Fred Thompson Embraces 'Fair Tax' - Dallas Cowboys Forum

**BrAinPaiNt** · 08-17-2007

LINK

Written by Susan Jones, CNSNews.com Senior Editor

Former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee -- the not-quite-yet Republican presidential candidate -- says the next president "should enact a fundamental overhaul of the tax code that makes it fairer, simpler, and more pro-growth."

Thompson mentioned that there are a "number of ways to do that," and he said the "principles and ideas found in the Fair Tax are a good place to start."

The Fair Tax -- a national retail sales tax designed to replace the income tax system and all payroll taxes -- has the support of five declared Republican presidential candidates and one Democrat (former Sen. Mike Gravel).

Thompson, in an Aug. 10 letter to the national FairTax campaign, said it's time for Congress to begin "a serious consideration of real fundamental tax reform rather than nibbling around the edges."

FairTax said it welcomes the support of Republicans like Thompson as well as that of Democrats, Independents, and Americans who have given up on political parties.

"Wresting control of the tax system away from an army of Washington, D.C., tax lobbyists requires the kind of grassroots wildfire the FairTax campaign is producing," said Ken Hoagland of FairTax.org.

"Public response has been so strong and so broad we believe this campaign is now on the verge of becoming a powerful national movement," Hoagland added.

Americans for Fair Taxation, or FairTax for short, says it wants to make tax reform the main issue in the 2008 presidential election.

The group says a national sales tax, or consumption tax, would be self-limiting and enhance civil liberties, while direct taxes (such as the income tax) has been a tool of tyranny throughout history.

Yeagermeister · 08-17-2007

I thought it was going to be about a tax on carnies

jterrell · 08-17-2007

Opposition to the so-called FairTax should be obvious:

It is not anymore elective than an income tax.

You have to shelter, clothe and feed yourself.

Sales taxes nail families with kids who are forced to pay for more things because they have kids.

For the wealthy who can afford to buy really quality items that do not wear out, do not require replacing and who can live on a smidgen of their overall income it is great idea.

For the rest of us? Its insane.

We already pay huge taxes on gas, alcohol, and luxury items like boats.

It would definitely reduce our consumer nature which is not at all good for the economy.

What we need to do is spend less governmental money on nonsense and stop allowing people to skirt the income tax by being illegal or weaseling out of it with tax attorneys. Make our federal budget a zero sum deal and stop using the social security money as a damn piggy bank.

AtlCB · 08-17-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jterrell

Opposition to the so-called FairTax should be obvious:

It is not anymore elective than an income tax.

You have to shelter, clothe and feed yourself.

Sales taxes nail families with kids who are forced to pay for more things because they have kids.

For the wealthy who can afford to buy really quality items that do not wear out, do not require replacing and who can live on a smidgen of their overall income it is great idea.

For the rest of us? Its insane.

We already pay huge taxes on gas, alcohol, and luxury items like boats.

It would definitely reduce our consumer nature which is not at all good for the economy.

[View Full Quote]

The fair tax is more progressive than our current tax system. Everyone who works receives a check from the government for the taxes paid based on the poverty level. The rich will probably pay more than they do now. They find ways around the tax system by deducting depreciation on expensive cars, property, and boats by claiming them as business deductions. Under the fair tax, they would pay a large tax on these items. The plan would also force illegal immigrants and people "paid under the table" to pay taxes as well. The plan isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than the system we have now. It's ridiculous that you need an accounting degree to do your income tax return.

Mavs Man · 08-17-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jterrell

Opposition to the so-called FairTax should be obvious:

It is not anymore elective than an income tax.

You have to shelter, clothe and feed yourself.

Sales taxes nail families with kids who are forced to pay for more things because they have kids.

For the wealthy who can afford to buy really quality items that do not wear out, do not require replacing and who can live on a smidgen of their overall income it is great idea.

For the rest of us? Its insane.

We already pay huge taxes on gas, alcohol, and luxury items like boats.

It would definitely reduce our consumer nature which is not at all good for the economy.

[View Full Quote]

Regarding Social Security, closing tax loopholes, and requiring the government to run a balanced budget - I totally agree.

I disagree that replacing the current tax system with a sales tax would be a bad thing.

As a percentage of their income, those in the lower income brackets will always pay more compared to "the rich", regardless of which tax version you use. But those in higher brackets spend much more than those in the lower brackets, so they would still pay their "fair" share of taxes under this proposed system.

It's all about incentives.

We tax things we want to inhibit. An "income tax" inhibits work, and because of graduated levels, taxes you at a higher rate as you work more and raise your income level.

A sales tax would inhibit your willingness to spend, which should encourage more frugal spending habits and personal savings.

