Monday -- August 22, 2005
Book Tour Schedule | Tour Gallery | amazon.com reviews
MONDAY DAYTON, OHIO BOOK SIGNING! Books & Company, Stroop Rd.
6:00 This Evening! pm |
 TAKING APART THE CRITICS --- LETTER BY LETTER
One week ago yesterday the Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran a bit in the Opinion section about The FairTax. Yesterday the AJC ran some letters to the editor in response to that article. There is no real evidence that the people who wrote these letters have either read The FairTax Book or made any independent study of H.R. 25. So --- time for some educating. The letters are in the boxes, my responses follow. Have fun! | Fiscally irresponsible move in light of pressing needs Imagine if the United States had initially adopted a national sales tax such as the FairTax instead of the current system. In the past (e.g., during World War II), the rate would have exceeded 100 percent. Say the current rate is 50 percent. Certainly someone would pitch the current system to replace the sales tax: "Imagine paying just 15 percent of your income in taxes and a small payroll tax, and getting a deduction for your mortgage interest and your charitable contributions. Best of all, corporations will pay their fair share. Think of the growth to the economy, when everything you buy is tax-free." FairTax advocates are making a fiscally irresponsible pitch at a time when our country has substantial economic problems. The claims they make --- that the tax would equal the price reduction and we'd no longer have to pay income, FICA or estate and gift taxes --- are not logical. Based on a report of the Joint Committee on Taxation (an arm of Congress), the numbers don't come close to working. Economically, big government necessitates big taxes. It's only a question of who pays it and how. The FairTax is a fiscally irresponsible attempt to make the rich richer. ALLEN BUCKLEY, Smyrna |
Consumption tax rates exceeding 100%? Where does that come from? And what does Mr. Buckley mean by that "Say the current rate is 50 percent" line? Maybe we learn all we need to know about Mr. Buckley when we read his "Best of all, corporations will pay their fair share." Here we have a writer of a letter to the editor who actually believes that corporations pay taxes. This, I suspect, is the result of a government school education. Quick lesson, Mr. Buckley: Corporations collect taxes from their shareholders, customers and employees and pass them on to the government. All taxes are taxes on wealth, and corporations hold no wealth. To fully understand Allen Buckley, just look at the last sentence. This is all an attempt to make the rich richer. Wealth envy strikes again. The fact is that no class benefits more from the FairTax than the poor. | Plan removes obstacles to monopoly on wealth The FairTax would remove a weapon in law enforcement's arsenal. It would change our country from a democracy to an aristocracy. Without capital gains, estate taxes and progressive income taxes, the country's wealth would slide into the hands of those who do nothing but manipulate wealth. Those three taxes were created to avoid that. Neal Boortz and Rep. John Linder (R-Ga.) are doing nothing but sucking up to the rich. WILLIAM L. FELL, Alpharetta |
Class warfare and wealth envy ... alive and well. Always has been, always will be. It is truly amazing the number of people who oppose the FairTax simply because they don't believe that it punishes wealthy people enough for their success. You will notice that Mr. Fell doesn't care whether or not the FairTax will fund the federal government at its current levels. He doesn't care that the FairTax will bring American capital and businesses and capital back home, nor does he care that the FairTax will completely eliminate the federal tax liability for the poor. America will become the world's biggest tax haven? So what? This matters not to Mr. Fell. William Fell is concerned that the rich aren't being punished enough. He upset because people who work hard to obtain wealth might actually be allowed to keep it. Mr. Fell, you see, doesn't believe that the rich actually earn their wealth. They don't dedicate themselves to their education. They don't go the extra mile to make sure that all decisions are well thought out. No .. the evil rich don't earn their wealth, they merely manipulate it. OK .. let's take a poll! How would you like to raise revenue to operate the federal government? [ ] With a system of taxation that meets the funding needs of the federal government while treating all Americans equally; a tax system that allows all Americans, rich and poor alike, to earn and to spend up to the poverty level with no federal tax consequences. [ ] With a system of taxation that punishes achievement while meeting the funding needs of the federal government. Mr. Fell and others like him have a common mindset. If you had the ability to read minds, here is what you might find from those consumed with wealthy envy: "That guy is no better than I am, but he's rich, and I'm not. He doesn't work any harder than I do. I work hard, every day. But he's rich, and I'm not. If you could get rich with hard, honest work I would be rich, because I'm honest and I work hard. So he must be doing something dishonest to get that money. He probably has some crooked lawyers that help him steal money from other people and cheat on his taxes. I want him punished for his dishonesty and his exploitation of people like me. I want the government to take more of his money away from him. After all, I worked for mine .. and he didn't." Wealth