There is some deregulations in this bill but it is loaded with pork. The government does not get it. If the alternative fuels that they are subsidizing is a good idea the private sector investors will give the money for it the government wouldn't have to steal it.

Bills like these just make me so angry.

If the government would stop "helpiong" everyboyd they might find that these companies would be a lot better off. Why do these companies need "help"? It's 'needed' to compete with other companies that already received the governments "help".

We're essentially paying corporations to compete with each other. Guess what Uncle Sam! They'll do that for free!

Remind me to place a blank check in front of President Bush if I ever get the chance. I'm sure he'll sign it.

They need to be undoing meddlesome crap, not adding more.

If they would repeal all statutes related to energy and let the free market respond, it would do more good then all the subsidies on earth.

I'm going right over to DownsizeDC.org and support the Read the Bills Act. I hear the energy bill was over 1,700 pages long. If Congress had to read everything before they voted, it would slow them down and make it harder to hide the pork.

You guys dont understand something.

Please remember this, it was told to me by a higher up executive in the HMO industry who I knew about 5 years ago well enough to drink with. He said that there is ALWAYS more money to be made from a rigged game than there is a fair game. It is a absolute FALSEHOOD that big business desires government to be small. Without using the power of big government to rig the game in your favor, you cant control things favorably to your business.

What we have to do is show the world that having a rigged game, no matter what industry you are in, is more trouble than it's worth in the end than the deal they have now. These MBA's in the last 10 years dont care a whit about anything except this quarter's results. That's all that matters to them. The hope lies in converting small business to go with the LP and away from the R's. It's a long shot but it's the only shot we have. Big business will ALWAYS go Republican.

Who knew Bush and his republican buddies would want to give all their rich oil companies a ton of money? It's nice that they were able to add a bunch of bs to "justify" it. I like getting robbed at the pump *and* have my already stolen taxes given to the people robbing me at the pump.

By the way, the Repubs don't want to minimalize gov't intervention in business affairs. They just want to make it so the gov't gives their own companies free money and to keep smaller, competing businesses out of their business.

My guess is, anything to do with us peons we are not entitled to or they wait down the road after they bleed us dry. Solar energy, Wind energy, we need the city permission to install this or get tax at a higher rate for improving our homes. We get pentalize for everything. They give money to starving people such as Africa, but my guess is the African government gets it and the poor do not get much of anything, except maybe we are lead to believe they need more money. Government gives themselves a raise and we live on the streets. What do you think is going to happen in our own country? Something is going to break don't you think? How many new inventions has been bought out that we could have used because it would cause the government to lose money? But I am sure while these inventions that could have helped us are probably offered a lot of money not to let the consumer get a hold of because the rich industries would lose money. No matter which way you turn we lose. How and when are we going to get this political party strong enough so we can make a change that we desperatly need.

REVOLUTION TIME

True American,

We're long overdue.

The Energy bill is a waste of money. More deficit spending for Congress meaning more debt for taxpayers to pay off. The energy will not be any help at all 10 years from now. It is just more money to waste on taxpayer's money. The rate Congress is going it will take 5 million years for taxpayers to pay off the national debt.

no name I agree. Time for New America. Unless something is done, it's not going to get better.

I have ask my congressman for a copy of the energy bill. I intend to display it at our out reach booths in Md. My intention is to get as many bills as possible to display so the public can see how out of control congress is.Buzz Tavik

I agree with the True American - it was time for a revolution a long time ago. But let's face the facts: a revolution is not going to come about as a result of the Libertarian Party. The election of parties to office are results, not instigators, of ideological revolutions triggered by influences in the arts and education. How many great libertarian works of art are being produced? How many libertarian professors are there? This blog and this party are more or less a waste of time until a positive answer can be given to these questions.

I'm currently hoping for a FairTax revolution, which might solve a lot of problems. Once corporations are no longer taxed, bye bye lobbyists who are playing "the tax favorites game", and bye bye to a significant portion of pork, i.e. all pork that would be added in the tax code.

