production lines & jobs overseas.
The Fair Tax is a "win=win" deal. Uncle Sam gets steady income & a better reputation, taxation is more efficient & FAIR, for once!
|
| Posted: May 21, 2005 |
By: David Tilton |
Subject: Fair Tax As the Best Solution
Comment: I firmly believe that the FairTax (House and Senate Bills 25, respectively) is the best hope we have to fund government fairly, solve the Social Security crisis and promote personal savings while stimulating the economy. I urge you to recommend the FairTax to the President in your final report. Thank you.
|
| Posted: May 21, 2005 |
By: GH Jack Hunt III |
Subject: Control of Government Size
Comment: The dream of a flat or fair tax is a desirable goal. However, it cannot happen until we get control of the size of our government. I have been extremely dissapointed that a hiring freeze has not been implemented for civilian federal employees. Without layoffs, only reassignments to balance work force need, a total workforce reduction of 50% could have been achieved by the end of the Bush terms, assuming a normal 7% attrition rate (retire, resign, death)per year. The upward spiral of federal employment must be stopped in order to halt the proliferation of spending. Then and only then can we discuss reasonable taxation amounts and methods. Thank You, GH Jack Hunt
|
| Posted: May 21, 2005 |
By: Duane Neighbors |
Subject: Support for HR 25 / S 25
Comment: I would like to take this opportunity to respond to your request for comments. I am a Realtor in suburban Atlanta, GA and I believe HR 25 as proposed by Rep. John Linder is the correct solution to the tax woes of this country.
My support for HR 25 (FairTax) comes from my belief that allowing the people to use their money, prior to being taxed, will spur investment and savings. Having more to invest will bring more people into the Real Estate market growing both the market and the economy. The ability to save more will allow more families to put themselves in a position to achieve the American dream of home ownership.
In Real Estate we deal with many people whose occupation is “handy man”. Most of those are self employed and a number of them work strictly for cash. If I correctly understand the relationship between American citizens and paying income taxes it becomes very easy for me to believe that some portion of that cash income is not reported or taxed. FairTax would be a large step toward correcting that.
I believe that corporations will “pass along” the savings realized under FairTax if for no other reason than competition. Those savings will make the impact of adding a sales tax minimal and American companies will be more competitive with imported goods and services.
Because I work strictly for commissions, which requires me to file my taxes quarterly, and increases my cost of paying taxes by more than $500 per year. Also, being self-employed, I am responsible for all of my Social Security, not just half. My wife is a salaried employee of a large corporation and would realize a 26% increase in take home pay under FairTax.
I could go into all the altruistic reasons for recommending FairTax; but others can probably do a better job in that area. My reason for writing is simply to provide a point of view of an average, middle class American family.
Sincerely,
Duane R. Neighbors
|
| Posted: May 21, 2005 |
By: Mark R. Pedley |
Subject: True Tax Reform
Comment: We have an historic opportunity to correct one of the most hiddeous errors of the 20th century, the U.S. income tax code. I believe that our nation's ecomonic health and the continued ecomonic liberty of it's citizens requires a chnage to a consumption based tax system. The bipartisan authors of the Fair Tax ( HR-25 & S25 ) have crafted an exceptionally thorough plan for just such a system. The Fair Tax would provide a tax system that is simple, exeptionally efficient and truly equitable. I hope this administration has the intestinal fortitude to make such a bold and necessary move.
|
| Posted: May 21, 2005 |
By: William Mallett |
Subject: FairTax
Comment: The current tax system we have is unfair and corrupted by special intrests. Please abolish the IRS, and all current taxes and replace them with a National sales tax. That would be much fairer as the more money you have the more you buy the more you pay in taxes.
|
| Posted: May 21, 2005 |
By: Jason Loucks |
Subject: Tax reform
Comment: I support the fairtax. I like the prebate idea and the fact that anyone who spends money in the American economy would be pulling their part of the load.
|
| Posted: May 22, 2005 |
By: Kevin Moore |
Subject: OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!
Comment: Our Founding Fathers knew a little something about Taxes and Taxation. In fact they spelled it out in a relatively short document called THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Stop wasting all this time and money and effort and just OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!
Kevin Moore
Tampa, Florida
|
| Posted: May 22, 2005 |
By: Joseph Paral |
Subject: Support the Fair Tax
Comment: I support the Fair Tax as outlined on www.fairtax.org and before the House as HR 25 and Senate as S 25. The Fair Tax is so simple and so easy to understand, predict, and plan for. It would save so much aggravation by getting rid of complicated tax returns. I feel like I'm playing the lottery each year, waiting until I file my return to see whether I owe money or will get a nice big check in return (which makes me mad at the same time, because that means the government has been witholding MY money from me w/o paying me interest for it!). For these reasons and many others, I prefer the Fair Tax to our current tax system and all other tax systems that have been proposed. I sincerely hope you will carefully consider and support a move to the Fair Tax.
Thank you,
Joseph Paral
|
| Posted: May 23, 2005 |
By: Diane Malone |
Subject: FairTax
Comment: Please help pass the Fair Tax for the good of the United States citizens!
|
| Posted: May 23, 2005 |
By: Mark Davidson |
Subject: FairTax
Comment: I support the Fair Tax because it will enable the average person to have a chance to use their own money as they see fit.
|
| Posted: May 23, 2005 |
By: Bernice Vetsch |
Subject: HR25,S25 Consumption Tax
Comment: (I submitted a comment on this under the "general" category in error, so I will repeat it here.)