envy has always been there ... always will be. This shall never change. | Make the levy smaller and guarantee support The FairTax is touted as a tax cut and a revenue-neutral program, but the fact is it will reduce taxes for some and raise taxes for others. It's obvious who gets the cut and who gets the increase. Another flaw is that it doesn't address human psychology. Given the opportunity, a person (rich or poor) will avoid paying taxes, regardless of whether their take-home pay is higher. I wouldn't have bought the six new homes I have over the past 20 years or the 12 new vehicles I have over the past 25 years if they'd had a 23 percent tax on them. FairTax would kill the construction and automobile industries, two of the strongest left in the United States. If the tax were much smaller, say 1 percent to 3 percent, and included all transactions --- stock and bond purchases, business to business purchases, etc.--- then you could get some real support for it. KAREEM SOUKA, Canton |
Good Grief! Did anyone around here actually read the book before they wrote their ill-informed letters? Mr. Souka .. those six homes you bought over the past 20 years, and those 12 new vehicles, did have a 23 percent tax on them ... or more! Embedded taxes, Mr. Souka. They're there, and you paid them. The FairTax removes those embedded taxes and replaces them with an embedded consumption tax! | Plan sure to produce economic apocalypse If the "Fair" Tax became law, it would lead to an unprecedented spending spree, a fantastic expansion of the economy, followed by an even more rapid economic collapse, depression and national bankruptcy. The bill would not take effect for more than a year. Most folks would realize they'd be paying 30 percent (not 23 percent) more. A new $200,000 house would cost $260,000 if they delayed. But wage earners would not have taxes withheld from their paychecks and would receive a monthly check for bare necessities. Better to borrow now and pay later with "free" money. Then, Day One of FairTax --- no immediate decrease in prices, because those goods were produced with all the abolished taxes added in. Consumption, and the tax income necessary to run the country, would fall like a stone. Do the math: lower tax income, higher tax rates and fewer people to buy. Adios, economy. BOB HAWKINS, Duluth |
Same story, different verse. Once again a letter to the editor from someone who hasn't read the book. Virtually every point made by Hawkins is absolutely dead wrong. If Mr. Hawkins had either taken the time to either read The FairTax Book, study HR 25, or visit the FairTax website he would never have written this letter. Just for starters, Mr. Hawkins, that $200,000 house would still cost about $200,000. You would understand that if you would read the book, but I don't expect you to do that, nor do I expect you to stop writing hideously uninformed letters to the editor on the subject. Now ... since we're talking about buying homes, a few more things for you to consider. Since wage earners would be getting 100% of their paychecks they will have quite a bit more cash to save for down payments and to spend on monthly mortgage payments. Furthermore, the economists who studied the effects of the FairTax have written that as the economy grows after the implementation of the FairTax home mortgage interest rates could fall by as much as 30%. Prices don't go up; people have more disposal income; and interest rates go down. Sounds like a formula for success in the home market, not disaster. | Negative side of story conveniently overlooked Neal Boortz is telling only the good half of the story. I would point out the deception of the 23 percent tax rate: When my doctor's bill of $100 goes to $130, it's a 30 percent tax. Boortz's backward math will lead you to believe it's 23 percent. FairTax advocates say prices will come down 22 percent, but that is based only on estimates. Even if it were true, 22 percent still does not equal 30 percent. I've been looking at no tax on my retirement savings until this idea came up. Under today's laws, my life insurance and small estate will go to my wife and children federal-tax free when I die. When they spend that money, it will be tax free. FairTax would tax them. BILL SLAUGENHOP, Jasper |
How many times do we have to go over this? Of course, Mr. Slaugenhop just hasn't read the book or taken it upon himself to study the FairTax further. Ok, Bill; see if you can grasp this: Your doctor's bill does not go up to $130. I have no idea where you got that figure. Your $100 dollar doctor's bill, along with the price of virtually every other consumer item and service, will remain essentially where it is today. The 23% FairTax is embedded in the cost of goods and services, and replaces the current embedded tax that averages 22%. You're right .. the 22% embedded tax figure is based on estimates .. but those estimates come from some of the best economic minds we have out there. The actual estimate, by the way, ranges up to about 24%, depending on who you're talking to. Now ... as to your last paragraph. When your family spends your inheritance they will be paying just about the same for consumer items as they would spend now. We're just replacing one tax with another of about the same percentage. | Clever idea will benefit rich while penalizing poor The FairTax is a clever idea because it would not tax a very large portion of the income that rich people get while taxing the middle class more than now. A family of four making $50,000 a year normally spends most of it to get by, whereas a CEO making $1 million will pay the so-called FairTax on the very small portion of his income spent on daily necessities. A truly fair tax would exempt all income below a certain level and then progressively tax everything beyond that at a progressive rate without any deductions and loopholes. PAVITTAR SAFIR, Roswell |
