by R. Lee Wrights
BURNET, Texas (Jan. 14) – Sometimes a partial truth is more misleading than an outright lie. Fair Tax proponents present it as a fair and efficient “solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.” Even ignoring the point that “there ain’t no such thing as a fair tax,” America does not need an “efficient” solution to our oppressive and unjust federal tax system. We need to dismantle it, and the sooner the better.
The Fair Tax advocates claim that since the bill was deliberately and carefully crafted to be “revenue neutral,” it is politically viable and can be passed. But that’s exactly the problem. By allowing the government to continue to collect the same amount that is now collected by the federal income tax, and some say even more than is collected now, the best we can hope for is we maintain the status quo. With the possibility of collecting more of our money than is collected now, things will only get worse. We can never begin to restore limited Constitutional government to our nation so long as the federal spending spree goes unabated.
Unfortunately, Fair Tax advocates are using pleasant-sounding names to mask the real meaning of things. Just as with the USA PATRIOT Act, one of the most unpatriotic pieces of legislation every to pass Congress, the title of this bill is a complete misnomer, since no tax is fair. They also call it a “consumption tax,” which cleverly disguises its far-reaching impact. The tax is levied on “all goods and services sold at retail,” and when they say “all” they mean “all.” There are no exceptions or exemptions, except for education and “used” items.
You’ll be paying a supposed “fair” tax for things you might not have thought were consumption, like your new home, credit card, mortgage and car loan interest, medical bills, utilities, and legal fees. You’ll even pay a national sales tax on gasoline, on top of both state taxes and existing federal taxes which won’t be repealed. Murray Rothbard called the consumption tax “a payment for permission to live” because “it implies that a man will not be allowed to advance or even sustain his own life, unless he pays, off the top, a fee to the State for permission to do so.” There is nothing fair, equal, just or pleasant about it.
Fair Tax proponents also use a new word, “prebate,” to describe the government welfare check sent to every American household to cover the cost of the tax on essential goods and services. I mean, wouldn’t it make more sense to not tax essential goods and services in the first place? Not to mention the fact that everybody gets the money, whether they pay the tax or not. It is just another example of duplicity in this bill.
How can anyone deny that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, fair about taking money from people who earn it and giving it to people who don’t? Taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who don’t is the very definition of socialism. The “prebate” is clearly and simply just another plan for the redistribution of wealth, and will further cement the dependence on government handouts of virtually every American.
To compound and solidify this dependency on government, the Fair Tax bill not only turns every American business owner into a federal tax collector (even those that don’t currently collect sales taxes), it also creates new federal bureaucracies to collect the taxes and dole out the “prebate” checks. It also keeps the tax courts in place. The Fair Tax is not only “revenue neutral” it does nothing to reduce the size and power of the federal taxing authority. The bureaucracies it creates may even grow to be more intrusive, oppressive and destructive to individual liberty that the IRS we fear today. Even the language used in the bill is as confusing and convoluted as the current tax code. Here is how it “defines” the rebate:
For purposes of subsection (a) (2), the term ‘rebate’ means so much of an abatement, credit, refund, or other payment, as was made on the ground that the tax imposed by chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44 was less than the excess of the amount specified in subsection (a)(1) over the rebates previously made.
While Fair Tax proponents rail at the complexities, inequities and injustice of the current tax system, they don’t seem to understand that the system they propose is just as complex, unequal and unjust. The idea that government has the right to seize a portion of a person’s income was anathema to the Founding Fathers of our nation. That’s why the original Constitution of the United States had a specific prohibition on direct taxation of persons.
There is no one thing we can do to solve the problem of government overspending. Many things need to happen. Repealing income tax — and not replacing it — is just the beginning. But it is the best beginning and the essential first step to restoring the limited government our Founders envisioned.
R. Lee Wrights, 53, a libertarian writer and political activist, is seeking the presidential nomination because he believes the Libertarian message in 2012 must be a loud, clear and unequivocal call to stop all war. To that end he has pledged that 10 percent of all donations to his campaign will be spent for ballot access so that the stop all war message can be heard in all 50 states. Wrights is a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and co-founder and editor of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All. Born in Winston-Salem, N.C., he now lives and works in Texas.
