I attended my local Republican Congressman’s townhall last night and while their was plenty to see and hear I will spare everyone the story on the townhall and instead focus on my rebuke of the “Fair Tax”, a tax reform proposal that my Congressman is a strong supporter of and loves to tout at every opportunity. The “Fair Tax” is a proposal to repeal the 16th amendment, eliminate all federal taxes and replace it with a national sales tax that would be set at 23%.
It is a somewhat modern idea even though the idea of using consumption taxes has been around for a long time. It is mainly supported by conservative politicians and has garnered a handful of support mostly from conservatives and libertarians in the South where its main touters and creators syndicated conservative/libertarian talk radio host Neil Boortz and former Republican Congressman John Linder from Georgia have the most reach.
They wrote 2 books on the “Fair Tax” as well and the plan also got some traction from the candidacy of Herman Cain. His 9-9-9 plan was meant to be a bridge to instituting the “Fair Tax” and was his eventual goal. The “Fair Tax” bill has been proposed before the House multiple times with numerous co-sponsors but has never passed.
As a regular listener to Mr. Boortz and a resident of the South I am well versed in the “Fair Tax” idea and have had a lot of exposure and debate with its supporters. While nearly everyone agrees our current tax system is ineffective, wasteful and often unfair, the “Fair Tax” is not the best solution to fix our tax system and has many drawbacks that make it both ineffective and unfair.
The most glaring problem is the tax rate itself which would be set nationally at 23% as a starting point. This 23% federal sales tax would be applicable on all goods and services purchased. In addition to the 23% federal sales tax all state, local, county and municipal sales taxes would still be applicable which for most Americans would raise the total tax burden to around 28%-35. At this level the tax rate becomes very heavy and would create “sticker shock” that could cause people to purchase less goods and as a result hurt consumer spending and economic growth.
Supporters claim that by eliminating the hidden and embedded taxes in the price of goods and services overall item prices would go down and help balance out the effect of the new sales tax rate. While I don’t deny that the price of items would likely go down a little bit it would not be by 23% much less 28%. Most likely a majority of the savings that producers would receive from the elimination of embedded taxes would be pocketed as profit, used for investment or given to shareholders in the form of dividend increases. All those things are positive but it would not help consumers as a whole and sticker shock would still be a major issue that could harm the economy if prices increase overall.
The “Fair Tax” puts far too much trust and power in business something I and many Americans don’t trust for good reason. The “Fair Tax” also would unfairly impact lower income Americans because with their lower, tighter incomes a new sales tax would hurt them a lot more especially if they are currently paying a low tax burden. It relies too heavily on assumptions rather than proven facts. Not to mention the 23% tax rate could well go up if Congress feels it is warranted.
“Fair Tax” supporters point to something called the “prebate” which is part of the “Fair Tax” proposal. The prebate would be a monthly check to all Americans ,who register yearly. up to the federal poverty level would receive from the Government to cover the cost of “essential” goods and services such as food. While this idea would help it’s not enough to offset the new burden on lower income Americans as it would not cover non essential goods and services people may purchase. It would also not apply to non-citizens which is part of the anti-illegal immigration agenda many conservatives uphold.
While illegal immigration is a problem and something I have addressed in detail before this tax proposal and form of punishment is not the best way to address the problem. The other problem with the prebate is how large the program would have to be in order to cover all Americans who would rely on it. It is a massive and unfunded entitlement that would crush any savings the fair tax might achieve. The prebate is a bad solution to try and fix a flawed proposal.
The “Fair Tax” benefits higher income Americans the most as it would serve to lower their effective tax rate by a large margin (30%-35% to 23%) and the sticker shock is something they can absorb more easily. While supporters claim it would eliminate the IRS I highly doubt that because someone still has to collect and keep track of the federal sales tax revenues. Federal tax collection agencies are not going anywhere whether we call it the “IRS” or not.
It would also require repealing a constitutional amendment and fundamentally changes our current behind the scenes tax system. Most of all it would not help balance the tax system or raise revenues. Its supporters claim its either “revenue neutral” or even “revenue positive” but analysis have found that it would reap lower revenues especially if the economy slows down as it is prone to.
You cannot get rid of all the federal taxes including income, payroll, corporate etc. and expect it to be revenue neutral. Your simply bleeding too much revenue to expect a 23% consumption tax to replace it all the math doesn’t work.
During the 2008-2010 recession state sales tax revenues plummeted across the board and states were forced to make tough cuts to stay afloat. The federal government should not subject itself and its revenues to the whims of consumer spending like states have to. Of course, it does nothing in regard to state tax systems so if your state has an income tax you would still have to file and pay a state return.