Here we go with the wealth envy again. Another unsatisfied customer bemoaning the fact that the rich just aren't being punished enough. I guess Mr. Safir comes by his class envy honestly, though. It was that same wealth envy that propelled us into the 16th Amendment and the income tax in the first place. But, sorry, Mr. Safir. You're wrong. The FairTax does not tax any portion of the income that rich people get. It's not an income tax. The FairTax is a consumption tax, it taxes spending. If you assume that rich people spend more than poor and middle class people (not a difficult assumption to make) then you can see that the rich will pay more in consumption taxes than the poor. Your fondness for Karl Marx's idea of progressive taxation of the evil rich is duly noted. | Boortz fails to back up his claims with evidence What Neal Boortz claims would be a 23 percent "tax inclusive" rate is what those of us living in the real world would call a 30 percent sales tax (in addition to state and local sales taxes). But even those numbers are suspect --- some studies claim that the real tax rate would need to be 60 percent or higher. Boortz says those studies are flawed, but nowhere in his book (or on his show) does he cite a study supporting his proposed tax rate. The best he can do is say that FairTax proponents spent "millions of dollars" in coming up with the 23 percent rate. That's like saying the big tobacco companies spent millions producing reports that cigarette smoking is good for you. When you're the one paying the "experts," it's amazing what you can get them to come up with. Where's the real evidence? Boortz should either put up or shut up. I think he'll do neither. HAYDEN KEPNER, Marietta |
Hayden Kepner is an Atlanta bankruptcy attorney. When The FairTax Book first came out he wrote a "review" for Amazon.com. In that review Mr. Kepner lied, either intentionally or through carelessness, about the contents of the book. You can read Hayden Kepner's prevarications and my response in the August 3rd edition of Nealz Nuze. (Click on the link to read Kepner's Amazon.com review as well as my response) Not only did I expose Kepner's distortions in the Nuze, other Amazon.com reviewers took him to task also. To his credit, Hayden Kepner does not repeat all of the mistruths (intentional distortions?) that so dominated his first review of The Fair Tax Book. He does, however, obfuscate the facts with his claim that "some studies claim that the real tax rate would need to be 60 percent or higher." Kepner knows that those are not studies of the FairTax proposal, but of altered and modified proposals that make exclusions and exceptions not included in The FairTax Bill. Kepner also drags up that old and discredited "30%" objection. He knows, and we state very clearly in the book, that if the FairTax is quoted on an "exclusive" rather than an "inclusive" basis it would calculate to roughly 30%, just as our 25% income tax bracket would calculate to 33%, and our 35% tax bracket could calculate to 53.8% if quoted the same way. The FairTax replaces the income tax. Even Hayden Kepner might, when cornered, admit that we should quote the FairTax exactly the same way we quote the tax that it is replacing. Any way you look at it, under the FairTax when you spend $100, $23 goes to the government. Get our your calculators. That would mean that 23% of the purchase price goes to the feds. Mr. Kepner is also upset that we didn't include all of the research in the book. We're sorry, Mr. Kepner, but we didn't want to make the book 750 pages long. The research used in developing the FairTax plan is available online at Fairtax.org. We are still anxiously awaiting a critique of The FairTax Book by Mr. Kepner that does not distort the facts. Perhaps Kepner's problem here is more with me, as a radio talk show host, than with the FairTax as a tax reform plan. Attorneys. Gotta love 'em. | A win-win proposition should have no opposition Having just read "The FairTax Book," I'm scratching my head over some of the blogs in opposition to it. Under the FairTax, I'd get 100 percent of my check. I'd pay no withholding tax, no Medicare tax, no Social Security tax --- no income tax at any level. I could save, buy and sell property at a profit with no tax liability. I'd pay a tax only when I bought things, at prices no different from, or perhaps less than, what I pay now. And I'd get a prebate for the necessities of life at the first of every month. This tax would apply to everybody, regardless of income. So the FairTax is unfair and evil because . . ? JIM CHEEK, Kennesaw |
Wow! Someone who actually gets it! Thank you , Mr. Cheek! We'll keep an eye out for more letters. In the meantime, those of you who want to actually learn the truth about the FairTax and the research behind it can either read the book or study the volumes of information available at FairTax.Org. GOODBYE CINDY
After dominating the headlines for what seemed like an eternity, Cindy Sheehan has packed up her folding chair and headed home from Crawford, Texas. Something about being at the side of her ailing mother. Will she disappear from the headlines? Probably not. The mainstream media and other assorted leftists will keep the memory of her little Texas charade known for quite some time.