Replacing an income tax with a national sales tax would work best for both, since it would encourage savings without discouraging work (as it does now), with the added benefit of completely closing tax loopholes and legal nonsense so many who can afford to take advantage of, without punishing people with a higher tax if they want to work more overtime or get a second job.

This would also more closely tie lower income Americans with the political system, since they would have a much more vested interest than they currently have.

In 2004 the top fifty percent of households paid 96.5 percent of total federal income taxes (median income level was $43,000 for entire household).

Angus · 08-17-2007

Interesting discussion.

Eric_Boyer · 08-17-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jterrell

Opposition to the so-called FairTax should be obvious:

It is not anymore elective than an income tax.

You have to shelter, clothe and feed yourself.

Sales taxes nail families with kids who are forced to pay for more things because they have kids.

For the wealthy who can afford to buy really quality items that do not wear out, do not require replacing and who can live on a smidgen of their overall income it is great idea.

For the rest of us? Its insane.

We already pay huge taxes on gas, alcohol, and luxury items like boats.

It would definitely reduce our consumer nature which is not at all good for the economy.

[View Full Quote]

I urge everybody to look deeper into the issue.

The fairtax doesn't tax used merchandise. So the first critique about not being any more elective then a tax on labor is just flat wrong.

Add in that every American gets a non-tax allowance and it is easy to see how this system is far more elective while still remaining progressive in nature.

As for our economy, we don't save nearly enough as it is. If a policy change places more importance on spending vs saving (and getting bailed out by government down the road) hurts the economy, please demonstrate how.

jterrell · 08-17-2007

apparently from Romney supporters so take it for what it is worth....

Fair Tax Cost Thompson More Credibility

http://shotpolitics.com/fair-tax-cos...redibility.htm

July 31, 2007 | Filed Under 2008 | Republicans, Presidential, The Chaser
Written by The Shot

[Tim Cameron]

Yesterday ABC News broke the story that Fred Thompson had promised voters that he would support the Fair Tax, and would eventually sign the pledge. Today the Thompson campaign is saying that Thompson hasn’t promised to sign the pledge.

The Fair Tax organization then released a video of Fred Thompson speaking to a fair tax supporter in Texas. In the video Thompson is asked: “Senator, if the House and Senate pass the ‘Fair Tax’ bill would you sign it?” Thompson replies, “yeah, absolutely”. You can watch the video here.

I realize that Thompson might have only said that to satisfy the massive crowd of Fair Tax supporters who greeted him at the airport (a move any candidate should avoid making). But his communication department has butchered this situation. I don’t know if this was some confusion over the contents of video, but the Thompson campaign simply replied that the Fair Tax organization was “wrong” for claiming their candidate has promised to sign the pledge.

I don’t know what went wrong with communications department, but I do know something went wrong. Fair Tax is one of the most organized groups in the entire nation. Anybody who witnessed their rally before the Fox News Debate earlier this year can attest to that. His campaign just made a lot of people angry, because his campaign just made the Fair Tax people appear like they have no clue what they are talking about.

Now if this story was just one bump along the road, it probably wouldn’t be that bad. But this is part of a long string of negative stories about Thompson’s campaign.

Rick Klein at ABC’s the Note has a pretty concise summery of Thompson’s recent problems:

What an actor needs to learn about timing

Lessons learned in the two months that former senator Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., has been “testing the waters”: 1. Having a campaign shake-up does not require having a campaign (though having a meddlesome spouse helps). 2. Folksy observations do not answer questions about lobbying work on behalf of abortion-rights groups (and the flies called “opposition research” buzz really loudly come fall). 3. No one politician can possibly fix all the things that plague the GOP (even if that politician plays a problem-solver on TV). 4. Some actors look better in the middle distance than in tight shots.

As Thompson gets his first of many close-ups today with a federal financial filing, the question must be asked: Did Thompson miss his moment? If Thompson had jumped into the race in late spring, when the GOP was in full angst mode over its presidential field, his announcement would have itself provided a major lift. The storyline: a smooth-talking (conservative) giant-to-the-rescue — irresistible to the party faithful, and filling a discernable void in the field.

But with officials indicating that Thompson will barely top $3 million in money raised in June — far less than the goal the campaign let linger publicly — his fundraising announcement combines with staff turmoil to tell a muddier story. “The amount . . . was less than the $5 million that Mr. Thompson’s supporters had hoped for and has met with some disappointment inside his camp, which has also been buffeted in recent days by staff defections and high-level disagreements,” write The New York Times’ Susan Saulny and David Kirkpatrick. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/us...cs/31fred.html

And now it’s the Fair Tax story.

