Has this been posted on Youtube?

That was good and funny. I just hope that libertarains don't fly off the handle about it pushing the FairTax. While I am not opposed to the FairTax I think it would be an even better ad that could be run nationally if it replaced that part with something else less divisive or just eliminated it altogether.

TerryP -

The passage of the FairTax does not guarantee that the income tax and all other federal taxes are abolished. In fact, I fear that we might have a federal sales tax PLUS all of the other federal taxes. If you don't believe me, then look at all the states that have a state sales AND an income tax.

I agree about the danger of having both an income tax and a sales tax if we don't watch out. The tax debate reminds me of the debate about the draft. Rangel seems to think that, if we have a draft, we'll be less likely to have a war. But history indicates that we'll have BOTH a war and an ever more voracious draft. So we don't even want to go there. No draft. Similarly, no sales or other tax without abolishing the income tax. We've seen how the government stretches an inch into a mile virtually every time. We have to start giving them NEGATIVE inches.

Not passing the Fair Tax Act does not guarantee that we won't have both an income and sales tax either. If Washington wanted to have both a sales tax and an income tax, they would have already done so (see all the states that have already done so).

The Act should be judged on its own merits, not on what future unrelated hypothetical events could happen.

Should income tax be replaced with a sales tax?

That's the question. There are pros and cons to either answer, but imitating politicians and using scaremonger tactics is not going to fly with most libertarians.

What's the difference in where and how we're taxed. They are still taking in the same revenue and overspending. Instead of pushing the Fair Tax, shouldn't we focus on repealing the income tax, reducing spending and paying down the debt with the existing tax structure aside from the income tax? This is where we can grow our party and sway voters. No one likes to pay taxes. Introducing a new one to replace an old one isn't all that helpful.

Nick: I believe there would be a lot more support from others to REPLACE the income tax with something like a national sales tax, and less for REPEALING the income tax and replacing it with nothing.

I think switching from an federal income tax to a federal sales tax would be a great move, because it would remind people of the outrageous federal spending that takes place more frequently than what we do now the federal income tax (more than once a day vs. once a year).

Making this shift in tax policy would hopefully generate more interest in having a balanced budget, eliminating wasteful spending, etc.

Jim says,

"The Act should be judged on its own merits, not on what future unrelated hypothetical events could happen.

"Should income tax be replaced with a sales tax?"

"That's the question."

If that's the question (and the only viable option), I would prefer the sales tax to the income tax. But repeal of the 16th amendment is necessary for the question to be an honest and realistic one.

People often chide libertarians for not being willing to compromise, to accept "half a loaf." Trading income tax for sales tax, and repealing the constitutional provision that authorizes the former, would be "half a loaf." Putting a sales tax in place without eliminating -- or preventing resumption of -- the income tax might not even be a full slice. There is a difference between compromise and surrender. When the Demos and GOPs want "extremist libertarians" to "compromise," they almost always mean "surrender." This would allow them to tighten the authoritarian noose just a little more, but with LP cooperation and endorsement. What we want is for the noose to be PERMANENTLY loosened, if it can't be eliminated entirely. If all you want is temporary relief, you can get that by playing political games within the GOP and Demos.

The video hiccupped and stuttered a lot on my (Windows XP, Pentium) machine. It was hard to watch, and almost painful to listen to. They might want to include downloadable files on their site, so those of us who are afflicted with streaming video problems can get the whole thing at one shot and watch each segment without irritating interruptions, at leisure.

Incidentally, I have yet to have any problems with YouTube streaming video, so putting the segments on YouTube, as suggested above, might help.

I agree with Nick. It makes no difference how they tax us, what matters is that they tax us. We need to focus on getting rid of unneeded taxes (which will force some of these wasteful programs to dry up, one would hope) and lets face it, almost all of them are unneeded. James, I am in this party because it [usually] doesn't compromise. Where the constitution is concerned, there is no compromise to be had. A bill or an act is either in line with the principles of the constitution and the ideals of this nation or it is not. Unconstitutional acts need to be defeated and the people who continuously put them forth voted out, not permitted to continue on being a threat to freedom while we try to find the middle ground with a bunch of nuts.

Unfortunately, income taxes are constitutional. That doesn't mean they're good. Hey, prohibition was repealed, so there's hope there that we can repeal the income tax amendment.

I bet we could make huge gains in undecided voters, and people who don't vote because they think they're getting scumbags in government no matter whom they vote for. This has to be the number one issue for the LP because reducing government spending means reducing government control in almost all phases of life and society.

Our ideas about the war on drugs, private charity as opposed to corporate bail outs, crime and punishment - they all stem from the government being able to control them through the money they take in. Cut their funds and we cut their power significantly. The business of government should only be the protection of rights, not buying and selling them as they see fit. If we're talking about how to get people on board with us, gaining political power so we can end the corruption and tyranny we start with reminding people that they CAN have their money back if the vote Libertarian.