Before you make any recommendations for change to a tax on consumption, please read the study carried out by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (find it www.itepnet.org or the Citizens for Tax Justice site, www.ctj.org)revealing that the proposed legislation for a consumption tax would actually pretty much complete the transfer of the entire tax burden from the rich to the poor and the middle class.
The September 2004 study is entitled "The Effects of Replacing Most Federal Taxes with a National Sales Tax: A State-by-State Analysis." In Minnesota, for instance, the lowest 20% of earners, making an average of $11,400 per year, would see their federal tax burden increase by $4,077 from $1,124 to $5,201. The middle 20%, earning an average of $43,000, would see a $2,678 increase to raise their taxes from $9,747 to $12,425. The top 5%, earning an average of $354,800, would enjoy a $58,065 DECREASE under this proposal.
The study's authors note that nationwide, "...on average the 80 percent of Americans in the middle- and lower-income ranges would pay 51 percent more in sales taxes than they now pay in the federal taxes that the proposed national sales tax would replace."
Do not be fooled by the title of this legislation that claims it is "to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity...." Those are the last things it would achieve,although some commentators are already touting it as such and you can be sure the effort to sell it as a "benefit" to ordinary people has barely begun.
|
| Posted: May 23, 2005 |
By: Norman James Chaput |
Subject: FEderal Tax System
Comment: The existing Federal Income Tax system is desperately disfunctional and in urgent need of replacement with a flat tax system. The most obvious problems with the current tax system are:
1. It costs too much to administer and comply with the law. The direct costs of the IRS are only a minute fraction of the total cost of the system. For each Federal dollar spent on the income tax system, hundreds are spent in the private sector to comply with the law and keep the records needed to protect individuals from the IRS. It has turned us away from production and into a nation paper-shufflers and record-keepers.
2. The sheer complexity of the current system inevitably makes it unfair and arbitrary. No matter how carefully an individual prepares his tax return, he cannot be assured that he has paid his fair share and no more. Even the most civic-minded and honest taxpayer has moments of doubt and unease when he signs the return and drops it in the mail. In a democracy, this is not the way a citizen should feel about an interaction with his government.
Much worse, the current system lends itself to, and actively encourages, manipulation of the regulations by special interests for their private interest.
As part of my job, I have had access to the tax returns of a number of very high-income individuals and they almost invariably had a lower effective tax rate than I did at a fraction of their income.
3. The current system encourages the Congress to address problems by creating special tax credits and incentives. These never fix the problems they are ostensibly created to address, and they usually make things worse.
4. The esisting system is an egregious invasion of privacy. The law compels us citizens to compile the intimate details of their lives onto IRS forms and then makes the information available to far too many people.
At the very least, the tax laws should contain a flat prohibition of the use of tax return information for any purpose other than tax collection. The laws should make it illegal for anyone to demand copies of a tax return in connection with any loan, business transaction, professional license, civil litigation, divorce decree, or any other purpose.
Norman James Chaput
47 Lanier Drive
Dahlonega, GA 30533
|
| Posted: May 23, 2005 |
By: Dr. Mike Gordon |
Subject: Tax reform
Comment: I strongly support a complete change of our tax system and will vote for politicians who agree. Specifically, I feel the "Fairtax" proposal is the best I've seen. Sincerely, Dr. Mike Gordon
|
| Posted: May 23, 2005 |
By: Tom Kropewnicki |
Subject: FairTax
Comment: Gentleman,
The time is coming soon to make your findings known to the President and the general public. If indeed your concerns truly lie in what we the citizens want, this should be an easier task than first believed. You've heard some good thoughts on the subject of tax reform and you've heard much retoric from special interests.
Judging by the responses you've received the FAIRTAX is the clear choice of the American people. That my seem like a brash statement but, it has become very obvious that people who support the FairTax do so from the stand point of knowledge. The knowledge of the fact that our current system is beyond repair. The knowledge that only the FairTax meets and exceeds the President's guidelines set forth to you. The knowledge of how the FairTax will keep the USA in it's world leadereship position. The knowledge that the FairTax addresses most of the single issue requests made by others. The knowledge that none of you are currently running for office, but what you have to say will affect the stance of many who are.
The FairTax will not bring about Utopia, but it will help us avoid all the pitfalls our forefathers warned us about when income is taxed. Often times we have to look to the past in order to plan our future. If this panel was made up of our founding fathers the FairTax would be law. In fact unjust taxation was a key reason for us to seek independence. Only the FairTax will take us Back to the Future. I have found only three types of people opposed to the FairTax. Those with a vested interest in the current system. They create the graft and fraud. Those who don't understand the FairTax, but will be educated quickly. And those that are complete idiots.We'll just have to vote them out of office.
|
| Posted: May 23, 2005 |
By: Kevin Moore |
Subject: Obey The Constitution
Comment: Our Founding Fathers knew a little something about Taxes and Taxation. They spelled out exactly how the Federal Government may raise revenue in the Constitution.
All we need to do is obey the Constitution.
Kevin Moore
Tampa, Florida
|
| Posted: May 23, 2005 |
By: Randall K. Ierna |
Subject: FAIR TAX
Comment: I endorse and support HR25 and S25 bills
the FAIRTAX.
The proposed legislation speaks for itself.
|
| Posted: May 24, 2005 |
By: Timothy R. Wing |
Subject: Lost IRC Change Recommendations
Comment: After my initial commentary to the Tax Reform Panel which is shown as a pdf file dated March 8th, my specific recommendations to the panel have not been posted [at least I can't find them anywhere on the website].