Lee Wrights for President
Contact: Brian Irving, press secretary
[email protected]
919.538.4548
I agree with LibertarianGirl’s comments.
say it , just not to CSPAN … i too regret voting for Barr in the general. I was voting for our party not the man I told myself…..hind site
Andy … Agreed. I never cared for Bob Barr and didn’t support him at the convention, but “pulling together for the LP” to cast a vote for him in the general election is one of the few votes I now regret. I wish I’d written-in Ron Paul like others I know did. What a shame that today we Libertarians have to apologize for him.
And yes, Christine Smith may have been untactful in her concession speech, but the years since have clearly shown that she was right! Hats off to her for saying what needed to be said.
*better words
I agree , Barr was far more embarrassing , and CSmiths sentiment was right but she could have used words and represented us better . it came off low brow and it didnt have to
“LibertarianGirl // Jan 16, 2012 at 1:53 am
Christine Smith was an embarrassment and I was mortified… it was low class plain and simple…”
My reaction was more along the lines of “Right on Christine Smith!”
Christine Smith may be a woman, but she had more balls than any guy in the room that day.
If you want to talk about being embarrassed and mortified, that’s how I feel about the Bob Barr campaign. I’m EMBARRASSED anytime anyone who is not that familiar with the Libertarian Party starts asking me questions like, “Who was your Presidential candidate in the 2008 election?” and I’m even more EMBARRASSED when a small “l” libertarian says something like, “I would have supported the Libertarian Party in 2008 if you all hadn’t nominated Bob Barr.”
I was MORTIFIED when Bob Barr endorsed Newt Gingrich for President.
I’ve noticed that a lot of people like to attack the messenger when confronted with an uncomfortable truth. This is exactly what happened to Christine Smith when she had the courage to get up and tell the truth about the non-libertarian Bob Barr.
A lot of people have a hard time dealing with uncomfortable truths, even many so called “Libertarians.”
Christine Smith was an embarrassment and I was mortified… it was low class plain and simple…
maybe we were all thinking it but thats our Superbowl the only time anybody actually watches us and that made me embarrassed…
Steve Kubby , that was a class act with his speech after everyone walked out…
“26 paulie // Jan 15, 2012 at 5:49 am
She was still rude, and accomplished nothing but to make herself look bad.”
Christine Smith said what needed to be said and she was RIGHT.
Smith herself now says she was wrong: wrong not to be an anarchist, and wrong to give consent to the State by participating in electoral politics.
If Smith is to be one’s moral compass, one might want to wait for that compass to stop spinning.
I don’t agree with Smith that politics is only for advertising one’s moral purity. To me, politics is more for advertising that there exists a better alternative to Left and Right. Politics is for proclaiming that it’s both possible and advisable to turn North, and not just for proclaiming that we’re at the North Pole.
@12
Once you understand it you will demand it!
I liked it when I first heard about it. Now that I understand it; I will never support it!
She was still rude, and accomplished nothing but to make herself look bad.
“You acknowledge that at this point Johnson will probably get the nomination anyway, so what do you have to gain by being uncivil?”
People said the same nonsense about Bob Barr. The best thing that people could have done with Bob Barr was not to “be nice” to him, they should have shown his ass the door at the last national convention.
Some people attacked Christine Smith for speaking out against Bob Barr at the next National Convention, but history has proven that she was right.
Some very smart people reach wrong conclusions all the time.
Treat them with kindness, and maybe they’ll be more likely to see things your way.
You acknowledge that at this point Johnson will probably get the nomination anyway, so what do you have to gain by being uncivil?
While he may be unlikely to change his mind, I would think there’d be a better chance if people treat his view with respect even if we think it is deeply and profoundly wrong, as I do.
“Just because I don’t agree with the conclusion he has reached doesn’t mean I think his motivations are bad.”
If Gary Johnson’s motives in promoting the Fair Tax are good, then he’s either stupid, or he’s got some big holes in his understanding of libertarian philosophy.
Just because Wrights sucks as a candidate, it should be no reason to vote for Gary Johnson, because he also sucks.
This is truly the worst selection of candidates for the Presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party since I’ve been in the party, which is since 1996.
matt cholko said: “I have drifted between being an unenthusiastic GJ supporter to neutral on the nomiation race for the last month or so. The LP field is weak, and it wouldn’t take much for GJ to get my support back. I think a 50% improvement in either his tax policy position or his foreign policy positions would do the trick…..”
If Gary Johnson suddenly “changes” his position on any issue at this late stage in the nomination game you can take it to the bank that it is bullshit and that he’s just pandering so he can get the nomination.
“As for Mr. Wrights, he just doesn’t strike me a presidential candidate material.”
He’s not. Wrights is a dreadful candidate.
