People like Ken come from listeners to shows like this who selectively choose the information they expose themselves to based on what the host of the show reccomends. In most cases this is better than the woefully and willfully ignorant majority of people.

I'm not 100% onboard with the Fair Tax, but I'm not a knee-jerk detractor, either. There are serious questions that have been raised by doubters about how much weight the abolition of income tax will actually have in practice. I've read the pro-Fair Tax books, and I feel that they don't adequately address this.

However, simply opposing the bill because it's just another tax isn't very intelligent, either. It is definitely far less invasive to individuals and businesses than our current system. I'm sure the compliance costs would be so drastically cheaper to warrant a look based simply on that.

I agree with the sentiment that it makes the tax burden less apparent to individuals. I don't think that's a good thing, but I also don't think most people have a clue what their tax burden is when you add in the additional consumers costs that stem from business taxes and the compliance costs associated with them.

The problem is that economic and tax issues are so incredibly complicated, it's hard to distill them down into an easily readable book or talking points. There are people who have studied these issues for their entire lives who can't agree on what lay people on places like this state as "obvious." The government's role in the economy shouldn't be that entangled, but this is the world we live in. Any change is going to be painfull. The Fair Tax zealots who preach how much of an instant boon this system would be are either misleading their audience or have been misled themselves. That's not to say that change wouldn't (or would) be a net positive, but a massive restructuring is going to be chaotic and fraut with unforseen problems.

As long as the word "Fair" is in the title the idea is doomed. It is time to abandon the Fair Tax and embrace the Forbidden Tax. By changing the name, more people will demand to have the "right" to the Forbidden Tax. This may just be the impetus to get this idea passed. Just imagine the ad campaign: "Imagine a world where you actually got to keep all you earned. Spend your money as you see fit? You could except this is forbidden

Well Ken,
It is obvious that the one who hasn't done the research is you. Have you heard of Campaign For Liberty?? I doubt it. You're busy giving lip service to the entire idea that you support taxing Americans on a continuous basis, instead of actually abolishing taxes. It's ok, stick to your belief that the FairTax is the best thing to ever happen to this country. Sheesh

The biggest flaw with the Fairtax is the assertion that the Sixteenth Amendment needs to be repealed. Apparently, the Fairtaxers believe the Amendment is the source of the federal government’s power to impose income taxes and said power will vanish if they succeed in getting the Sixteenth Amendment removed from the Constitution. All of the various federal income taxes (corporate, individual and employment) are simply indirect excise taxes just like the FairTax. These taxes have nothing to do with the Sixteenth Amendment. If we repealed the Amendment tomorrow, the federal government would retain the constitutional authority to impose every tax it presently imposes.

In 1980, The Congressional Research Service prepared a Report for Congress concerning the federal income tax. The Report discussed two 1916 Supreme Court decisions and the effect of the Sixteenth Amendment on the federal government’s power to tax:

“The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment DID NOT AUTHORIZE ANY NEW TYPE OF TAX…” (Emphasis added)

Source for above quote: “Some Constitutional Questions Concerning the Federal Income Tax,” Howard M. Zaritsky, (Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC., 1980) p. 5, Report No. 84-168 A 734/275.

The Report made the following statement concerning the Court’s decisions on the nature of the income tax:

“Therefore, it can be clearly determined from the decisions of the United States Supreme Court that the income tax is an indirect tax, generally in the nature of an excise tax.”

Source for this quote: page 6 of the above Report.

In 1989, the Congressional Research Service revised and updated its Report to Congress concerning the federal income tax. This Report addressed the nature of an excise tax:

“An excise tax is a tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity or any various taxes on privileges often assessed in the form of a license or fee. In other words, it is a tax on doing something to property or on the privilege of holding some property or doing some act, not a tax on the property itself. The tax is not on the property directly, but rather it is a tax on the transaction.

When a court refers to an income tax as being in the nature of an excise, it is merely stating that the tax is not on the property itself.”

Source for this quote: “Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Federal Income Tax,” John R. Luckey, (Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., 1989) p. 5, Report No. 89-623 A.

The so-called federal income tax is not a tax on income; it is a tax measured by income. Income is not the source of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.

So the $64,000.00 question is-what activity or privilege is Congress taxing and measuring by income?

Contrary to what Neal and other fairtax proponents would have you believe, the fairtax would actually give much more power to the politicians, by completely obscuring how much you pay per year in federal taxes. Now when you fill out your federal tax return each year, you know exactly how much you paid per year, down to the last penny. Not so with the fairtax...not unless you kept every single receipt and added the tax up for everything up at the end of the year. Plus you'd have to keep a running tab of the fairtax on things which you didn't get a receipt for, such as credit card payments, rent payments, etc. Think about it...do you have any idea of how much you paid in sales tax last year? By obscuring how much you actually pay each year in federal tax, in effect it would give the politicians even more power over how they spend your money.

And Neal claims that the fairtax would bring more money to the US. He conveniently ignores the fact that 66% of corporations already don't pay any federal tax at all (according to the GAO report GAO-08-957, released July 2007). Furthermore, the fairtax would create a huge flux of money OUT of the US, at the consumer level. If the fairtax were implemented, a string of car dealerships would pop up just on the other sides of our Mexican & Canadian borders...why pay an additional 30% (= 23% inclusive rate) for a car when you can fly to Mexico or Canada, buy a car there, and drive it back home for much less? Saving possibly tens of thousands of dollars less? Most people would no doubt make as many of their other high end purchases such as electronics, jewelry, etc. out of the country as possible. The fairtax could potentially siphon trillions of dollars out of the US economy.

To Stan Gable

Its not a pay cut for the politician's but a POWER CUT. That IS the root of the issue.

Neal, I have read the books by you and Congressman Lindner...and I have told all of my employees in the Senate and House, as well as POTUS that the Fair Tax is what it says it is, that it WILL generate TRILLIONS by returning businesses and investments to the US, and...this is important; Illegals, tourists and citizens will all contribute to the Treasury of the United States! PLUS, just imagine NO IRS. WAHOOO.
Let's get on the stick...call your Congresspeople!!

Since we as US citizens are all technically employERS of the us govt. I'd say this member of the management group approves this plan and I will be telling my employees.. that is.. my senator and congressman to please support it.

I urge you all to do the same. Its PAST time we changed our oppressive tax code and bring real prosperity back to our country, isntead of driving it away in the false name of "fairness."

Maybe we should be talking only about the "Pre-Bate" check that "everyone" will get under the plan. As long as they see money going TO people they might just go for it!!!

We need to somehow make it SEEM like a government handout...because those are the only things getting approval right now. We need fictional novel writer to craft some creative words that make it appear to be a handout that will give the idiots on the hill more power...they will certainly vote for it then

Awesome!

Neil R, great idea! Give O the credit, just get it moving.

JubT, it's Fair as in the money is only taxed once as opposed to every level and even the criminal elements have to pay!!!

Okay, in the last congress the FairTax had over SIX Dozen cosponsors. How many cosponsors does HR-25 have in the current congress?

I don't care who gets or takes credit for passage of the FairTax, it just needs to be done.
If making Barack the biggest hero in American history for emancipating the taxpayers from the ravages of the IRS then so be it.
Now how do we get in front of the guy to sell him on the idea?