Obviously, it could be that the recommendations were "lost in the mail." If others have had a similar experience please advise [stockoptionguy@aol.com].
|
| Posted: May 24, 2005 |
By: Mark Thompson |
Subject: Fair Tax
Comment: I support the Fair Tax to replace the current tax system. Not only would I receive more of the money that I earned, but the government would collect billions more that annually slip through the loopholes. Please reccoment the Fair Tax to the President as the only choice to replace the current tax system.
|
| Posted: May 24, 2005 |
By: George Garbe |
Subject: My pick
File: Re_RFC3.doc
|
| Posted: May 24, 2005 |
By: Robert E. Wellston, Jr. |
Subject: Comment on Fair Tax Plan
File: WellstonsCommentsonFairTaxPlan.doc
|
| Posted: May 24, 2005 |
By: Tom Kropewnicki |
Subject: TAX REFORM
Comment: Tax Panel Members,
As you review the various requests. interviews you've held, and proposals there are two key elements you MUST hold to the hightest importance.
First, the IRS must be eliminated as we know it. Second, the 16th amendment must be repealed at least as it pretains to the taxation of income. I realize this will rule out some of the plans you've been presented with, but this two items are the most often repeated concerns of most of the people who have chosen to voice their opinion. In addition, nothing short of this will be true Tax Reform. A plan that does not do this will leave us in the same mess we currently have.
Thank You
Tom Kropewnicki
Sanford, Fl.
|
| Posted: May 25, 2005 |
By: Larry Whittington |
Subject: FairTax Recommendation
File: TaxPanelLetter3.doc
|
| Posted: May 25, 2005 |
By: Rick Johnson |
Subject: Support the FAIRTAX
Comment: Via C-Span, I have listened to most of the comments rqgarding our tax problems. As such, I hope that the FAIRTAX will be one of the recommendations you make to the Treasury Secretary. The current system must go, it has outlived is usefulness. It is bloated and harmful to the people. I urge you to at least recommend the FairTax. Thank You for your work and I look forward to your recommendation.
|
| Posted: May 25, 2005 |
By: Jack Cinque |
Subject: I Support the FairTax
Comment: I know you have studied HR25/S25. This well thought out legislation is SIMPLE and FAIR. Please recommend its adoption. Please do not amend, modify, or tweak the current 60,000 page Code. It needs to be discarded. I hope you have the foresight and fortitude to support the needed sea change.
|
| Posted: May 25, 2005 |
By: Frank Turturro |
Subject: Fair Tax
Comment: I have been studying the Fair Tax solution for the past several months. It is a win-win for everyone. It will also be a boom for our economy. The Fair Tax is the only way to go as long as the 16th Amendment is repealed. We must abolish the IRS and the existing tax code.
|
| Posted: May 25, 2005 |
By: Hamill, Maurice R. |
Subject: Fair to all, simple, boon to economy
Comment: HR25, when fully understood and having stood the test of time for several years, is the solution waiting to be implemented.
The 16th ammendment is repealed, everyone knows how much tax they are paying and when they pay it. There is no penalty for saving. Cost of goods and services is reduced by about the same amount as the federal sales tax so the final cost is about the same and in the long run may be less. The increased personal savings, reduced business overhead expenses, etc. will stimulate the economy far more than the Kennedy, Regean, Bush tax cuts ever did and for the long term.
It is time for bold and real tax reform, no more withholding (semi-slavery) and all the revenue needed to fund current programs as provided by the FairTax bill, HR25/S25.
I am a retired small business owner (dentist) who has studied the FairTax for the past five years.
Sincerely,
Maurice R. Hamill
|
| Posted: May 25, 2005 |
By: Paul Coburn |
Subject: Bill HR25 FAIR TAX
Comment: Please let it be known that I am in total support of the FairTax Bill# HR25
|
| Posted: May 25, 2005 |
By: Joe Davis |
Subject: Tax Code
Comment: Let's go to the Fair Tax and make it fair for everyone. Someone said " Simple is beautiful", so let's get beautiful when it comes to federal income tax.
|
| Posted: May 25, 2005 |
By: Richard E. Jester |
Subject: Fair Tax Proposal
Comment: I strongly support the elimination of the Federal Income tax and t 18 to 20 hours it took me to complete my taxes this year. This oppressive and difficult form of taxation can be completely replaced with the FairTax national retail sales tax. The FairTax will provide the revenue needed and will require zero time for me to comply as an individual. Please recommend the adoption of the FairTax.
|
| Posted: May 25, 2005 |
By: Rebecca Avery |
Subject: Total Reform
Comment: I used to volunteer as a tax preparer for individuals. I stopped because of the ever increasing complexity of the code. If three preparers do a tax return for a couple; one partner self-employed, one salaried, with two children; one living with them and one partial custody, you will never get the same total tax due.
I don't think the income tax code is salvageable in its current form. In my personal opinion, the only solution is to eliminate all credits, deductions, and adjustments and balance this with a higher floor on taxable income. Perhaps not as extreme as a 'flat tax'(tempting as the thought is). Keep a progressive band style table. They're easy for most individuals to read. But simplify it to a single page form that can be filled in online in less than five minutes with free e-file.
No hoodoo. Fewer opportunities for fraud. No need for a complex website to figure out if you're underwithholding for God's Sake! No printing costs.
|
| Posted: May 25, 2005 |
By: Paul Schneider |
Subject: Fair Tax
Comment: Gentlemen:
I fully support the FairTax Proposal and urged you to give it the attention it deserves. All Americans need tax relief now, and the FairTax allows all citizens to pay their fair share, while retaining their rights to equity and privacy.
The IRS and the Federal Tax Code (IRC) have become something the Founding Fathers never intended, and it's time to level the playing field by eliminating the self-serving, special-interest provisions of a 3.4 million word document that no one can understand or support.