Would there be a fair tax on jumbo shrimp? And how about on military intelligence?
I hope you’re right.
I see no reason to assume otherwise.
Just because I don’t agree with the conclusion he has reached doesn’t mean I think his motivations are bad.
Yep, I agree. But I still think we need a better answer.
I hope Governor Johnson has the time to consider the counter-arguments, although I suspect he’ll be pretty busy, as he should be.
I will note that GJ’s embrace of the Fair Tax started when he was trying to differentiate himself among a crowded GOP primary field. It wouldn’t surprise me if, after some pressure preceding the LP convention in May, he ultimately decided it wasn’t worth keeping.
On this issue, I think his heart is in the right place – reforming the tax code so there’s more transparency and fewer loopholes is a step in the right direction. As things stand right now, our tax policy is like buying a car from a shady dealership – there’s the “sticker price”, which looks good on paper, and then there’s financing fees, “undercoat”, and various add-ons and deductions whose purpose is to obfuscate and confuse so you don’t know or understand how much you’re really paying. Though I agree that the Fair Tax has some serious practical problems (most political theoretical constructs created as far from reality do), it’s a step toward asking, “How can we make the tax code make more sense so people know what we’re paying and spending?” Until we ask and answer those questions, we’re going to be stuck arguing with people that swear that, for example, Social Security is “self-funding” and not a “drain” or a “tax” on the federal budget or the taxpayer.
Lee hits the bull’s eye on this issue.
Cut the damn spending!
People in the country are not paying attention to Ron Paul because he is talking about a fair tax. They are paying attention because he is talking about ending the wars and cutting spending.
Mr. Wrights is spot-on here.
It really bothers me that GJ clings to this Fair Tax garbage. I think he comes off as a decent guy, he seems like a credible candidate, and I truly WANT to support him. However, I am finding it very hard to do so because of his support for the Fair Tax and his sometimes-not-very-good foreign policy positions.
I have drifted between being an unenthusiastic GJ supporter to neutral on the nomiation race for the last month or so. The LP field is weak, and it wouldn’t take much for GJ to get my support back. I think a 50% improvement in either his tax policy position or his foreign policy positions would do the trick…..
In defense of GJ, I do feel like he has been very respectful of our party. He seems to be taking care not to give the impression that he thinks he is entitled to the nomination, and when I see him talk it seems to me that he wants to be a uniter of Libertarians. That stuff is important, at least to me.
As for Mr. Wrights, he just doesn’t strike me a presidential candidate material. I agree with damn near everything I see from his campaign, in terms of policy/philosophy. However, when I try to picture him being interviewed by CNN as a candidate for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, the picture just doesnt look right. I fear that he will not be taken seriously by the general public (the few people who get to hear from him, that is), and he may help reinforce the image that that libertarian philosophy belongs outside of the mainstream.
Both true.
Bring the troops home from around the world and start reducing military infrastructure. End universal entitlements – index them to means testing as a start, and don’t offer them to people who are young enough to have time to make other plans. End the drug war. End the TSA. End all corporate bailouts and corporate welfare. End all international aid. Those are just a few of the many places to start.
Sure, it’s that. But it’s a lot more than that too.
I’d say the only fair tax for those that cling to the beloved kleptocracy they call their federal government is a head tax.
Simply divide the federal budget by the number of people in America and present a bill to each household for their share based on the number of people in it.
For a family of 4, this would be about $40,000. Gosh, that sounds like a lot, but just think of all the stuff you get!
What could be more fair than actually charging people for all the stuff they claim to want? What could be more fair for a society that believes it is acceptable for 51% of the rubes to control the lives of the other 49%?
It’s democracy in action. Now, some libertarians might bitch about having to pay for some stuff they don’t want, but there is a lot of stuff they do want. This is the game they play along with the other partisan factions to get the federal government to provide the things they want while having others pay for it.
So, if libertarians want to play the limited government game, they have to convince others to do without the stuff the others want while convincing them to pay for the things that libertarians want.
Regardless, it is the spending that drives taxation – not the other way around. End the spending and you really do get to keep what you earn.
In addition, as long as people cling to a government with the power to create money from nothing, they will pay an inflation tax and nothing could be less fair or counterproductive than that.