The Americans could see the difference as clear as day. Energy Bill? 1700 pages. Tax code? 300 pages. Hmm, now why does a bill regulating energy need 1700 pages compared to our entire tax code which is only 300(the size of the fairtax code, the bill itself being, I think, about 32 pages)?

DeutscherLibertarian,

I know at least one great Libertarian professor. John P. Sophocleus, who ran for governor of Albama in 2002. He taught economics at Auburn University, and the soundness of economic principles he taught is what turned me into a Libertarian. You're absolutely right, though, if we had more great libertarian teachers, our party would be a lot stronger. As it is now, teachers in most higher learning institutions are progressive or liberal.

I think the most important thing the Fairtax would do is eliminate all of the money manipulation that now occurs. It also takes the Medusa's head of snakes that the current tax structure is ( cut off one snake head, another grows back) and replaces it with ONE target to attack, not 500.

I would be for the Fairtax if the Amendment authorizing the income tax was repealed and dispatched to hell. It would make fighting tax increases much simpler than present.

Yes, the bill itself goes as far as to say "We belive that the 16th amendment should be repealed immediately" but stops just short of saying "The 16th amendment is hereby repealed". It does, however, say "X is hereby repealed" for all the different kinds of taxes. I think the goal of the people behind this bill is to first institute this, and then repeal the 16th amendment after a couple of years once everyone has become comfortable with the new system. The big question is whether you can trust the government for that period of time.

Isn't it inappropriate to have the banner on the home page looking for 5,000 new members now that we have abolished membership dues?

Granted, it doesn't go into effect until January, but why pay $25 for 4 months of membership?

I think we should have on the left side an announcement for monies donated and what we plan on using it for, such as advertisement on YAHOO NEWS, MSN NEWS, and get away from back door advertising. If we also send out news letters, I think one news letter for new people joining the party can access the site for updated information which saves in cost unless the person does not have a home computer or access to one. If we can utilize the money for better advertisement, it is better for quality advertisement rather then backdoor advertisement that most people don't know where to look or find us. THAT WHY I KEEP SUGGESTING YAHOO NEWS AND MSN NEWS.
Any other donation can be used toward elected candidate for information as well as a section on here that says Candidate up for election on the side so people can come here and look.
And another cheap advertisment also is WINDOW STICKERS with a TORCH VOTE LIBERTARIAN or
FREEDOM VOTE LIBERTARIAN. is this making any sense here??????

There are apparently many libertarians who engage in wishful thinking, and Fairtax supporters lead the pack. However, they're not alone. The self-described "pragmatists" are giving them a run for their money.

Instead of saying things like, "The big question is whether you can trust the government for that period of time," the fairtaxers should be insisting that the Fairtax bill's authors should include a clause that says it shall not take effect until the 16th amendment is repealed.

When they're finally handed a national sales tax without repealing the income tax, they're going to cry "foul," without admitting that they themselves are a major part of the reason why it passed in the first place.

The really sad part is that these fairtaxers are often the same libertarians who keep telling us that standing on principle isn't as important as being "pragmatic."

Meanwhile, GregD makes a valid point that the member meter is pointless...if you're trying to count paid members. However, it won't matter by January 1, 2006, when the number of members will miraculously balloon into the hundreds of thousands as previously lapsed memberships of persons who never contacted headquarters to actually cancel their memberships will suddenly become "active" members, thus making membership count meaningless.

The really sad part is that this will reward those states the most which had previously lost the most members (in other words, those states which were least effective in keeping members), thus inflating their delegate counts at the national convention.

As the number of members skyrockets, the amount of dollars available to the national party will plummet due to the lack of membership dues. Also, 50 state ballot access will be a thing of the past, since about 15 states or so have insufficient state organizations in place to successfully overcome their states' petitioning requirements on their own. Look for our presidential candidate to be on the ballot in 30-35 states in 2008.

I guess our new motto should be: The Libertarian Party....More Is Less.

Well, I said the biggest question is whetehr "you" can trust the government for that period of time. I do trust the government. Because if anyone tried to pass an income tax on top of a sales tax, they would be tarred and feathered. The bill repeals all current taxes and recommends the repealment of the 16th amendment, which is good enough for me. You can't first abolish income taxes and then replace them. You have to replace them and then eliminate them, then abolish them. It's just the logical order to do things in. the fair tax does repeal all income taxes. It just doesn't abolish them. One step at a time.