But does anyone care? There was an interesting poll taken recently. According to the press in this country, Cindy Sheehan speaks for all mothers of the Iraq war dead and reflects the mood of the entire country. But a new poll (thankfully) shows that not to be so. An online poll asked the question "Do you agree with Sheehan's views?" Out of 290,000 respondents, 56% said no. In the same poll, people were asked if they agreed with her tactics. 59% did not. Perhaps there is still hope.
Which goes to show you that this was a media-generated story from the beginning. Cindy Sheehan was covered to the extent that she was because her Bush-bashing views were compatible with those of the media.
At least she's gone. We hope.
SADDAM RESIGNED TO FATE
 Looks like Saddam Hussein has resigned himself to receiving the proverbial eternal celestial desert sand nap when he's tried by the Iraqis pretty soon. Wonder if he'll wear his BVD's for the occasion? That should help keep out the sand from those sensitive parts.
In a letter published yesterday, the Islamic Butcher of Baghdad seems to have decided that he will become a martyr. He says that his "soul and existence is to be sacrificed" for the Arab cause, whatever that means. Saddam also mentioned Palestine in his letter, and something about his beloved, patient and suffering Iraq. Talk about delusional. Hey, wait a minute...Saddam's letter sounds like it could have been written by the Democratic Party here in the United States! After all, Howard Dean says Iraqis were better off under Saddam than under the U.S. occupation.
Perhaps Howard Dean and Saddam should get together and work on political strategy. While there's still time, that is. It looks like Saddam is headed for trial in about 6 weeks...and if convicted, could be dangling from a rope soon after.
REPUBLICANS DIVIDED ON WAR?
It is interesting to note that whenever a Republican senator goes on one of the talking head shows on Sunday and praises the Bush administration or speaks out in support of our policy in Iraq, it makes zero news. Not important. 99% of the U.S. Senate could support the war in Iraq and it wouldn't matter to the mainstream media...all they care about is the one, single, lone Republican that speaks out against the president.
If a Republican opposes the president, even though it is a single politician, that opposition can be used in the press to make it look like George Bush doesn't even have the support of his own party, even though he does. The lone Republican that speaks out against Bush is held up as a principled, thoughtful person of conscience. So which senator is filling that role this week? Why, it's our good friend and Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel.
Speaking yesterday on ABC's 'This Week,' Saint Hagel repeated the same nonsense he's been espousing for months:
--Iraq is like Vietnam. (It isn't. Not even close.)
--The Iraq war is destabilizing the Middle East. (Really? More democracy is destabilizing? Right.)
--We should pull out. (Wouldn't that really destabilize the Middle East? Not in Chuck's world.)
--Oh...and we're losing the war. If that's the case, then the United States also lost World War II, because you could draw many of the same parallels between where we are in this conflict and where we were in that one.
The headlines will continue to broadcast the lie that there is turmoil in the Republican Party over Iraq, even though there isn't. Why doesn't Hagel just switch parties? He'd fit right in on the left. REDNECK SCRAP BOOK Today we have something a little different in the Redneck Scrap Book A few of you have sent us this little movie set to dueling banjos. Warning to those of you on dial-up, it's a 7mb Quicktime movie.
READING ASSIGNMENTS
 Spotted by Psycho. For the morbid child. Click it to see more. |
Mark Steyn explores the Cindy Sheehan drama, and says her actions are a metaphor for the Democrats. He also says the left is trying to demonize the military...characterizing them as poor, defenseless children. Don't miss this one.
A talk show host in Washington, D.C. has been fired for calling Islam a terrorist organization. It would seem CAIR, a real terrorist organization, didn't take too kindly to his statements.
The 'Able Danger' plot is thickening again...this time it looks like some documents are missing. Where did those documents go and who has them? Someone who doesn't want their contents to be known?
It looks like Democrats are finally starting to get the message and realize something. Opposition to the war in Iraq is getting them nowhere politically. Of course, they're still Democrats, so that means they'll keep doing it.
George Will checks in on U.S. policy in the Middle East, and notes that our policy toward Iran is preposterous.
Did you know that there is good news about the high gas prices? How could there be anything good about paying $50 or $60 bucks to fill up your tank? Steve Chapman explains.
Now that Cindy Sheehan has drifted back into the obscurity from whence she came, will the media stop harping about the Iraq war? Of course not, as the Media Research Center tells us.
Hiding beneath the political surface is the latest round of military base closings...known as BRAC. Robert Novak has one example where not saving a base is going to cost one Republican his career.
What is the solution to illegal immigration? Star Parker says Mexico and the United States have to work together. Although it's pretty difficult to see how that would work...considering 50% of the Mexicans want to come here.
Diana West has an interesting take on George Bush's problems....she says the president needs to get back to his first term self, and forget his second term alter-ego. |
Search Boortz.com