The other fear is the possible creation of a “black market” for people to take advantage of the somewhat lower prices of goods and services without having to pay national sales tax. This would be very bad and could breed many negative consequences in addition to the lost revenues.
The “Fair Tax” is easier for people in the sense that they would not have to file a tax return and would simply pay sales tax but its harder for them to keep up with their tax bill (who keeps a record of sales taxes they paid?). It also encourages more saving and investment which is great but their are better ways to do that.
The “Fair Tax” is not the worst idea and is better than the current system but it is in reality the unfair tax, would be terribly ineffective and instead of unleashing economic growth could instead harm our consumer based economy and serve to hurt our most vulnerable lower income Americans and the middle class as they are hit by the brutal reality of sticker shock.
The tax system needs reform, its broken and rigged that is one thing we agree on which is why I will detail my tax reform proposal a “layered flat tax” in my next column.
Steen K



18 Comments




Well, I give you credit for knowing Fairtax has “flaws”.
But that’s like saying a magic pony that (supposedly) poops gold has flaws.
Fairtax is a bunch of crap — a fraud. And I put 50,000 dollars up to prove it. I offer 50K — serious legally binding offer, if anyone can prove Fairtax is really a 23% personal retail sales tax that replaces all other fed taxes.
That’s the hustle you morons all believe because you are too stupid, frankly, to read the fine print, or read the real studies done.
Only 1/5 of Fairtax revenue comes from retail sales taxes. The lions share of Fairtax, you morons don’t even know about. 4/5 of Fairtax – the vast majority of Fairtax revenue — comes from taxes that are NOT personal retail sales taxes.
But you morons are so stupid, so gullible, so mindless, so sheep like, you suck up the stupid like a fat kid sucks up cake.
Did you know Fairtax own researcher — Dale Jorgenson — totally and categorically rejected Fairtax? HELL NO you didn’t know that. LIke the morons you are you don’t even question this crap.
Did you know that Fairtax taxes all military wages, pensions, and benefits? HELL NO you didn’t know that.
Do you have any F-ing idea what the biggest source of revenue under Fairtax is? Here is a clue, it’s not on personal retail sales. That retail tax would hardly be enough to cover the goofy prebate. Did you know that?
Did you know every city – your city, and your state, and your county, has to pay massive taxes, NOT just on some retail sales, but they have to pay a tax on almost ALL they spend. Including a tax on new highways, a tax on operational cost of prisons. A tax on on government “investment”.
Hell no you don’t know that. YOu just know this crap about the retail tax.
Go oh read the fine print you geniuses. Pull your head out of your dumb ass for a minute.
Fairtax is going no where, its a f-ing joke, and their leaders know it. But you morons should learn to spot frauds and bullshit.
Want proof? here, I got the proof — the actual fine print, the actual footnotes, the actual tax tables. Take off your stupid hat and take the time to read it. Its not bullshit, it’s their own words.
http://fairtaxgoofy.blogspot.com/
Hello, nolesfan2011,
You raise and do a good job of examining a lot of very important concerns and although I feel there are counterpoints to be made I haven’t time at the moment, but will try to get back here. I will certainly be watching for your proposal of a “layered flat tax” in future columns.
And let me also add how grateful I am to see the position expressed calmly and rationally: I’ve really quite had my fill of people who believe any disagreement could only come from morons are so stupid, so gullible, so mindless, so sheep like, that they suck up the stupid like a fat kid sucks up cake.
Not that I’m disparaging such folks for their rage, venom, general asininity, or blogspots that look like a pyramid scheme sales pitch and are full of broken links and unattributed “quotes.” No, my complaint is their incredible lack of political correctness these obesity bigots display in making such nasty, offensive remarks about “fat kids.”
The flat “Fair” Tax is not fair. The income tax should be progressive, with a top marginal rate of 100%. There is no reason for anyone to hoard money they will never spend for their personal living needs.
Counter points?
I am going to be blunt and very direct. So if you are offended by “cussing” don’t read any futher.
Really, don’t read any futher if you are offended by cussing.
ARE you F-ING INSANE? You have counter points??????
COunter points ? How stupid can you be? They tax military wages, pensions, and benefits. Hell they tax all military SPENDING you lunatic.
Were the FUCK do you think, you genius, the military would have to get the money to pay this tax? From Santa Claus?
