| Line 15: |
Line 15: |
| | | | |
| | * Abolish the [[Internal Revenue Service]] (IRS). | | * Abolish the [[Internal Revenue Service]] (IRS). |
| − | * Abolish personal income taxes. | + | * Abolish personal [[income tax]]es. |
| | * Repeal the [[16th Amendment]]. | | * Repeal the [[16th Amendment]]. |
| | * Provide each worker a monthly prebate, equal to the tax on "poverty level" income. <ref> Just how fair is the ‘Fair Tax’ CNN Money, September 2005, http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/pf/taxes/consumptiontax_0510/</ref> | | * Provide each worker a monthly prebate, equal to the tax on "poverty level" income. <ref> Just how fair is the ‘Fair Tax’ CNN Money, September 2005, http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/pf/taxes/consumptiontax_0510/</ref> |
| Line 49: |
Line 49: |
| | | | |
| | [[Image:Fairtaxb.jpg|right|thumb|200px| A FairTax bus during a rally at the 2007 [[Republican]] [[Iowa Straw Poll]].]] | | [[Image:Fairtaxb.jpg|right|thumb|200px| A FairTax bus during a rally at the 2007 [[Republican]] [[Iowa Straw Poll]].]] |
| − | Most of the support for the FairTax comes from the [[Republican Party]] and the [[Libertarian]]s. A significant number of [[Conservative]]s want Republican presidential candidates to support the FairTax bill, including one Indiana group called ‘Hoosiers for Fair Taxation’<ref>”FairTax Supporters Vent Frustration”, June 2007, http://www.theindychannel.com/news/13651607/detail.html</ref>. <ref>”FairTaxer's continue to “flex their muscles”, July 2007, http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_feature</ref>. Former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate [[Mike Huckabee]] made passage of a national sales tax a part of his platform during his recent bid for office. Former Federal Reserve chief [[Alan Greenspan]] also exhibited some support for the FairTax in a recent interview.<ref>Greenspan: Consumption Tax could Help Economy, Fox News, March 2005, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149298,00.html</ref> | + | Most of the support for the FairTax comes from the [[Republican Party]] and the [[Libertarian]]s. A significant number of [[Conservative]]s want Republican presidential candidates to support the FairTax, including one Indiana group called ‘Hoosiers for Fair Taxation’<ref>”FairTax Supporters Vent Frustration”, June 2007, http://www.theindychannel.com/news/13651607/detail.html</ref>. <ref>”FairTaxer's continue to “flex their muscles”, July 2007, http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_feature</ref>. Former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate [[Mike Huckabee]] made passage of a national sales tax a part of his platform during his recent bid for office. Former Federal Reserve chief [[Alan Greenspan]] also exhibited support for the FairTax in a recent interview.<ref>Greenspan: Consumption Tax could Help Economy, Fox News, March 2005, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149298,00.html</ref> |
| | | | |
| | Proponents of the FairTax argue it would be more practical than the current system, which includes over 60,000 pages of tax code.<ref> 67,204-Page Code Confounds Taxpayers, Yet Congress Sits By, USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2007-04-03-edit_N.htm?csp=34 </ref>.<br /> | | Proponents of the FairTax argue it would be more practical than the current system, which includes over 60,000 pages of tax code.<ref> 67,204-Page Code Confounds Taxpayers, Yet Congress Sits By, USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2007-04-03-edit_N.htm?csp=34 </ref>.<br /> |
| Line 62: |
Line 62: |
| | Aside from political criticism, however, the FairTax suffers from serious constitutional infirmities. Supporters have tried to paint the tax as an "[[excise]]". But this is flat wrong. The constitutional definition of an [[excise]] is a tax that is strictly limited to '''privileged''' or '''luxury''' goods and activities. The writings of the Founding Fathers, as well as numerous U.S. Supreme Court and lower court rulings, confirm this definition.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Excise</ref> However, the FairTax encumbers '''necessities''' ''in addition to'' privilege and luxury items, thus making it a '''Direct tax''' within the constitutional meaning of the term. Unlike true excises, the FairTax cannot be "avoided" because it taxes things which are necessary to live. These include food, clothing, housing, transportation, medicine, health care, arms for self-defense, phone service, sundries, education, etc. Any tax that encumbers such items must be apportioned among the states, or it violates the Constitution. | | Aside from political criticism, however, the FairTax suffers from serious constitutional infirmities. Supporters have tried to paint the tax as an "[[excise]]". But this is flat wrong. The constitutional definition of an [[excise]] is a tax that is strictly limited to '''privileged''' or '''luxury''' goods and activities. The writings of the Founding Fathers, as well as numerous U.S. Supreme Court and lower court rulings, confirm this definition.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Excise</ref> However, the FairTax encumbers '''necessities''' ''in addition to'' privilege and luxury items, thus making it a '''Direct tax''' within the constitutional meaning of the term. Unlike true excises, the FairTax cannot be "avoided" because it taxes things which are necessary to live. These include food, clothing, housing, transportation, medicine, health care, arms for self-defense, phone service, sundries, education, etc. Any tax that encumbers such items must be apportioned among the states, or it violates the Constitution. |
| | | | |
| − | Although proponents suggest that necessities are effectively relieved from the tax by virtue of the prebate, the fact remains that necessities ''are'' taxed. Furthermore, once an individual's spending on necessities exceeds the poverty level, the prebate no longer offsets the tax, and the tax ''operates fully'' as an unapportioned Direct tax, in violation of the Constitution. In ''Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.'' (1916), the Supreme Court ruled that whenever any "excise" morphs into a tax on items of common right (such as anything needed to preserve and carry out a normal life) "the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it." Regardless of whether the FairTax is called an "excise," it is, in substance, a Direct tax which cannot be apportioned among the states. It is therefore unconstitutional. | + | Although proponents suggest that necessities are effectively relieved from the tax by virtue of the prebate, the fact remains that necessities ''are'' taxed. Furthermore, once an individual's spending on necessities exceeds the poverty level, the prebate no longer offsets the tax, and the tax ''operates fully'' as an unapportioned Direct tax, in violation of the Constitution. In ''Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.'' (1916), the Supreme Court ruled that whenever any "excise" morphs into a tax on items of common right (such as anything necessary to preserve and carry out a normal life) "the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it." Regardless of whether the FairTax is called an "excise," it is, in substance, a Direct tax which cannot be apportioned among the states. It is therefore unconstitutional. |
| | | | |
| | Finally, the FairTax shares a major flaw with the current income tax system: There is no cap on the rate that Congress may impose. Initially, that rate might be established at 23%. But nothing in the FairTax proposal prevents Congress from raising the rate to 30%, or even higher. Given the government's proclivity for spending money, an eventual increase in the FairTax rate, were the tax to become law, seems inevitable.<br /> | | Finally, the FairTax shares a major flaw with the current income tax system: There is no cap on the rate that Congress may impose. Initially, that rate might be established at 23%. But nothing in the FairTax proposal prevents Congress from raising the rate to 30%, or even higher. Given the government's proclivity for spending money, an eventual increase in the FairTax rate, were the tax to become law, seems inevitable.<br /> |
| Line 69: |
Line 69: |
| | ==External Links== | | ==External Links== |
| | | | |
| − | *[http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer Americans for Fair Taxation]<br /> | + | *[http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer Americans for Fair Taxation] |
| | + | *[http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.htm FactCheck.org] |
| | + | <br /> |
| | | | |
| | | | |