I'm afraid Alabama may be one of those states you're mentioning with insufficient organization to get on the Ballots. Is there anything an individual can do about this? Could I, for instance, take the petitions myself and get people to sign them, then turn it over to my state party. I imagine I could get a couple thousand signatures myself if I really put my back into it.

Your level of faith is almost inspirational, Paul. You actually believe that if the fairtax ever passes it will emerge from committee unscathed. Keep your tar and feathers handy, along with a mirror.

As for petitioning in Alabama...yes, you can do that. The LP has requested such volunteer help for years, but it has never gotten enough of it in most states, which is why petitioners had to be paid, in part from those same national member dues that no longer exist.

Oh, I know. I'm a horrible optimist. I don't take nearly enough offense at many things because I know they'll change later. But I do believe in John Linder, and I believe if this thing were to get messed up in committee he would be the first one to take his name off the bill and rally against it. Luckily he is on the ways and means committee and other tax committees and is in a good position to nip alteration in the bud.

While the Fairtax sounds all well and good, I would prefer to abolish the 16th Amendment, and fund the government on tariffs, tonnages and excises, as the founders intended, and whatever can't be funded on that revenue, flush.

I understand that New Hampshire is suppose to be a state taking over by Libertarians. They said it is the lowest tax in the state. However I checked into this and this does not appear to be true. While they do not have a state tax and other tax, you are making up the different by paying a very high property tax. I figure as such. I like the idea they want to make this a Libertarian state, but when I check into the property tax and home prices. It is very high. I am not impressed.

The NH Free State Project is barely underway, so you can't really judge on the results so far. Plus, it's not affiliated with the LP.

A national sales tax might be preferable to a national income tax, but fighting for one wastes time and energy that should be directed toward cutting spending.

Where's the story on Badnarik running for Congress? Shouldn't this be on LP.org?

Walt,

I wont support Fairtax until the 16th is repealed as the first part of the Act. Income tax goes forever,never to be brought back. Without that, it's not worth anything. They would find a way to give us aa income tax and the consumption tax. WITH that ironclad 16th Amendment gone clause, I'd support it.

re: "a revolution is not going to come about as a result of the Libertarian Party"

Not advocating here, but relating some party history that seems to be lost to a lot of Libertarians:

Libertarian Party co-founder, David Nolan, has said that the original intention of requiring new members to sign the Non-Aggression Principle was to assure the powers that be that the Libertarian Party members are not a bunch of violent revolutionaries. It happened later that the Non-Aggression Principle came to be interepreted by many party members as a basic principle from which the entire party platform could be derived logically.

Walt,

35 to 45 state access would be a good thing, not a bad thing. I have a post coming out that will advocate abandonment of getting on all 50 states as a matter of strategy.

There are states that simply are not valid investments in a political sense for a political party with very limited ressources, like us. We spread our money too thin, have to many paper candidates to support, not enough top tier contenders, and those state parties that cant make it on their own might in fact fail.

I guess it does not matter that if they are in such bad shape that stoppage of UMP would make them go belly up, they probably dont have any chance of success in any case, even we funded them forever and a day out of false pride.

I'll say it again: this party only deserves to survive if libertarians support it. If you propose that businesses dont need handouts/welfare, that people dont need handouts/welfare, I think it's a logical extension that political parties dont need welfare either. And that's what the actual effect of UMP did; it propped up state LP's and made them dependant on National. No matter of inactivity mattered.

I'll have more on this later on LFS, couple of days to a week.

Mike,

Yeah, Walt ( Lib TV ) is one of them thar guys. He said it dont matter what David Nolan said and he dont care. :D

Tim,

I think a strategy like you seem to be advocating, that of targeted campaigning, is a very good one. Take a look at Dennis Kucinich, the craziest of all presidential candidates. He actually won his party's primary in Alaska and Hawaii. Why? Because he was the only politician to go there or even mention them. If the LP attacks(excuse the word) small states like those, and states that have the potential to be very Libertarian like Utah(just a wild guess there), it could really gain a hold.