All cities, all states, all counties, have to pay too — and massively. No, not just on retail. Got that? Governments have to pay taxes (an idiotic fraud anyway) on virtuall EVERYTHING THEY SPEND.
SO if Texas has 5 billion spending on prisons and highway construction, guess what moron? They have to send 1.5 billion or so to the federal government.
Think that is going to happen?
And get this — they hide that. They hide that in the fine print and foot notes.
Oh they defend it, when you corner one. “We are just asking city and states to pay”. BULL FUCKING SHIT. hiding shit in the fine print is not asking.
Are you so FUCKING stupid you think that hiding 2 trillion of taxes in fine print, is ASKING?
How the fuck is that asking? Hiding shit, you moron, is the OPPOSITE, of asking.
But you have counter points? You fucking idiot, you don’t have a clue. Not a fucking clue.
Fairtax made you morons believe their plan is a simple retail sales tax on people. That’s all.
Bullshit. That’s only a small PART of it.
Counter that, you moron.
Do you think the state legislature of Texas, for example, will pay 15 billion dollars? Is this too hard for you? Want a while?
Texas states legislature can NOT be forced to pay taxes, you idiot. You stupid shits, when you find out, are so FUCKING stupid, you don’t even wonder why they didn’t tell you that. Instead, you are so FUCKING sheep like you go, uh, whats uh, wrong, uh, with states, uh, paying uh, taxes?
You stupid shit — read the fine print moron. I told you to read the fine print. Did you fucking bother? FUCK NO.
All city, county and states would have to drastically raise their taxes!!! That’s in the fine print and foot notes and supporting documents. Go FUCKING READ IT.
So every city, every county, and every state — EVERY FUCKING ONE — would have to raise the living shit out of their taxes to pay it.
You stupid fuck. Not only is that impossible, not only would city and states say FUCK NO, but it’s also unconstutional as hell.
Dumb ass.
You say you have counter points? No you dont dumb ass, you don’t even know what Fairtax is about.
City and counties and states have NO FUCKING idea abou this huge part of Fairtax — why? Because Fairtax hides this shit in the fine print and footnotes. Am I going to fast?
So tell me dumb ass, supposed somehow they pass this (they wont) will your city, county and state just pay massive taxes? And guess what dumb ass, only PEOPLE pay taxes, so all those taxes your city, county and state would have to pay, YOU reallly would have to pay.
But Fairtax has you dumb gullible morons convinced that “corporations don’t pay taxes”. Do you fucking know how much taxes corporations pay? NOT FUCKING MUCH. But under Fairtax, the city and states would have to pay about 2 fucking trillion. That’s right, idiot, 2 trillion.
So you dumb fucks go around going “uh, duh, corporations don’t pay taxes, only people do” — but you are SOOOOOO FUCKING stupid, Fairtax can tax all city and states, and you dog shit eating morons go “Oh, okay, wow”
Fairtax is a bunch of fucking crap. And I offer 50K, real money, if anyone can show it’s a 23% personal retail sales tax to replace all other taxes.
“ARE you F-ING INSANE? You have counter points?”
No and Yes, respectively. You, however, sound as though you’re having a psychotic episode.
“And get this — they hide that. They hide that in the fine print and foot notes.”
Then quote it and provide a link to the original source, not some raggedy-ass blog.
If you’re right I’ll apologize, and wouldn’t it stroke your oversized ego to have one of the F-ING INSANE, FUCKING stupid, moronic, fucking idiot, clueless, FUCKING sheep, stupid shit, stupid fuck, dumb ass, gullible moron, dumb fucks publicly admit that you were right and he was wrong?
“raise the total tax burden to around 28%-35″
Can you document that? I don’t know of any places where the state, local, county and municipal sales taxes add up to 12%.
Your point about “sticker shock” is certainly something to be considered, but the other side of the coin is the “paycheck shock” of seeing how much more you’re taking home.
“The “Fair Tax” puts far too much trust and power in business something I and many Americans don’t trust for good reason.”
I don’t follow that: you’re saying the FT empowers businesses? How? And, once again, consider the other side of the coin: the current system puts far too much trust and power in Congress. How much do you trust them?
“While this idea (the prebate) would help it’s not enough to offset the new burden on lower income Americans as it would not cover non essential goods and services people may purchase.”
First, you haven’t shown that the “new” burden is any greater than the “old” one and second, how much money do you suppose people living below the poverty level spend on non-essentials?
“The other problem with the prebate is how large the program would have to be in order to cover all Americans who would rely on it.”