Please take the FairTax seriously, and recommend it to the President as our best option for tax relief, while still supporting the government and all of its important work on our behalf.
Thank you for your time and kind consideration.
Paul Schneider
Waxhaw, NC 28173
|
| Posted: May 25, 2005 |
By: Bart Hile |
Subject: Recommend the Fair Tax!
Comment: In your work to recommend a "fix" to the tax system, I would like to weigh in as a regular citizen of the United States. Our current tax system is hopelessly broken, well beyond any "fix." We need a new system, a simple system, a transparent system, and most importantly, a fair system.
I support the Fair Tax proposal (HR25/S25) for the following reasons: 1) It gets the Federal Government out of the private lives of its citizens; 2) It relieves the populace from a tax system that is beyond the comprehension of 99% of the people; 3) It would provide an unprecedented economic boom; 4)It allows each person to determine how much tax they wish to pay, simply by making lifestyle choices; 5) It would rebate the sales tax paid, up to the poverty level, for every American household, thereby relieving the poorest among us from any tax burden; and 6) It would treat all Americans the same.
The Fair Tax has been endorsed by 100's of the nation's pre-eminent economists, and seems to be a favorite idea of Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. There's been a lot of brain power put behind this legislation, and it can solve most of the country's tax problems while lessening government interference in the lives of citizens.
I encourage you to recommend the Fair Tax as a replacement of our current tax system.
Thank you for your time.
Bart Hile
|
| Posted: May 26, 2005 |
By: Gordon Maddox |
Subject: National Retail Sales Tax(FairTax)
Comment: Gentlemen: I may have to leave town for bringing this up or hide, but one item has not been mentioned. With the FairTax it will be very easy to change the tax
rate; either down or UP. It could even be changed in the middle of the year or even every month if desired. I will now
get ready to dodge the bricks I expect to come by way. Gordon Maddox, retired CPA
|
| Posted: May 26, 2005 |
By: Richard Bourgeois |
Subject: True tax reform for growth, jobs and freedom
File: FairTax4.doc
|
| Posted: May 26, 2005 |
By: Matt Perkins |
Subject: Enact the Fairtax, repeal 16th amendment
Comment: Dear Tax Reform panel:
I watched the tax reform proposals on CSPAN2 with interest a couple weeks ago. We need tax reform, and not just 'tinkering' - we need an overhaul.
Our current income tax system that is often touted as "progressive" is in fact quite REGRESSIVE. Hard-working Americans, businesses, and retirees are penalized for working more or saving more. This is ridiculous. My father-in-law owns a business, and instead of being taxed simply on profits, he is taxed on a myriad of other factors (even if they LOSE money).
Our current tax system is incredibly complex and employs quite a bit of secrecy and deception in the process. Consider the following points I have learned in the past several months:
1. The ‘Federal Excise Tax’ on our phone bill was enacted to pay for the Spanish-American War. Why must we still pay this?
2. The 'withholding' tax was created during World War II. It was supposed to be a TEMPORARY program to support our troops, and was supposed to END with the War. That obviously didn't happen, as our government didn't want to lose that cash cow. We have had this 'hidden' income tax vacuum since then: the highly regressive payroll tax.
3. According to 2004 figures, for the average American family who paid about $8000 in income taxes, anywhere from $1800 to $2200 of this was to pay for the tax EVASION of others. What family couldn't use that extra $2000 per year? The IRS estimates that the annual noncompliance rate with income taxes is 40%!
4. The underground economy (drug dealers, gambling, prostitution, illegal aliens, etc.) is reported to be about 1 TRILLION dollars of untaxed income. Someone else has to pay for that shortfall.
5. Over half of all lobbyists in Washington, D.C. are tax lobbyists. These people work their "magic" to add loopholes, exclusions, and the like to offer special favors that the American people have to pay for. It needs to stop.
These types of things are just the tip of the iceberg. Ask Joe Scarborough or read his "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day" book for more examples of government waste and abuse.
Does this information make you angry? Good! Does our government need to levy taxes? Of course, or we couldn't pay for anything. The problem is that it is using (or abusing?) the tax code for ulterior motives.
The Fairtax is a refreshing solution. With its enactment, and then the repeal of the 16th amendment (income tax), freedom can truly come to Americans.
I strongly encourage you to support the Fairtax because it will:
a. UNtax the poor (and all Americans) with a monthly pre-bate.
b. Encourage working and saving.
c. Remove the hidden taxes in goods and services.
d. Provide a much larger source of income for Social Security and Medicare.
e. Encourage economic growth and job creation.
f. Remove taxes on business purchases.
g. Lower the price of American exports.
h. Draw corporations HERE instead of having them move to China or India, etc.
i. Spread the tax burden much more broadly, so we all pay less.
j. Tax illegal/underground/foreign incomes.
k. Save TONS of time and money each year filing, filling out forms, and reporting our income. All that work (and billions of dollars spent) is just to say what we've earned. How ridiculous!
l. Free Americans from having the IRS breathing down their neck, ready to audit them if they didn't fill out their forms the right way.
m. (BIG PLUS) Government tax will be right out in the open for all to see! No more secret, hidden taxes, no more loopholes, no special concessions, no social engineering, no more widespread evasion. You see the tax right on your cash register receipt.
n. Self-regulation: if you spend more, you pay more; if you spend less, you pay less.
Many leading economists support the Fairtax as it has great potential to stimulate our economy and make it continue to get even better.
Sorry this was so long, but it needed to be said. I applaud your efforts as you consider the tax reform proposals and present your well-researched recommendations to the president.