Actually, Tim, I don't really want the UMP. I was never a strong supporter of it. It's national dues that I want, so we can have a strong national party. Zero dues will severely weaken the national party. I'd be happy to have the LNC collect state dues for those states that want it, while letting others opt out who don't want it. That's fine with me. It's the way things used to be done before UMP.

Also, regarding Mike Laurson's comments about the pledge, proper credit goes to the early Libertarian Pary members themselves. There was a super-majority of delegates were either Ayn Rand fans or were enamored of the idea of the pledge itself. Modern libertarians either forget or never knew that the most popular route to the LP in the 1970's and early 1980's was via the writings of Ayn Rand.

Nor was the pledge a creation of the LP or of David Nolan. It was a creation of Rand, from her book, "The Virtue of Selfishness." Interestingly enough, Rand despised the LP, claiming that we had "plagiarized" her ideas. Thus, the very same people who had joined the LP because of Rand's influence were despised by her, even though they thought they were carrying out her ideas to their logical conclusion. Many felt betrayed by her vehement denounciations of the party, but the idea of removing the pledge would never have occurred to them. Ironic, isn't it!

What's particularly amusing here is that Rand and the pragmatists are actually on the same side of the fence on most issues. She argued vehemently in favor of US military intervention in foreign lands to fight communism. She didn't approve of the LP, claiming we were a bunch of anarchists. Interestingly, the pragmatists say the same thing about us "purists," regardless of the fact we do support having government for the protection of individual rights. Despite this, the pragmatists don't give Rand her due, claiming that the pledge was David Nolan's creation. They further make fun of her supporters within the LP. If only they knew that they were on the same side as she was, at least to a degree. Oh what a tangled web we weave!

Rand said, in answer to a question about why she despised the LP, that it was, "Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program."

Well, then again, perhaps pragmatists don't have as much in common with Rand after all. She felt she was above them, too.

Reference: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

Those who make the case that the pledge was somehow twisted into something it wasn't intended to be contrary to David Nolan's wishes don't know the history of it as well as they think they do.

What's UMP, Union of Minority Parties?

UMP was the UNified Membership Plan.

It was the funding mechanism that shared revenue between National and the State LP's, among doing other functions, most of which were not done if getting the dough was not part of the deal.

Walt, I dont think I'm above you at all. I do think I know where the political success of this party is to be found better than you do, and I think I know how to achieve it better than you do. But "above you"? Nope. I'm sure at this point that you are my intellectual superior. You're quite a bit smarter and better read then I, too.

Only time well tell which skills are more important to the success of the LP. Dumb West Virginia Redneck skillz like mine, or book smart college prof style skillz like yours. My guess is that we are in this together, like it or not, and one skill set removed would mean failure without the other for the LP.

I dont have any other comment on the rest of yer psot.

And please note: I'm not being patronizing or sarcastic. I really think that stuff.

Wow! There's been some great posts on this thread... :-)

Good thing you added that disclaimer because at first glance it looks like the most sarcastic thing I've ever seen.

What is going to stop the 20,000 current dues-paying members from giving $25 to the national party next year? How many of these people are doing it just for the yearly membership cards, newsletters, and 7 renewal letters?

I think most members have joined because they realize that the LP needs money to be a productive political unit. That is the reason why I started paying dues, I had called myself a Libertarian long before that.

I thought it looked sincere. The disclaimer actually confused me.

Get over it. All of America, including the LP is a 'special interest'!!!!!!

Stop whining and go fill up your SUVs with gas and complain about the price while you use electricity to whine about it on the internet???

The LP is next to useless if this is all we can do.

Where the f did that come from?

Jim,

why do you have to have "dues" to support the LP?

I support the LP with 12 $25 dollar "Dues Payments" over the course of a year now, compared to the 1 yearly payment I made before Zero Dues passed.

Now it's up to the donors.