Why not give that job to the IRS, who processed 138,893,908 individual tax returns in 2007. The prebate forms would be much simpler and easier to process, and at about one-third the volume (46.2 million Americans living below the official poverty line per http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/14census.html?pagewanted=all)
It is NOT “a massive and unfunded entitlement that would crush any savings the fair tax might achieve”: the IRS’s infrastructure and budget are already in place, and it seems quite reasonable to suppose that less work and easier work could be accomplished with a smaller budget. In 2009 the IRS budget was $11.522 billion: cut that by two-thirds and you just saved almost $8 billion.
“The “Fair Tax” benefits higher income Americans the most as it would serve to lower their effective tax rate by a large margin (30%-35% to 23%)”
First, it’s very dangerous to say on a Liberal blog that the rich are paying 30%-35%: I’ve never seen anyone here claim that. Warren Buffet said about 18%, as I recall.
Second, you’re mixing apples and oranges by comparing income tax rates with sales tax rates. Tiger Woods buys a $50 million house and probably gets a tax break under the current system: with FT he’d have paid $11.5 million in taxes.
“It would also require repealing a constitutional amendment”
That’s the biggest practical objection, all right. Of course, we did manage a Constitutional Amendment to create Federal Taxes in the first place (not an especially popular idea).
“the math doesn’t work”
As one of my Professors was fond of saying, “May we see your validating equations, please?”
“The federal government should not subject itself and its revenues to the whims of consumer spending like states have to.”
A very, very good point, but keep in mind the recession also caused a drop in Federal tax revenues as so many people went from paying taxes to collecting unemployment. Whether revenues are a percentage of income or a percentage of spending they’re still “a piece of the action” and the amount of “action” will vary.
“The possible creation of a “black market”
Shrug. People have been smuggling cigarettes, booze, and other high-tax items for decades. However, the black market concept does segue nicely into something you completely failed to mention: collecting tax revenues from cash-based illegal enterprises.
How many pimps, fences, drug dealers, armed robbers, etc. do you think properly declare their income and pay the taxes? How many of them do you think spend the money, and would therefore pay the FT?
I’m not a fan of fairtax. At all. It’s an undisguised attempt at lowering rich peoples’ taxes to virtually zero. That being said, calling people names is inappropriate. Both of your “comments” have been flagged as abusive.
The unfairness of the “Fair Tax” can be put quite simply this way. For regular people it is a tax on all of our income because we spend everything that we make. It does not tax wealth in any way because wealth is unspent income so rich folks don’t pay taxes on any income that is not spent.
Also, the Pre-bate is a totally un-funded expenditure and would be the first thing eliminated by deficit hawks.
I have read the “(un)Fair Tax” books. It is a joke and a misnomer like the Patriot Act. A favorite lingustic tool of the MOTU to lure the un-informed into believing the BS.
Check out this tax system by University of Wisconsin Professor of Economics Edgar L. Feige, who refers to the idea as the Automated Payments Transaction Tax. http://www.apttax.com/index.htm.
What is the APT? In order to raise the same amount of revenue as our current tax system, a “revenue neutral” APT tax would impose a single tiny tax rate on each and every transaction in the economy. This transaction tax would completely REPLACE our current system – not be added on to it.
Since the volume of all transactions is estimated to be 100 times larger than the current tax base, the flat tax rate needed to raise the same amount of revenues is just a hundredth of the current average tax rate of roughly 30%. So if transactions stayed at their current level, the APT tax rate would be three tenths of one percent (0.35%) on each transaction. Even if total transactions fell by 50%, the revenue neutral APT tax rate would only be six tenths of one percent (0.7%) split equally between the buyer and seller in each transaction so each would pay 0.35%.
Feige details how the replacement of our current tax system with an APT tax could save the government and its citizens as much as $500 billion annually by eliminating the compliance, collection, enforcement and inefficiency costs of our current tax system. Additional savings would accrue society in general, which are impossible to compute. Just think of all those beautiful trees that will be left standing when we stop printing the 70,000 page Tax Code and the millions (maybe billions) of copies of forms with instructions still being used at both federal and state levels.
How would it work? Consider a family with an annual income of $60,000, paying $20,000 in interest and mortgage payments on their house and spending $40,000 on all other items. The family has total transactions of $120,000. Today that family would owe roughly $20,000 in total taxes. Under the APT tax, with a rate of 0.7% they would pay $210 (.35% x $60000) on their income receipts and $210 on their expenditures for a total tax of $420. Their employer would pay $210 tax on the income payment, the mortgage company would pay $70 on its receipts and the merchants receiving the family’s $40,000 of other expenses would pay another $140 in taxes. In total, the government would receive $840. And all the taxes would be automatically assessed and paid without filing tax returns.