I encourage you to support the Fairtax and repeal the 16th Amendment. I believe this benefits all Americans, not just the few or the privileged. Make April 15th “just another day.”
Thanks and have a good day. :)
|
| Posted: May 26, 2005 |
By: Forrest Harstad |
Subject: FairTax boon to home building
Comment: 26 May 05
Dear Tax Reform Panel;
I’d like to explain how the FairTax will be one of the greatest boons to homeownership and the home construction industry in the history of America.
My name is Forrest K Harstad. I have been a Realtor since 1975 and a home builder/ developer since 1980 in the metro area of Minneapolis/St Paul, Minnesota.
First, the FairTax eliminates the imbedded expenses of income tax, payroll tax and tax compliance from all the products of our great nation. This has been estimated by economic scholars, including Harvard’s Dale Jorgensen, to average from 22% to 25% of the price of our products. Surely new home construction is at the high end of imbedded tax costs due to the thousands of components and man-hours in every new home.
When the actual cost of constructing a new house is at least 22% less, the FairTax just brings its price back to the level it is today. Since existing homes are not subject to the tax, all home values will remain about the same. But the consumption of all the materials, energy and labor that it takes to build a new home should be taxed. And when that consumption is taxed, new home sales will produce one of the largest portions of the fuel for the engine that powers our great country’s economy. That’s fair. That’s good for The United States Of America today and it’s in the best interest of our children’s children’s children -even those who will become Realtors and Builders tomorrow.
Now recognize that the FairTax will eliminate the same imbedded costs to provide loans. Mortgage rates will become competitive to the rates of tax-exempt loans. The bond market shows us that the difference between taxed and tax-exempt rates just happens to align with Dale Jorgensen’s prediction. Tax-exempt loans tend to be about 25% lower. So mortgage rates that are today say 6.5% will instead be more like 4.9%. That of course will be in the best interest of all our children who need or want a new home today as well as tomorrow.
But that’s not even the main reason for the great boon. The following is. Since tax withholdings are eliminated by the FairTax, take-home pay goes up instantly. Every American will have 100% of their income at their own disposal –including to save for a down-payment on their new home with pre-tax dollars. And since mortgage rates will be about 25% lower, many, many more Americans will qualify for mortgages. And all will qualify for larger mortgages. That can’t help but be a boon to the housing industry both immediately and into the future.
But what about the FairTax eliminating mortgage deductions? Over time, myths have a way of becoming assumed to be truths. Such is the case with the perceived benefits of mortgage interest deductions. First of all, over 70% of Americans don’t even file the long tax form -they don’t even take deductions. But even the 27% who do will come out ahead due to the facts above. (Calculation tables supporting this statement can be readily found on the FairTax web site.) Also, my 30+ years in the business have shown me that buyers just don’t purchase or select a home because of their potential mortgage deduction. Compared to the overall, nation-wide benefit to homeownership provided by the FairTax, even the rare few who can actually show a benefit within today’s archaic income tax system still come out ahead with the FairTax -by far, irrefutably. That the mortgage interest deduction is a “benefit” is false promise in the first place and its now being used by those who have a vested interest in the present income and payroll tax system as a tactic to scare the unaware away from the FairTax.
With the FairTax replacing our income and payroll taxes, not only do buyers of new homes win, but all who work in and around the housing industry win and that helps America win. The FairTax is good for home-buyers, home-sellers and home-builders as well as our kids and their kids and their kids and theirs….
Please visit www.FairTax.org to learn more.
Most sincerely,
Forrest Harstad
Minneapple, Minnesota
Real Estate Since 1975
Specializing in New Home Development Since 1980
|
| Posted: May 27, 2005 |
By: Fortescue W. Hopkins |
Subject: THE FORTESCUE FLAT TAX
File: THEFORTESCUEFLATTAX.doc
|
| Posted: May 27, 2005 |
By: Kirk Ellis |
Subject: FairTax should tax withdrawals from income-tax-deferred accounts
File: HonorableMembersoftheTaxReformPanel.doc
|
| Posted: May 27, 2005 |
By: Norman D. Melling |
Subject: IFTS / DSSRI
Comment: http://home.comcast.net/~PreciousIdeas/TaxReform3.doc
COMMENT No.3
To: President George W. Bush’s Tax Advisory Panel May 27, 2005
The purpose of this Comment No. 3 is as a clarification to the “Investment Fee Tax System”
proposals submitted. These proposals are alternatives to the current IRS Income Tax System and
Social Security Reform. The IFTS / DSSRI proposals have been submitted previously, see:
http://home.comcast.net/~Preciousideas/IFTS4-22-05.doc
http://home.comcast.net/~Preciousideas/SSReform4-12-5.doc
Or, as posted on the President’s Tax Advisory Panel’s web site:
As posted on March 29th (Comment #1), and May 7th (Comment #2)
In review of the various tax plans submitted and posted on the President’s Tax Advisory Panel web
site, I conclude that the alternatives are various options and versions of:
1. Reform current IRS Tax code.
2. Introduce a Flat Income Tax.
3. Introduce a Consumption / Sales / Transaction Tax.
4. Introduce a variation of the EU VAT.
OR
5. Introduce the IFTS / DSSRI as the most viable beneficial solution for Tax Reform.
Since I have not had the privilege to address the panel directly with a presentation, I have
added clarifications to my proposals to emphasize the benefits and implications of a new
approach to tax reform with the concepts embedded in the “Investment Fee Tax System”
together with the Social Security Reform concept (DSSRI). In my opinion this proposal is the
solution to the tax reform dilemma and the Panel should task the appropriate agency to
validate the assumptions and conclusions to ensure that this plan is far superior to the other
tax plan alternatives. In addition at least one credible capable auditing enterprise, such as
KPMG, IBM, or DT, should be tasked to validate proper governance and a performance
feasibility study to ensure it will provide desired and predicted results.