Tim,

I don't think you're elitist. I was merely trying to show that the pragmatist explanation for the pledge ignores a great deal of actual LP history, and that Rand actually thought more highly of pragmatists than hard-core Libertarians. My point was that the whole situation was ironic, including the part where the pragmatists claim that the pledge was nothing more than a throwaway action of David Nolan.

Paul,

You want the LP to get behind the so-called fairtax. Will the fairtax increase the net tax load for working taxpayers making less than $25,000 a year?

I dont think what you pointed out was *LP* history.

David said that he picked the wording of the pledge specifically so that it would "resonate" wih libertarians. He probably was just trying to maximize his new party's chance's at survival, by using language that would have played well with that crowd.

I think a classic case of doublespeak - a pledge with 2 meanings, left up to the reader as to determine which meaning it may be. Very crafty. :D

Tim, why do you think that David Nolan would think that the pledge would "resonate" with libertarians if you believe that what I was describing was not LP history? After all, if I'm wrong, if the early LP was not dominated by Randites who had found the party after reading books lik Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, then why would he think that the pledge would "resonate"?

If you're going to question my version of LP history, you're going to have to *show* where I'm wrong. Merely claiming it without providing evidence undermines your argument.

Not formal, after the fact LP history. Since you've already stated that you dont give a flying F what David Nolan said, I'm not sure me debating the point would be worth it.

LtV,

No, it should decrease their tax load substantially. Currently they lose about %30 out of their paychecks each pay period to the government. This would be put back in their paycheck. Also, the cost of taxes on corporations which is now embedded in price ranges from 16% for goods like leather up to 26% for services like medical care. This all averages out to about %22. These embedded costs should go away(and goods in inventory when the fairtax is encated will be exempt from the tax for one year, because their tax has already been paid) once all corporate taxes go away. So when you add on the 23% sales tax its almost a wash, added in with the fact that workers are now keeping more of their money. To make sure that no one ever pays a tax on a necessity of life, there is a monthly prebate(pre-emptive rebate) for taxes on necessities. This is the same for everyone in the nation, the only variable being dependants and married status, and is based on poverty statistics. For instance, as a single person with no dependants, I would receive about $186 a month, if I am remembering correctly. This will pay my tax on stuff like food and medical services.

The reason food and medical services aren't simply exempted is because the makers of the bill feel if you open anything up to exemptions, you just attract back all of the lobbyists who will parade around the public's NEED for exemption x. By giving you a prebate on taxes you would pya on the necessities of life, there is no need for exemptions.

So, yes, someone making 25,000 dollars a year, their tax burden would go down considerably. First, their net income would become their gross income, equivalent to about a %30 raise, then they would pay taxes only on new goods and services they buy, where price cuts due to no corporate taxes would almost fully counteract the new tax. Finally, they would be getting a check each month for their expected taxes on necessities, whether their name is Joe Schmo or William Gates.

Tim,

I dont believe you need dues to support the LP. I believe that the vast majority of the current dues-paying members of the LP are still going to be inclined to support the LP at roughly the same level. I do not understand where others are coming from when they say that the LP is going to lose tons of money from this.

If someone is paying less because of the FairTax then someone else will be paying more. If we continue to put our focus on just mixing the same amount of pie we will get nowhere. Our focus has to be on decreasing that pie (ie. decrease spending). All we do is waste time, money, and effort and essentially accomplish nothing other than mixing around who is paying the same amount of bills. Again if the poor will be paying less, then the middle class and/or the rich will be paying poor. This is a fact unless the spending pie shrinks. And without abolishing the income tax all we have done is give them another avenue to increase the spending pie.

Also is their any ironclad statement in FairTax requiring at least a 60% vote of both houses that would not allow future legislators to put in exemptions to the sales tax or increase the pre-emptive rebate at least above inflation. If not it would become just like our current income tax. The legislator that has normally been on the "left" will try to increase the amount that the poor people get paid back to increase the dependent class (ie their voters)at the expense of the "richer" people who will have to make up the difference and legislators on both the "right" and "left" will try to include exemptions for people that will help them get votes, money, and/or power.

