Monday -- August 22, 2005
Book Tour Schedule | Tour Gallery | target="_blank">amazon.com reviews
MONDAY
DAYTON, OHIO BOOK SIGNING! Books & Company, Stroop Rd.
6:00 This Evening! pm |
 TAKING APART THE CRITICS --- LETTER BY LETTER
One week ago yesterday the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
ran a bit in the Opinion section about The FairTax. Yesterday the AJC ran
some letters to the editor in response to that article. There is no real
evidence that the people who wrote these letters have either read The FairTax
Book or made any independent study of H.R. 25. So --- time for some
educating. The letters are in the boxes, my responses follow. Have
fun! |
Fiscally irresponsible move in light of pressing needs Imagine if the United States had
initially adopted a national sales tax such as the FairTax instead of the
current system. In the past (e.g., during World War II), the rate would
have exceeded 100 percent. Say the current rate is 50 percent. Certainly
someone would pitch the current system to replace the sales tax: "Imagine
paying just 15 percent of your income in taxes and a small payroll tax,
and getting a deduction for your mortgage interest and your charitable
contributions. Best of all, corporations will pay their fair share. Think
of the growth to the economy, when everything you buy is tax-free." FairTax advocates are making a
fiscally irresponsible pitch at a time when our country has substantial
economic problems. The claims they make --- that the tax would equal the
price reduction and we'd no longer have to pay income, FICA or estate and
gift taxes --- are not logical. Based on a report of the Joint Committee
on Taxation (an arm of Congress), the numbers don't come close to working.
Economically, big government necessitates big taxes. It's only a question
of who pays it and how. The FairTax is a fiscally irresponsible attempt to
make the rich richer. ALLEN BUCKLEY, Smyrna |
Consumption tax rates exceeding 100%? Where does
that come from? And what does Mr. Buckley mean by that "Say the
current rate is 50 percent" line? Maybe we learn all we need to know about
Mr. Buckley when we read his "Best of all, corporations will pay their fair
share." Here we have a writer of a letter to the editor who actually
believes that corporations pay taxes. This, I suspect, is the result of a
government school education. Quick lesson, Mr. Buckley: Corporations
collect taxes from their shareholders, customers and employees and pass
them on to the government. All taxes are taxes on wealth, and corporations
hold no wealth. To fully understand Allen Buckley, just look at the last
sentence. This is all an attempt to make the rich richer. Wealth
envy strikes again. The fact is that no class benefits more from the
FairTax than the poor. |
Plan removes obstacles to monopoly on wealth The FairTax would remove a weapon in
law enforcement's arsenal. It would change our country from a
democracy to an aristocracy. Without capital gains, estate taxes and
progressive income taxes, the country's wealth would slide into the hands
of those who do nothing but manipulate wealth. Those three taxes were
created to avoid that. Neal Boortz and Rep. John Linder (R-Ga.)
are doing nothing but sucking up to the rich. WILLIAM L. FELL, Alpharetta |
Class warfare and wealth envy ... alive and well.
Always has been, always will be. It is truly amazing the number of
people who oppose the FairTax simply because they don't believe that it punishes
wealthy people enough for their success. You will notice that Mr. Fell doesn't
care whether or not the FairTax will fund the federal government at its current
levels. He doesn't care that the FairTax will bring American capital and
businesses and capital back home, nor does he care that the FairTax will
completely eliminate the federal tax liability for the poor. America will
become the world's biggest tax haven? So what? This matters not to
Mr. Fell. William Fell is concerned that the rich aren't being punished
enough. He upset because people who work hard to obtain wealth might
actually be allowed to keep it. Mr. Fell, you see, doesn't believe
that the rich actually earn their wealth. They don't dedicate
themselves to their education. They don't go the extra mile to make sure
that all decisions are well thought out. No .. the evil rich don't earn
their wealth, they merely manipulate it. OK .. let's take a poll! How would you like to raise
revenue to operate the federal government? [ ] With a system of taxation that meets
the funding needs of the federal government while treating all Americans
equally; a tax system that allows all Americans, rich and poor alike, to earn
and to spend up to the poverty level with no federal tax consequences. [ ] With a system of taxation that
punishes achievement while meeting the funding needs of the federal government. Mr. Fell and others like him have a common mindset.