This certainly won’t doom Thompson’s chances, but it doesn’t help either. If Thompson had announced in the spring, many of this troubles would be non-existent. But he didn’t. I’m beginning to think that Thompson has the “shoulda, coulda, woulda” campaign of 2008. The problem is “close” and “almost” only count in horseshoes and hand grenades, and certainly don’t help you get the Republican nomination. I understand the reasoning behind not wanting to announce until after Labor Day, but Labor Day is still over a month away. The question now is how many more “bumps” along the road can Thompson take before he becomes the Wes Clark of this election cycle?

jterrell · 08-17-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric_Boyer

I urge everybody to look deeper into the issue.

The fairtax doesn't tax used merchandise. So the first critique about not being any more elective then a tax on labor is just flat wrong.

Add in that every American gets a non-tax allowance and it is easy to see how this system is far more elective while still remaining progressive in nature.

As for our economy, we don't save nearly enough as it is. If a policy change places more importance on spending vs saving (and getting bailed out by government down the road) hurts the economy, please demonstrate how.

How do you buy used food?

Mavs Man · 08-17-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jterrell

How do you buy used food?

Eric_Boyer · 08-17-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jterrell

How do you buy used food?

Are you familiar with the spending allowance provision of the FairTax?

jterrell · 08-17-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric_Boyer

I urge everybody to look deeper into the issue.

The fairtax doesn't tax used merchandise. So the first critique about not being any more elective then a tax on labor is just flat wrong.

Add in that every American gets a non-tax allowance and it is easy to see how this system is far more elective while still remaining progressive in nature.

As for our economy, we don't save nearly enough as it is. If a policy change places more importance on spending vs saving (and getting bailed out by government down the road) hurts the economy, please demonstrate how.

buying less stuff means someone else is selling less stuff and thus they are also buying less stuff and more people are buying and selling less stuff.../..

we have been going the opposite direction for a long time because economists have recognized this.

for libertarians specifically this is a really bad idea to push. its why the mainstream society views you as kooks

~

This isn't less government its just a shift from taxing income to money spent without any fairness applied at all.

And it is pretty clear many folks are forced to spend more of their income than others.

I make pretty solid money, would qualify as upper middle class. If this was to happen I'd tap my savings to buy items in advance of this. I'd trade in my cars, boat, video/audio equipment, house, et al to buy upgraded versions that I'd intend to keep for a long time... then I'd stop buying anything unnecessary.

Most could not afford to do so.

They'd be stuck paying a 30% tax!!! WoW!!
Thats not including many city or county sales taxes already place.

Eric_Boyer · 08-17-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jterrell

buying less stuff means someone else is selling less stuff and thus they are also buying less stuff and more people are buying and selling less stuff.../..

we have been going the opposite direction for a long time because economists have recognized this.

for libertarians specifically this is a really bad idea to push. its why the mainstream society views you as kooks

~

This isn't less government its just a shift from taxing income to money spent without any fairness applied at all.

And it is pretty clear many folks are forced to spend more of their income than others.

[View Full Quote]

I am specifically challenging your argument that it is no less voluntary of a tax plan.

You did state such a thing, no?

The economy, measured in GDP production, would suffer.

Personally, I find statistics relying so heavily on our ability to consume disposable goods as something silly.

If you want to really help the environment - take the steroids out of the economy.

Poor people would be able to accumulate wealth better under the FairTax.

jterrell · 08-17-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric_Boyer

Are you familiar with the spending allowance provision of the FairTax?

yes in the base sense, last time I used the calc it was about 500 bucks per month for me as a family of 4 making 125k as a household.

thats about what i(ok my wife) spend on groceries per month.

i am not suggesting there are not some qualities to the plan i'd enjoy but it is a huge burden on the lower socio-economic folks.

i do like that is raises the tax base... but scum bag businesses will still be the ones who find how to best work the system.

jterrell · 08-17-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric_Boyer

I am specifically challenging your argument that it is no less voluntary of a tax plan.

You did state such a thing, no?

The economy, measured in GDP production, would suffer.

Personally, I find statistics relying so heavily on our ability to consume disposable goods as something silly.

If you want to really help the environment - take the steroids out of the economy.

Poor people would be able to accumulate wealth better under the FairTax.

ok, no prob, I love this type of discussion.

voluntary means you can choose to or not to participate.

Right now you can avoid an income tax by not working or by breaking the law and working illegally.

Under fairtax you'd be able to buy black market goods which were not taxed but illegal, but all the things you HAVE to buy are not voluntary anymore than working is for most of us. You have to buy clothes for your kids and food for the table. You have to have vehicles and buy gas. I don't consider that voluntary.

I think you'd see a huge shift to gray and black market goods. A serious reduction in the GDP and a mountain of additional items added to the fairtax code before it was considered a viable alternative.

I'd love to see a re-written tax code and this could perhaps function as a portion of it with a much smaller tax rate coinciding with less income taxes and less government spending.