I don't have a problem in theory with FairTax, but lets try and decrease the spending pie down to what the constitution allows first and reforming the tax code will become very easy as the pie will be very small. The Republicrats love it when everybody gets focused on reforming the tax code because most likely there are so many competing theories that it gets absolutely nowhere, but most of all it takes peoples focus away from other things such as spending, civil rights, property rights, foreign policy, and how abyssmal the government is at doing most everything else.

Well, since I like the direction the party is going in, I support the LP exactly 12 times more than I did before Zero Dues.

If it continues this way, I'll increase it even more. If everyone who like the direction does the same, we wont have anything to worry about.

If you want to see a LP going into the 2008 elections with 6 to 8 million dollars in the bank, ready to support our candidates with a political platform, pledge. We will be watching to make sure the money is spent wisely and for political reasons foremost.

Paul,

I know for a fact that at least some of your numbers are wrong, or at the very least misleading. Someone earning less than $25K is not paying 30% in income taxes. Not even close. Even if you're single and paying the full tax on 1040EZ, you're still only paying 13.584%...according to the 2004 tax forms at www.irs.gov. Married couples pay lower percentages, as do people earning less than $25K.

So clearly, on the face of it, a 23% sales tax is going to be a whopper for them. Even if they get as much as 13.584% of their income taxes back, their basic monthly costs (other than rent) just exploded in price.

Now you're arguing that they'll make it up via savings from "hidden" taxes. Maybe...but don't count on it. I sure don't. And if I were that poor, I sure wouldn't believe it.

Actually, I'm not rich either. In fact, my own income isn't much higher than that. My wife and I get by...but barely. When I look at my own income taxes, then compare it to the sales tax, I'm not convinced. You're essentially arguing for "trickle down economics" in your belief that by reducing (or removing) corporate income taxes, prices will somehow reduce accordingly. That's been tried before, with lousy results.

The part that's most incomprehensible to me, though, besides the fact that I don't believe it'll ever pass with the standards you are assuming, is that even if it did, it doesn't really do anything to reduce the size of government. We Libertarians believe in smaller government, not maintaining government at the same current size.

The worst part of all, though, is your unfounded belief that this plan can actually be sold to the American people as a good thing. The argument that is normally made is that once people see what the actually cost of government is through the sales taxes they pay, they'll vote to reduce it. Not only will they never give it a chance to get to that point, there's really no better reason to believe that people will suddenly wake up and become more fiscally more responsible about government just because there's a whopper of a sales tax.

Frankly, the whole thing is just pie-in-the-sky and makes the LP's current proposal to simply eliminate the income tax look positively sane and mainstream by comparison.

LTV,

I'm not talking about your end of the year payment, I'm talking about tax withholdings taken out of your check ever week.

My 30% figure there was a rough estimation, but I myself earn $30,000 a year, and after federal withholdings, BEFORE I EVER file any income tax, that number is about $22,000, which is about %27.

And yes, there will be huge savings once the embedded comrporate taxes, go away, unless EVERY SINGLE COMPANY decides not to go after market share. All it takes is one company in any industry attempting to raise their market share by lowering prices, and you will have a price war in that industry until their profit margins are back where they were.

It reduces the size of government because lobbyists can no longer be paid millions of dollars to get the government to give a tax break to their particular special interest group. It can get rid of the many hours wasted every congress session adding new clauses to tax code. Also, it makes where your money goes much more transparent. The public will be able to tell rather easily whether a representative is trying to decrease spending or increase taxes.

The amount of revenue the government pulls in will be directly proportional to the GDP, which economoists estimate would grow by %10 in the first year of the fairtax, by the way.

Paul,

You can't count total tax withholdings. They include social security, medicare and state/local income taxes, none of which will be reduced one tiny bit by the fairtax.

Actually, on second thought, from now on I think I'll call it the unfairtax.

The 30% figure is actually accurate when you look at all Federal income taxes combined, not just the income tax. When you include the income tax, Social Security, and Medicare, it adds up to 30% for someone making $25K. More precisely, it adds up to 29.787%. That's because the Social Security tax is 6.2% plus 6.2%...your share plus your employer's share (which is really money you earned). Your Medicare tax is 1.45% plus 1.45% from your employer (again, money you earned). Total Social Security and Medicare taxes are 16.2%. For someone earning $25K, the Social Security and Medicare handout is actually of greater concern than the income tax handout. Neither Social Security nor Medicare taxes will be reduced at all under the unfairtax.