IFTS provides long term benefits to solve the need for government tax revenue to operate
government functions and provide for its obligations to fund Social Security and other earned
annuities. IFTS stands alone, but by including the DSSRI concept it is clear that they both fit
under the same umbrella and satisfy the need for Tax Reform and SS Reform effectively.
The IFTS / DSSRI proposals clearly state the shortcomings of the other alternative proposals.
This comment highlights and clarifies the benefits of IFTS.
IFTS is a simple direct, fair and constitutional approach to raise government revenue for
necessary obligations by imposing a simple nominal fee (<1%) on all investment purchase
transactions, on the buyer, not the seller. This is not consumption based, but only for
investments which people can afford. Stimulate good growth investments.
IFTS will enhance the USA position in a unique advantage in global trade competition, which
reflects in economic growth, and peaceful world security while protecting our national
sovereignty and culture.
IFTS is applicable to both personal, as well as business enterprises big or small.
IFTS is better than revenue neutral, meaning that it will not cost additional funds to be
compliant with revenue generation. IFTS lowers the federal budget level and cuts down on
“Pork” projects or controversial funding programs by introducing the “Focused Government
Budget Line Item Investments” which I call “MINI-BONDS.” (“MB”)
“MB” will become lucrative potential investment instruments for the citizens. The key is that
Congress makes the selection as to which line item is offered as an investment, define the
deliverables essential to complete the project or program, and what initial funding profile and
time frame is imposed. Each “MB” carries a face value of a current “Treasury Note” interest
to the bearer; therefore it remains a safe investment. It carries the full faith and integrity of the
US government and investments allow citizens to be empowered to influence government
policy and direction, independently of political persuasions. The potential investment
advantage of “MB” is that the citizens can invest up to the limit of the funding profile
congress set. If funds initially are minimal or practically nonexistent and the MB’s provide
sufficient funding from the citizens that proves to be successful to provide its deliverables in a
compressed time frame, then the “MB” pays a higher rate of return, proportionately
depending upon the cost savings associated with the projected program that would be
required if funded to its congressionally scheduled delivery date.
IFTS eliminates forms, arbitrary complex codes, compliance schedules, undue enforcement
tactics, citizen costs and obligations to comply with mandates that reduce productivity and
liberties, as well as the bureaucratic costs and controls to operate an expensive complex
unfair taxing system. The IFTS is better than revenue neutral, because it creates new and
greater revenue, its voluntary and takes advantage of embedded transaction systems
existing to transfer the IFTS fee directly from the purchaser to the Treasury department,
electronically, at the time of sale, without complex forms and compliance documents.
Immediate cash flow to the treasury gives significant demographics on the economy and a
reflection of government policies and accounting basics, without the threat of future tax
obligations or negative aspects of tax offsets. Cost of maintaining the collection process at
the US Treasury is minimal, verifiable and uneventful.
No one in their right mind will try to avoid paying the IFTS fee to save from sending funds to
the government. Even if they don’t invest, they will spend and increase cash flow into the
economy which is the secondary benefit, because it will stimulate an increase in
entrepreneurial businesses and subsequent increase in jobs at all levels. These businesses
and jobholders become involved in the economy with investments that further grow the
economy, not discourage growth. Seriously, would anyone really run from a 1% fee in lieu of
the current IRS income tax rates and obligations? With the DSSRI involved in investments to
make the Social Security System viable, it will emphasize the benefits of investments and
compound interest for ownership, even if on a small scale, to start building wealth. Where
does the money go? It will go to the bank and investment enterprises, which turn around and
create new investment opportunities! This is positive feedback! That is capitalism, USA style!
IFTS hits a nerve for some individuals and institutions that “play” the investment market on
small or even very small margins, which require a buy or sell order on small gains or losses,
to gain favor of a profit. An IFTS fee of 1% for each purchase transaction could possibly
make their gains diminish, which would be a disaster to whomever, following that investment
scenario. Congress in its infinite wisdom could easily remediate this situation, or other similar
issues, by creating weekly or monthly averaging for registered short term marginal investors
to maintain the integrity of the market place for their profession. Overall, investments should
be geared toward positive growth and productivity not for reflecting the whims and rumors
and feeling, rather than strong auditable statistics. Majority of individual investors would
benefit from IFTS nominal fee and avoid tax complexities of accounting, forms, compliance
schedules and increased taxes that any other tax reform alternative could create.
Simplicity of a broad based nominal fee means that the broader the base the lower the IFTS
fee imposed, while maintaining full revenue obligations for government operations, pay off the
national debt and stimulate a superior world class economy. Once a comprehensive
understanding of both proposals is gained, it will be obvious that the IFTS / DSSRI concepts
will be the solution to the Tax Reform dilemma. IFTS is a fast pace approach to grow the
economy.
Imagine the potential power of citizens having the ability to influence government by investing
in “MINI-BONDs” for controversial issues such as:
Stem Cell research; Public Radio; Planned Parenthood; alternative energy; health and
welfare; arts and entertainment; urban mass transportation; educational alternatives;
homeland and national security projects; etc.
