One of the reasons I support the Fair Tax is that it will remove gag on clergy, pastors, elders, etc. speaking out about candidates and politics in general. How will it do that? There will no longer be 501(c)(3)'s. The Fair Tax rips out the IRS code by the roots and along with it the 501(c)(3)s. There will be no IRS to check up on whether a church is "propagandizing". I think that churches, pastors, preachers, elders, deacons, and everyone is entitled to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. In fact churches were only added to section 501(c)(3) because LBJ got tired of getting blasted from the pulpit. So in 1954, churches were offered the "benefit" of becoming a 501(c)(3) even though they were (and still are) automatically tax exempt and tax deductible. To read how this code is terrible for churches and the Church at large, click here.
There are many other reasons to be in favor of the Fair Tax, but this one is near to my heart. I think that the Church (as congregations and as individuals) need to be on the front lines of expanding the Kindgom of God. Part of that means taking part in the culture war that is exploding around us.
5 comments:
Well thats a new one, and your point is valid. Fairtax would get rid of that 501 rule.
I wish the fairtax would work. I loved it when I first heard of it.
But Fairtax is based on several fatal fallacies.
The major problem — the fairtax would have to be 40% or more, just because of ONE math mistake. And there is more that one math mistake.
One glaring math mistake — the impossibility of the federal government paying taxes to the federal government.
Oh, I know that fed gov paid FICA for their employees, and that sort of thing.
Thats entirely different than taxing yourself on purchases you made. to pay for purchases you are going to make
Neal Boortz writes that "The Federal goverment itself will be a major taxpayer" (Page 148 of the Fair Tax Book)
.
When the US Navy has to send 4 billion in sales tax on an 12 Billion dollar aircraft carrier -the Treasury has to pay that 4 billion.
In no way is that extra 4 billion a gov receipt that it can spend. Therefore, its a defacto exemption — since no money is gained by the treasury.
But thats like me paying myself 1000 dollars a day to cut my grass. I can write the check to myself, I can even deposit the check. But I dont make 1000 dollars. And by the end of the month, I surely didnt make 30,000 dollars.
Amazing as it seems, Fairtax counts the money it makes the federal government tax the federal government as a gain.
This one fallacy (there are others). means he tax rate would have to be 35-40% to make up for this loss of revenue.
A 40% sales tax on new homes, on cars, on rent — would actually be preposterous.
Here is another major fallacy — that people will be able to afford the sales tax on items, because they get to keep their entire paychecks.
That might be true — if everyone had a paycheck, and no one had huge bills from cancer, or other diseases or health conditions.
People living in nursing homes dont have paychecks. But they will have sales taxes of 25,000 a year, just on the cost of living in the nursing home.
Cancer patients — could easily have 50,000 sales tax on surgery, chemo, and rehab in hospital.
The Cancer patient might not even MAKE 50,000 a year - but get a tax bill for that amount.
Their insurance might have paid the 250,000 for their medical care. But the insurance isnt going to pay the tax.
You could say "well, just don't tax nursing home and cancer care." Well of COURSE they wont have to pay it. Most times, they CANT. Dont worry - you wont be ABLE to tax them.
My point is -- there wont BE a tax on those people. There will be exemptions - cause there HAS to be.
And every exemption means the fair tax rate has to go up, to be revenue neutral.
When cancer patients, nursing home patients start to see these taxes, they will scream bloody murder.
And congress won’t make them pay the sales taxes. Any congressman silly enough to insist cancer patients pay a tax greater than their income, won’t be re-elected.
So health care get an exemption.
Thats a 460 billion dollar shortfall in the Fairtax budget — because Fairtax depended on taxing health care. But that 460 billion will not be there. Or god didnt make little green apples.
Ive just shown two fallacies — 1)government taxing itself, 2) health care paying 460 billion in taxes. Together, thats 800 billion or so shortfall in the Fairtax receipts.
There are OTHER fallacies - but just these two, would make the tax rate over 60%.
I am not a FairTax expert. So I will post your comment on a Fair Tax Blog and get an expert reaction.
Also, I would like to know your credentials.
My credentials?
Well, I'm honest, I'm smart, and I can spot a snake oil salesman from a mile off.
Fair tax is a mixture of snake oil and wishful thinking.
I wish it wasn't, but it is.
I also have a degree in political science, tho I remember nothing of whatever little I learned in college 30 years ago.
I know how human's think, that we often believe whatever sounds good, especially if its told to us by someone with a lot of authority.
Mankind can believe almost anything that seems to benefit them.
Fairtax sure sounds great. Its only when you realize it depends on the government taxing itself, do you start to see the fallacies, of which there are a dozen or so.
When you start to realize that health care would get a 460 billion dollar tax bill - that it didnt have before. That means the people getting tax care will suddenly get this huge tax bill.
Then start to see a patient opening her mail in a nursing home. What will her reaction be? What will the parents of a child with leukemia do?
When you start to be intellectually curious and a bit skeptical -- you will see the cracks in the dam.
IF Fairtax passed, the dam of reality would burst, and we would see all these things happening.
I am sure you are smart. I also know that this plan has been reviewed by many national economists. They all gave it the thumbs up.
Neal Boortz has a second book out. Maybe it answers some of your questions.
I noticed that you posted the same comment at Bobbie's Fair Tax Blog.
No,all economist have NOT given this thumbs up.
In fact, some have called it "lunacy", and others have just laughed at it. I've been emailing economists about it, to make sure I was correct on certian basic points.
More and more economist are looking at it, and coming out against it. The only ones I see that are for it, helped to write it. There is more and more critisim of the plan.
But it wouldn't matter what economist thought. When the Titanic hits an iceberg, its going down. And if FT is enacted, it's going down, when it hits the iceberg of reality
I would actually like to see it pass. I really would. I think it would be educational - about economics, and about psychology.
And maybe then we can find something that works. We can all learn what DOESNT work. We sure need to fix this crazy tax code.
Post a Comment