At $30K, if you're filing as a single, your income tax rate is 14.146%...still far less than what you're paying for Social Security and Medicare. If you're married filing jointly at $30K, you're paying even less at 12.63%. So even you would probably end up paying higher net taxes at your $30K earning level.

Of course, if you're paying a state and/or local income tax, your tax withholdings are even higher, and these taxes also won't be reduced at all under the unfairtax.

The unfairtax is one thing that the liberals are right about. It's a shifting of the Federal tax burden from the corporations to the poor, at least in the short run.

I agree that removing hidden taxes will result in lower prices without the national sales tax. However, you don't understand economics as well as you think you do if you think this will happen overnight. It takes time before the full value of the decrease can be reached. It can take years before the market eventually settles into the new equilibrium. In the meantime, until equilibrium is reached, the poor are paying higher taxes, not lower taxes.

You also grossly exaggerate the savings in government because you fail to take into account that the same people who want to keep ratcheting up government will still be in office, particularly the conservatives who want to keep spending more and more on national offense (excuse me, "defense").

44% of households earn $37K or less each year. That means that if the LP were to adopt the unfairtax as policy, we would alienate nearly half of the electorate. There's nothing pragmatic about that.

LTV, you are either lying or haven't read the FairTax. It gets rid of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid taxes. Of course it doesn't get rid of any state withholdings, but it does get rid of all Federal withholdings. State withholdings are peanuts compared to those. Here's a direct quote from the bill:

"TITLE I--REPEAL OF THE INCOME TAX, PAYROLL TAXES, AND ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES

SEC. 101. INCOME TAXES REPEALED.

Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to income taxes and self-employment taxes) is repealed.

SEC. 102. PAYROLL TAXES REPEALED.

(a) In General- Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to payroll taxes and withholding of income taxes) is repealed.

(b) Funding of Social Security- For funding of the Social Security Trust Funds from general revenue, see section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401).

SEC. 103. ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES REPEALED.

Subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to estate and gift taxes) is repealed."

Here you are railing against the tax when you don't even know what it does.

So before you start saying what a bill does or doesn't do, maybe you should read it. So yes, one would move from an effective tax rate of close to %30 up to paying 23% only on what you spend, not earn, and only on new goods and services. Also you seem to be completely ignoring the prebate, which pays for tax on necessities by taking the annual poverty rate(as calculated by the department of health and human services) and multiplying it by 23%(or whatever the tax rate may be). People at the poverty level pay no taxes whatsoever.

For instance, I, as a single individual with no dependants, the current poverty level for single individuals is $9310. This means I would receive a $2141 rebate every year in the form of a $178 monthly check.

You, being a married man, and I'll just assign you the average number of children, 2, the poverty level for a family of four is $18,850. For reasons unbenknownst to me this is adjusted upwards for married couples, to $24,980, which would mean your yearly rebate is $5,745 in the form of a monthly rebate check of $479.

So, not only are your payroll taxes(except for state taxes) gone, as well as your income tax, you also get $479 per month to pay for taxes on necessities if you are the average family of four. You are right in that prices won't go down immediately on all goods, but it will go down quickly on a lot of them, and remember, goods produced before the fairtax was enacted are exempt from the tax for one year, because the tax on them has already been paid. Perishables might take a couple of harvest seasons to go down, but they will go down, and you have the tax prebate to pay for the taxes anyway.

Paul,

I'd love to support the Fairtax as a first starting step to greater reductions, bit I just cant as long as it does not repeal the 16th Amendment FIRST. I bet we would wind up with both a income tax and the Fairtax in the end. I just dont trust Congress not to screw the people in the end.

Tim,

I agree there needs to be repeal of the 16th, as do the people over at fairtax.org. I just think you have to show people how much better an alternate system is before you can abolish the old one. Mainly because I feel there is a better chance of being able to repeal it that way.