Imagine if people who are very engrossed in supporting or not supporting, critical issues like
“stem cell funding” could influence public policy. Those who support “Adult Stem Cell” funding
can choose “MB” #1, whereas those who choose to support “Embryonic Stem Cell” funding
could invest in “MB” #2. Knowing the success of Adult Stem Cell research to provide results,
it will probably be considered it a good investment, whereas Embryonic Stem Cell research
might prove more risky and is morally unsatisfactory for government funding out of the
general revenue. This reflects objections from those who disagree with their funds going to
support unacceptable acts. However, if someone wants to put their money into “Embryonic
Stem Cell” MB’s, they understand the risks and outcome of their desire to impose
requirements on what funds they feel are important, without dragging unwilling citizens into
an unacceptable moral issue. It’s a “follow the money” scenario. Many other similar
controversial funding projects, including potential projects considered “pork” projects, could
be funded in this way. A project could be highly desirable yet unfunded, but rather than
seeing it killed, MB’s could provide the funds. It’s all voluntary!
Social Security is a crisis and we are heading to a showdown soon. Unless a new approach
is taken the government general revenue from the tax system will be tapped into to pay out
annuities to retirees, because Social Security income will not be adequate. This will either
require more and more funds from the general revenue, or there will be reductions in benefits
and political and emotional issues to be encountered. The Delayed Social Security
Retirement Investments (DSSRI) proposal is the best solution for SS viability. The
President opened up the possibility of including private investment accounts “PRIAs” as a
solution to the SS dilemma. DSSRI expands the PRIA’s without demeaning the current SS
benefits. By including the “MB” investments involved as an integral part of the PRIA’s, the
Social Security investments create TAX FREE accumulation of wealth over the working
lifetime. Greater retirement benefits result, while enabling the government to delay paying out
SS benefits until the TAX FREE PRIA’s are drawn down. This could mean that individuals
will offset their SS annuity by 10 years or more before the government starts to pay benefits.
Wise people will jump at the opportunity to get TAX FREE investments and its potential
power to influence public policy. SS retirees will have the priority advantage to select MB
investments before the general public will have in open opportunities.
In summary:
The IFTS / DSSRI have a clear path for simplicity and revenue generation. It is the best
solution for Tax Reform.
It is requested that a full evaluation and comprehensive understanding of the benefits of the
IFTS and DSSRI be undertaken ASAP. Open up public debate and dialog by challenging the
public and universities to make a comparison of the various alternatives. It is suggested that
an incentive such as a monetary prize be offered to the best predictive graphical analysis of
each of the critical issues involved in the various proposals. A complete trade off analysis
with conclusions should make the outcome obvious from the results of the study.
Please contact me for any additional information or clarifications as to how the IFTS / DSSRI
can be implemented and the potential benefits to our great country.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit these proposals and this clarification on its benefits.
Norman D. Melling
|
| Posted: May 27, 2005 |
By: Norman D. Melling |
Subject: Proposal Clarifications
File: TaxReform3a.doc
|
| Posted: May 28, 2005 |
By: Wanda E. Bourgeois |
Subject: Fair Tax Supporter
Comment: I would like to be considered one of the many FairTax H.R 25, S25 supporters.
Everyone agrees that our country’s current taxation system is ridiculously complicated, and unfair to all.
I have studied all of the tax reform ideas on the table, and have decided to encourage all my colleagues, friends, and family to support the “Fair Tax” legislation. This country was founded under certain principles, some of which, unfortunately, have been lost in the shuffle. Need I remind you, that unjust taxation was one of the key reasons we sought independence, in the first place. I am certain that our Founding Fathers did not intend for the IRS or Payroll Taxes to ever exist.
As a hard working, middle class, American, I for one would like to see a day when those who choose to work in less than honest professions, or evade taxation are forced to pay their share to fund our government. Under the Fair Tax, all those who currently evade taxation by any means, would be unable to do so.
Regardless of income level or political party, I have never spoken with anyone who understood the Fair Tax and didn’t support it. Those who hadn’t heard of it, without fail, supported the Fair Tax as soon as they understood what it meant.
Some of the Benefits I see if the Fair Tax legislation were implemented include but are not limited to.
1. Financial Growth for all working individuals
2. Economic Growth for our Nation
3. Freedom from unfair practices of the IRS
4. Elimination of Tax Evasion
5. Taxation of Illegal, and Foreign Incomes
6. Providing real Security for Social Security and Medicare
7. Removing taxes on business purchases which will Encourage corporations to move into our Nation instead of out
8. Enable American companies to be more competitive with imported goods and services.
9. Creation of Jobs
10. Provide a monthly pre-rebate to eliminate taxing the poor
11. Removing the hidden taxes in goods and services
12. Distributing the Tax burden more broadly
13. Returning some of the freedoms, granted to all American’s,
In the Declaration of Independence, and The U.S. Constitution
14. No more would the government be allowed to withhold our money, without paying interest
In closing, I'll add, that judging by the responses I’ve read and heard, the FAIRTAX is the clear choice of the American people.
I urge you to consider carefully, the consequences of your actions, as our governmental officials.
Sincerely Concerned for our children’s future
Wanda E. Bourgeois
|
| Posted: May 29, 2005 |
By: Rick |
Subject: Fair Tax
Comment: Please consider the Fair Tax. As the name implies, it is the fairest way to collect taxes. Our curent system is unfair. This new tax proposal would give incentives to businesses to headquarter their operations here. Right now businesses are taxed to death. It only makes sense to collect taxes at the consumer level. Even illegal aliens would be paying taxes that way. You have to buy products to live. Taxing at the retail level is the best way to collect revenue. Also, the way Social Security taxes are collected is grossly unfair. And there won't be any money there when I retire. Please allow those who want to, invest their retirement funds the way they want, so the funds will be there when we retire.I currently manage my 401K and have no problem making my own decisions. Rick.
|
| Posted: May 29, 2005 |
By: Jim Sharp |
Subject: FairTax
Comment: I support the FairTax reform options as outlined in H.R. 25.
|
| Posted: May 29, 2005 |
By: Brian Clark Willard |
Subject: Fair Tax
Comment: I will keep these comments breif. Our President has taken a less conservative position on illegal immigration than many of his supports would like. I am one such individual. If we are going to allow people to live and work in our country illegally, they will at some point use tax-supported facilities or benefits. They also will not pay a fair amount of the tax the went to create them. The FairTax Act or HR-25 is a great plan that would allow the President to keep his current position, but would also assure the legal citizens of the United States that everyone residing within our borders will support the federal government. Thank you for your time and service to our country.