How then does the government collect enough taxes to pay its bills? Most of the revenues would be collected from the massive volume of stock and bond trades and foreign exchange transactions none of which are now taxed. One might be concerned that imposing taxes on these types of transactions would stifle economic activity in these critical areas, however, the tax is so small it would be dwarfed by the simple fluctuations in price that typically occur during the trading process. Although “day trading” and short term foreign exchange transactions will certainly decline, the reduction in these “hot money” transactions are only likely to reduce speculative market activity, thereby reducing the volatility of prices in these markets.
Although every voluntary transaction is assessed the same low tax rate, the APT tax achieves equity and fairness because the wealthiest portion of the population executes a disproportionate share of financial transactions, whereas the poorest members of society engage in relatively few financial transactions since they have so much less wealth to manage. So it’s inherently progressive.
How will the APT Tax system work? Every bank, brokerage, or other financial account established by a person, corporation or other taxable organization will pay 0.35% on ALL funds moving IN OR OUT of that account. The tax would be automatically transferred to a federal government tax collection account in the same institution. This will be true for stock, bond, options, and futures traders and investors; foreign citizens, companies and governments exchanging their currency for US dollars; a couple buying a new car (no more 8.25% sales tax, instead 0.35% APT tax); and, a teenager buying movie tickets with a credit card. The movement of funds is taxed and collected immediately without recording who or what was the source of funds or the recipient. This automated system would totally eliminate the need for filing tax returns and information returns, freeing individuals and businesses of enormous costs of tax compliance and greatly reducing the government’s costs of collection and enforcement.
This is the best tax plan I have ever read.
LOL
Well, when you are correct, you are correct.
As to ironymeter’s suggestion that there are counter-points, there is only one counter-point. That one is the idea that investment income should never be taxed because it causes “friction” and slows down growth in the capitalist system – unproven and indeed the evidence seems to be against the idea that not taxing investment helps anything other than the pocketbooks of the rich, but that is an article of faith – even amongst the blessed Obama followers. And extremely weak studies will be pulled up at a drop of a hat to prove the need to not tax investment.
As you point out the “fair tax” taxes all transactions – so that $400,000 house purchase involves a tax of (“Tax” plus $400,000 divided into “tax” equals 23%)(you all reading this thought you could just multiply didn’t you
– you can if you restate so its like a sales tax so Fair tax 23% becomes 23/77 = 29.9%) – a tax of $120,000. Now do you still want to buy that house?
Meanwhile, to make the Fair tax sale-able, they say they will exclude homes. military pay, and contributions to charity, etc., forgetting that this plus ending the pretense that they are getting back to a balanced budget means a “Fair tax of over 50%” or a sales tax of 100%. The only way the Fair tax gets the revenue to balance the budget is to end military spending – a spending cut advocates do not discuss.
Re 12% state tax and “Can you document that?” – Try no income tax Texas.
As to “paycheck shock” from more money coming in, no prior corporate tax cut has resulted in dollar for dollar increase in wages – or even an increase in wages of any kind. In addition the withholding rate for most folks is 14% – so 23% that is really 30% that is really 100% sales tax is not a winner.
As to your not understanding how the Fair Tax empowers businesses, the above explains but one more time – it is only “trust your corporation” that allows the claim that wages would rise.
? How? And, once again, consider the other side of the coin: the current system puts far too much trust and power in Congress. How much do you trust them? I trust Congress more than corporations – you ever try to stop senior executive theft – I have and I got my head handed to me as it was just valid business decisions and friendly vendors giving gifts and the old English/German from money legacy type was protected.
As to not showing “the “new” burden is any greater than the “old” one and second, and how much money do you suppose people living below the poverty level spend on non-essentials?”, the second part is insulting – the poor are are all drunks and poor because of poor money management? non-essentials? – really? – but the first part is valid – but then equally valid is the fact with the pre-bate and a balanced budget the sales tax is 100%, not 23%.
Your point on IRS processing is also valid – but then one must get folks to self identify as poor, with sanctions for lying, and since most poor are not on welfare (the “working poor”) the group known as poor (lowest 20% of income – the below poverty line 46.2 million misses many just above that are still poor) can never get to even.