If you had the ability to read minds, here is what you might find from those
consumed with wealthy envy: "That guy is no better than I am, but he's
rich, and I'm not. He doesn't work any harder than I do. I work hard,
every day. But he's rich, and I'm not. If you could get rich with
hard, honest work I would be rich, because I'm honest and I work hard. So
he must be doing something dishonest to get that money. He probably has
some crooked lawyers that help him steal money from other people and cheat on
his taxes. I want him punished for his dishonesty and his exploitation of
people like me. I want the government to take more of his money away from
him. After all, I worked for mine .. and he didn't." Wealth envy has always been there ... always will be.
This shall never change. |
Make the levy smaller and guarantee support The FairTax is touted as a tax cut and
a revenue-neutral program, but the fact is it will reduce taxes for some
and raise taxes for others. It's obvious who gets the cut and who gets the
increase. Another flaw is that it doesn't
address human psychology. Given the opportunity, a person (rich or poor)
will avoid paying taxes, regardless of whether their take-home pay is
higher. I wouldn't have bought the six new homes I have over the past 20
years or the 12 new vehicles I have over the past 25 years if they'd had a
23 percent tax on them. FairTax would kill the construction and automobile
industries, two of the strongest left in the United States. If the tax were much smaller, say 1
percent to 3 percent, and included all transactions --- stock and bond
purchases, business to business purchases, etc.--- then you could get some
real support for it. KAREEM SOUKA, Canton |
Good Grief! Did anyone around here actually read the
book before they wrote their ill-informed letters? Mr. Souka .. those six
homes you bought over the past 20 years, and those 12 new vehicles, did
have a 23 percent tax on them ... or more! Embedded taxes, Mr. Souka.
They're there, and you paid them. The FairTax removes those embedded taxes
and replaces them with an embedded consumption tax! |
Plan sure to produce economic apocalypse If the "Fair" Tax became law, it would
lead to an unprecedented spending spree, a fantastic expansion of the
economy, followed by an even more rapid economic collapse, depression and
national bankruptcy. The bill would not take effect for
more than a year. Most folks would realize they'd be paying 30 percent
(not 23 percent) more. A new $200,000 house would cost $260,000 if they
delayed. But wage earners would not have taxes withheld from their
paychecks and would receive a monthly check for bare necessities. Better to borrow now and pay later
with "free" money. Then, Day One of FairTax --- no immediate decrease in
prices, because those goods were produced with all the abolished taxes
added in. Consumption, and the tax income necessary to run the country,
would fall like a stone. Do the math: lower tax income, higher tax rates
and fewer people to buy. Adios, economy. BOB HAWKINS, Duluth |
Same story, different verse. Once again a letter to
the editor from someone who hasn't read the book. Virtually every point
made by Hawkins is absolutely dead wrong. If Mr. Hawkins had either taken
the time to either read The FairTax Book, study HR 25, or visit the FairTax
website he would never have written this letter. Just for starters, Mr.
Hawkins, that $200,000 house would still cost about $200,000. You would
understand that if you would read the book, but I don't expect you to do that,
nor do I expect you to stop writing hideously uninformed letters to the editor
on the subject. Now ... since we're talking about buying homes, a few more
things for you to consider. Since wage earners would be getting 100% of
their paychecks they will have quite a bit more cash to save for down payments
and to spend on monthly mortgage payments. Furthermore, the economists who
studied the effects of the FairTax have written that as the economy grows after
the implementation of the FairTax home mortgage interest rates could fall by as
much as 30%. Prices don't go up; people have more disposal income; and
interest rates go down. Sounds like a formula for success in the home
market, not disaster. |
Negative side of story conveniently overlooked Neal Boortz is telling only the good
half of the story. I would point out the deception of the
23 percent tax rate: When my doctor's bill of $100 goes to $130, it's a 30
percent tax. Boortz's backward math will lead you to believe it's 23
percent. FairTax advocates say prices will come
down 22 percent, but that is based only on estimates. Even if it were
true, 22 percent still does not equal 30 percent. I've been looking at no tax on my
retirement savings until this idea came up. Under today's laws, my life
insurance and small estate will go to my wife and children federal-tax
free when I die. When they spend that money, it will be tax free. FairTax
would tax them. BILL SLAUGENHOP, Jasper |
How many times do we have to go over this? Of
course, Mr. Slaugenhop just hasn't read the book or taken it upon himself to
study the FairTax further. Ok, Bill; see if you can grasp this: Your
doctor's bill does not go up to $130. I have no idea where you got that
figure. Your $100 dollar doctor's bill, along with the price of virtually
every other consumer item and service, will remain essentially where it is
today. The 23% FairTax is embedded in the cost of goods and
services, and replaces the current embedded tax that averages 22%.