Sincerely,
Brian C. Willard
5315 Minion Ct.
McLeansville, NC
|
| Posted: May 29, 2005 |
By: Theirn Scott |
Subject: Benefits of H.R. 25 FairTax NRST
Comment: Ladies and Gentleme of the Tax Reform Panel:
There are many positives to the FairTax NRST and surely some negatives; no system is perfect, but we desperately need tax reform that will simplify how revenue is captured, produce significant economic growth, improve our competitiveness and be fair. A NRST as layed out by the FairTax folks addresses these needs in a simple straighforward manner.
I was struck listening to the various proposals discussed during the hearing earlier this month at how complex most were. Complexity may be good for tax attorneys, CPAs and lobbyists but it's bad for the rest of us.
Economic growth and a return to global competitiveness is what we need. We have very large bills looming. Social Security and Medicare, particularly Medicare, are in serious financial trouble. The only solution is significant increases in federal revenue. We can't tax ourselves into prosperity, but prosperity will bring forth tax revenues.
Those disparaging of the Fairtax assert that it is not progressive and is unfair to the middle class. The prebate that reimburses all families for spending up to the poverty level makes the proposal progressive. However, the progressivity assumes an equal savings rate across incomes levels which is probably not practical reality. So I'm quick to acknowledge that this system could be beneficial to those with higher incomes. However, the burden will NOT be more to any group than they are currently paying and everyone has control of what they pay on two levels. One, used products are not taxed and two, nor are savings. With the current pitiful savings rate I would think the latter would be something that politicians should be encouraging.
Any additional savings from all income levels will not be lost to the economy. It will go to good economic use. With the increased economic activity a NRST will foster business investment will have to increase to meet the international and domestic demand. The increased savings will help finance this expansion.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this proposal makes so much sense on so many levels it should be on everyone's A list to be recommended to the administration for futher study and implementation.
Thank you very much for your sevice you the country.
Regards,
Theirn J. Scott, Jr.
105 Millennial Court
Lawrenceville, GA 30045
|
| Posted: May 30, 2005 |
By: Paul Coburn |
Subject: Fair Tax
Comment: I am writing to give full support to the Fair Tax Bill# HR25. This is the ONLY plan that is being considered that is truely Fair to all and accomplishes all of the Presidents goals for this panel.
Thanks.
Paul
|
| Posted: May 30, 2005 |
By: Tom Leser |
Subject: YES to FairTax, NO to flat tax
Comment: Dear Panel,
You have heard about the FairTax already from the previous request for comments and also the general comments. You have heard about this from Tom Wright and David Burton who presented to you. I'm sure you are all well acquainted and familiar with this proposal and all of the details and I certainly hope that you no longer have concerns of revenue neutrality as the 23% rate will provide this as Tom Wright mentioned. This is the only solution of the 27 reform options proposed to you that is worth the recommendation to the President.
Please do not recommend the flat tax. It is not revenue neutral, and it would be very simple for politicians to make it back into what it is today, or for them to enact a different type of sales tax to be placed on top of the income tax. The FairTax repeals the 16th amendment via HJRes 16 so an income tax could never be enacted in addition to the FairTax. Please say YES to the FairTax and NO to the flat tax.
|
| Posted: May 30, 2005 |
By: Felix Bearden |
Subject: National Retail Sales Tax (
Comment: When considered as a whole, the National Retail Sales Tax has the most advantages as a replacement tax system. The limited time allowed to the presenters at the hearings and the limitations placed on this committee will not allow each member to study and appreciate the effort John Linder et al have put into this proposal. I can remember discussions reaching back over 25 years refining this proposal.
The results of these discussions and studies are pretty well covered in the website www.fairtax.org.
The biggest selling point for the NRST is that it is "the right thing to do" for all taxpayers. Rich, Poor, Republican, Democrat, liberal, and conservative.
Its worst feature is that it cannot be represented in sound-bites. You must understand the complete proposal to really understand its benefits.
It is my sincere hope that members of this committee will have time to study and understand the complete proposal in the time alloted. I also hope that you give members that have worked so hard an opportunity to answer any deficiencies you may find in the plan.
As a citizen, on the periphy of the development of the NRST rather than one intimately associated with any organization, I would be happy to offer my opinions and answer any questions you may have from a senior citizen.
Felix Bearden
770 923 4824
|
| Posted: May 30, 2005 |
By: Sunnye Tiedemann |
Subject: Let's do it this way. . .
Comment: Firat, get rid of the income tax, social security taxes, employment taxes and corporate taxes.
Let everyone keep 100% of their earnings or pensions, yet still fund the government at present levels.
Tax goods and services at a straight rate but give a rebate to everyone so that necessities up to the poverty level are not taxed and prices stay pretty much the same.
The FairTax is the only system proposed so far that really is fair, simple and a win/win situation for both government and taxpayer. It expands the tax base, gives the US an advantage in international markets, and funds the government, including that sick old warhorse, social security.
None of the other proposals do all of that. Tho | |