The Fair Tax IS a fair and efficient “solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.” The current code and it’s complexity has been worked by politicians, lobbyist and special interest groups and has certainly contributed to the over spending by our government. The Fair Tax will reform how we fund our government in a transparent way. We The People can take back our government and begin to put an end to overspending. No party to date has amended or tweaked the existing tax code to help us. I realize that Mr. Wrights is against all taxes and is taking a stand against new Libertarian Gary Johnson who supports the Fair Tax. I would urge everyone to take a good look at The Fair Tax for a non partisan explanation of The Fair Tax at http://www.fairtax.org Once you understand it you will demand it!
paulie @ 6,
I understand the reservations about the Fair Tax, but the question ends up being: where do we start with reining in the federal behemoth? I mean, practically speaking?
In this regard, I am with David in #3: the federal reserve system is just an enabler for our nation’s drug of choice, government spending.
Good article Mr. Wrights and I agree with everything you say, but how is this different from your piece last week? It seems to be the same arguments rephrased.
If you aim to strike at Mr. Johnson obliquely, perhaps you can move on to other subjects such as Guantanamo Bay, Pardons, Humanitarian Intervention, Israel/Foreign Aid, etc.
That said, I think the Fair Tax is designed to appeal to people who think that “income tax” is “taxes”, meaning that it’s the totality of all taxes that anybody ever pays. This makes some sense, psychologically speaking – it’s the only tax that most people encounter which is automatically deducted out of an income source, as opposed to deducted at the time of purchase of some good or service. If you want to pay less sales taxes, that’s easy – buy less. If you want to pay fewer fuel taxes, buy less fuel.
If you want to pay less income tax, work less?
Honestly, you could just stop with “run away government spending” – the other two issues you listed there are all about “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic” to facilitate that.
Federal reserve and fiat currency manipulation facilitates a lot more than above board government spending.
The Fair Tax is a complete waste of time issue. It is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic at best, and at worst it could end up being even worse than the present income tax system.
It would definitely be worse than the present system in many ways.
The Fair Tax is a scam and it should be avoided like the plague.
True.
Until spending gets under control, it really makes no difference what the taxing system is in this country.
It’s harder to get spending under control when virtually everyone gets used to getting a “prebate,” and the tax cost is hidden in the price of goods.
Plus, what do you want to bet the sunset clause for the income tax either gets stripped from the final bill before passage or gets pushed back or revoked into meaninglessness?
We’ll have the fraudulent “fair” tax on top of all existing taxes, including the income tax, and more revenue will mean more spending.
@4 The postage and printing would be…
zero, due to not actually using checks. Look up how Social Security works these days.
I can not like an idea but get my reasons better.
A “prebate” check sent to every citizen each month!? Ridiculous! The postage and printing alone would be astronomical.
Dump this socialistic garbage or DUMP Johnson the Republican NOW !!!!!!!!!
Honestly, you could just stop with “run away government spending” – the other two issues you listed there are all about “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic” to facilitate that.
That said, I think the Fair Tax is designed to appeal to people who think that “income tax” is “taxes”, meaning that it’s the totality of all taxes that anybody ever pays. This makes some sense, psychologically speaking – it’s the only tax that most people encounter which is automatically deducted out of an income source, as opposed to deducted at the time of purchase of some good or service. If you want to pay less sales taxes, that’s easy – buy less. If you want to pay fewer fuel taxes, buy less fuel. Income tax, however, can’t be escaped, so it seems “unfair” when there’s a class of people that don’t have to “pay” it, even if even the poorest worker in America does, in fact, have federal withholding deducted from their paycheck for Medicare and Social Security. With that in mind, I think its highest value is as a discussion starter; it’s a great opportunity to show that, yes, everybody in America pays taxes, one way or another, and you can prove it without trickle-down economics. It helps broaden people’s perceptions about what “taxes” really are and shows them that it’s not just “income taxes” or “property taxes” (i.e. taxes that primarily hit the middle- and upper-classes), but also includes sales tax, fuel taxes, service taxes, and so on.
“AnthonyD // Jan 13, 2012 at 11:10 pm
Until spending gets under control, it really makes no difference what the taxing system is in this country.
Thats why the Fair Tax is no deal breaker for me.”
This is one of the reasons why the Fair Tax should be a deal breaker issue. It is a distraction from the real problems, such as the Federal Reserve System and fiat currency and run away government spending.
The Fair Tax is a complete waste of time issue. It is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic at best, and at worst it could end up being even worse than the present income tax system. The Fair Tax is a scam and it should be avoided like the plague.
Until spending gets under control, it really makes no difference what the taxing system is in this country.
Thats why the Fair Tax is no deal breaker for me.