I bet we could make huge gains in undecided voters, and people who don't vote because they think they're getting scumbags in government no matter whom they vote for.

bingo. biggest opportunity out there. AnD you will onlY reach Them through TV.

Nick said, "The business of government should only be the protection of rights, not buying and selling them as they see fit."

This is an excellent statement, which needs to be polished into a campaign slogan. The fact is that our de facto system is a "corruptocracy," seemingly based on the buying and selling of "rights." Either it will end, or we (as a nation) will.

This is great. It shows the Republicans and Democrats for what they are. Corrupt. I was interviewed once by a radio station and one of the guests was Wayne Smith [former Head of the US Interest Section in Cuba during the Carter Years]. I told him that the problems of Cuba and the world are due to the Cold War Dinosaurs of the Republicans, Democrats, and Communists. I identified myself as a Libertarian and he tried to remove me from the air but I left by saying I hope that the Republicans and Democrats go the way of the dinosaurs.

Thanks guys. The best part is, it is directly related to TAXES! Imagine the prosperity without government intrusion.

Words to use:
intrusion
excessive
corruption
power
reduction
limit or limitation

Words to avoid:
regulation or de-regulation (people like to think someone is monitoring polluters and drug companies from harming people; our free-market solutions will come)
eliminate or elimination (people fear change)
abolish (limit or remove are less threatening)

In general, avoid absolutes and extremes no matter how logical they are. People respond to change when they see it as gradual, rational, and cost-saving. The Family Budget premise is a great tool when talking to regular folks about government spending.

Also, know your audience. Put ads about future benefits (privatization of social security) and censorship issues on channels or during shows young people watch and ads about taxation on during the news and other shows watched by older adults that vote regularly.

Finally, avoid changing the Constitution (except for the income tax amendment). The post office IS constitutional and actually makes a profit, so there is no financial need to privatize it. That said, if Fed Ex and UPS want to send regular letters, there should be no law preventing them from soing so. What "Brown" does for me is my business.

Nick:

I heartedly agree with repealing the post office's monopoly on first class mail. However, I would differ with you, in that the post office should be cut loose from the government.

In other countries where first class mail has been opened up to free market competion, the official government post office has done very badly. I believe that would end up being the case in the U.S. as well. The U.S. Postal Service is hampered by an inefficient design and crippled by strong postal unions.

I think the best course of action is to cut the Postal Service free of the U.S. government. Repeal all government regulations regarding its operation and allow it to adopt an efficient business structure. That way, when UPS, Fedex and others enter the first class postal market, the USPS will be able to compete. As it is right now, if the monopoly is ended without privatizing the USPS, the postal service will wither on the vine.

Is the Postal Service really a concern of the people at this time. We have so many bigger fish to fry. Since the USPS makes a profit right now it needs no tax revenue. We should focus on the items that can reduce taxes now.

While the Post Office is obviously not a priority, I do think it is important that Libertarians development policy positions for ALL issues. Postal reform is obviously not going to be the first thing that Libertarians tackle. But, when asked by non-libertarians what we intend to do on this subject, or any subject, we should be prepared to answer them fully and comprehensivly. Our credibility is enhanced when we show that we are prepared on ALL facets to govern effectively.

I understand being prepared, but no one is asking that question, so why waste effort in discussing it as a policy we would deal with since we don't even have any political clout or federal offices? It is just not a big deal right now considering all the really important issues people actually care about like taxes, war, censorship, welfare reform, etc.

Where's Hammer of Truth and Liberty Mix, you know the blog with Stephen Gordon on staff that received donations of over $10,000 to support it (after prompting by a mass e-mail from Badnarik); then a week after stating Liberty Mix was ready to go (5 months late as it was), it disappears for three weeks and counting?

I still prefer a tiny, flat income tax over a consumption tax.

atsquish.blogspot .com/2006/10/opposition-to-so-called-fairtax-should_23.html

The country COULD be run on small tariffs, road tolls, local and state sales taxes, and user fees so a fair (consumption) tax and/or an income tax would not be necessary. The income tax only pays the interest on the national debt. If we had a government that only paid for what was necessary we could eliminate the national debt in just a few years by keeping the corporate, gas, and sin taxes until the debt is paid off by the surplus.

Think about these rough, off the top of my head estimates.
Drug War 200-400 billion per year
Iraq War 200-400 billion per year (not counting regular Dept of Defense expenditures)
FCC, FDA, and other regulatory agencies 100 billion per year
Government programs 100 billion per year

That's between 600 billion to 1 trillion dollars.

The national debt is 10 trillion, so just from those items, the debt could be paid off in 10 years without growth in the economy. Now that would require the income tax to pay the interest, but paying down the debt would increase the value of our dollar which would allow us to pay the debt quicker. Spending in most regulating areas could be eliminated and then the economy would take off, making the few percentage taxes we still collect even greater (in total dollars) so the debt could be paid off even quicker, further contributing to the cycle. Once the debt is paid off, say in 5-8 years, no more income tax and no need for a federal consumption tax.

Again, those were rough figures but you get the idea.