Enforcement of exceptions and pre-bate liars and audits of collection suggests the IRS would need some staff – current income tax collection and audit is automated – sales tax collection requires massive sales tax audits – something no state does currently – you have heard of “two books” – well that works in both system but with sales tax cash transactions are so much nicer, easier that cheating is easy. Plus the rich never pay. We tried a sales tax for the rich only – hitting goods only they could afford – and they bought off shore and cost of enforcement was more than Congress would appropriate so it was dropped in 24 months.
The rich do indeed pay closer to 18% (top 2% of population) but Tiger Woods would not pay tax on that expensive house because the sales team for the “Fair tax” now says they would not tax home purchases. To deny the rich benefit from a Fair Tax is to chose to ignore every study out there.
“It would also require repealing a constitutional amendment”
A given with corporate owned State and Federal office holders.
As to “the math doesn’t work” I tried to show that above. Proving that you can not raise $4 Trillion (our budget) from a 23% “Fair tax” is left to the student – define all exemptions and their value and cost of prebate, noting that that “consumer spending” is 70% of GDP of 14 trillion, or $9.8 trillion.
As to “the recession also caused a drop in Federal tax revenues as so many people went from paying taxes to collecting unemployment” is needed to moderate the effect of the recession – very Keynesian but perhaps not appreciated by the GOP.
Finally your best point of taxing “cash-based illegal enterprises” makes me wonder about the size of the IRS as it tracks down the non-sales-tax paying whores, drug dealers, and other scofflaws.
How many pimps, fences, drug dealers, armed robbers, etc. do you think properly declare their inco
This was suggested by Germany for Greece – its $300 billion GDP generated about 7 trillion of “visible transactions”.
The rich not paying via buying elsewhere was not seen as a problem by the German rich.
It certainly is simple as long as we all pay electronically.
But I expect we would have a few “cash only” shops.
A fraction of a cent financial transaction tax makes more sense and is need to control speculation – but the rich are trying to kill that by expanding the idea into a tax to replace the income tax.
I’ve long been an advocate of a financial transaction tax to discourage speculation.
Thanks Papau you pretty much answered Ironymeter’s questions the same way I would have. Amghru your idea sounds interesting as well.
“insulting – the poor are are all drunks and poor because of poor money management? non-essentials? – really?”
Bull. Fucking. Shit.
I did not say that. I did not imply that. Simple common sense (and personal experience in my case) tells you people below the poverty line have — at most — only enough for the essentials. Having gone for months at a stretch eating nothing but beans or spaghetti I can promise you I wasn’t spending money on anything that would be subject to the FT.
“wonder about the size of the IRS as it tracks down the non-sales-tax”
Huh? Why would that be necessary? Today the IRS spends time and money trying to track down people not paying income taxes on cash received: if tax is added on at the cash register the IRS has nothing to do with it.
“answered Ironymeter’s questions the same way I would have”
You also think I said those below the poverty line are drunks who are poor due to mismanagement? Quote me.
You also think the IRS will be chasing burglars who somehow bought a new stereo system without paying the sales tax?
Opps, forgot to mention:
“Try no income tax Texas.”
“The Texas state sales and use tax rate is 6.25%, but local taxing jurisdictions (cities, counties, special purpose districts, and transit authorities) may also impose sales and use tax up to 2% for a total maximum combined rate of 8.25%.”
Have you ever considered looking before you leap? It took me less tahn 60 seconds to type “texas sales tax rate” into google, and this was #2 on the list:
http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/local/
“For regular people it is a tax on all of our income because we spend everything that we make.” (emphasis added)
Except that most of what you spend it on isn’t subject to the FT. Plus the prebate.
The current Income Tax system has been falling apart for years!
The fact that the code is almost 75,000 pages long is bad enough, but that number does not even take into account the thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of tax publications, instruction booklets and revenue rulings nor the thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of tax court cases.
Thus the current Income Tax system has proven not to work and the problems it has are inherent within the mind numbing code itself. Just pick up and read any tax publication, tax court case or even the code itself. The whole thing is a mass of contradictions!
Tax attorneys and CPA’s all generally disagree on what it all means and if you went to any of them for a consultation on a complicated tax matter, you would get entirely different answers. So to even to attempt to comply with the whole thing can cost a small fortune. So on top of the amount of tax you pay, there is the time and money it costs just to figure out how to comply with the whole thing.
So it is obvious that the code cannot be fixed by adding more and more regulations to fix the earlier regulations. And on top of everything else, the current Income Tax code has evolved into a system that makes it illegal to not do your bookkeeping the way the government want you to.
This is not a system of taxation that can sustain itself much longer and will eventually collapse.