You're right .. the 22% embedded tax figure is based on estimates .. but those
estimates come from some of the best economic minds we have out there. The
actual estimate, by the way, ranges up to about 24%, depending on who you're
talking to. Now ... as to your last paragraph. When your family
spends your inheritance they will be paying just about the same for consumer
items as they would spend now. We're just replacing one tax with another
of about the same percentage. |
Clever idea will benefit rich while penalizing poor The FairTax is a clever idea because
it would not tax a very large portion of the income that rich people get
while taxing the middle class more than now. A family of four making $50,000 a year
normally spends most of it to get by, whereas a CEO making $1 million will
pay the so-called FairTax on the very small portion of his income spent on
daily necessities. A truly fair tax would exempt all
income below a certain level and then progressively tax everything beyond
that at a progressive rate without any deductions and loopholes. PAVITTAR SAFIR, Roswell |
Here we go with the wealth envy again. Another
unsatisfied customer bemoaning the fact that the rich just aren't being punished
enough. I guess Mr. Safir comes by his class envy honestly, though.
It was that same wealth envy that propelled us into the 16th Amendment and the
income tax in the first place. But, sorry, Mr. Safir. You're wrong.
The FairTax does not tax any portion of the income that rich people get.
It's not an income tax. The FairTax is a consumption tax, it taxes
spending. If you assume that rich people spend more than poor and middle
class people (not a difficult assumption to make) then you can see that the rich
will pay more in consumption taxes than the poor. Your fondness for Karl
Marx's idea of progressive taxation of the evil rich is duly noted. |
Boortz fails to back up his claims with evidence What Neal Boortz claims would be a 23
percent "tax inclusive" rate is what those of us living in the real world
would call a 30 percent sales tax (in addition to state and local sales
taxes). But even those numbers are suspect --- some studies claim that the
real tax rate would need to be 60 percent or higher. Boortz says those studies are flawed,
but nowhere in his book (or on his show) does he cite a study supporting
his proposed tax rate. The best he can do is say that FairTax proponents
spent "millions of dollars" in coming up with the 23 percent rate. That's
like saying the big tobacco companies spent millions producing reports
that cigarette smoking is good for you. When you're the one paying the
"experts," it's amazing what you can get them to come up with. Where's the real evidence? Boortz
should either put up or shut up. I think he'll do neither. HAYDEN
KEPNER, Marietta |
Hayden Kepner is an Atlanta
bankruptcy attorney. When The FairTax Book first came out he wrote a
"review" for Amazon.com. In that review Mr. Kepner lied, either
intentionally or through carelessness, about the contents of the book. You
can read Hayden Kepner's prevarications and my response in the
August 3rd edition of
Nealz Nuze. (Click on the link to read Kepner's Amazon.com
review as well as my response) Not only did I expose Kepner's distortions
in the Nuze, other Amazon.com reviewers took him to task also. To his
credit, Hayden Kepner does not repeat all of the mistruths (intentional
distortions?) that so dominated his first review of The Fair Tax Book.
He does, however, obfuscate the facts with his claim that "some studies claim
that the real tax rate would need to be 60 percent or higher." Kepner
knows that those are not studies of the FairTax proposal, but of altered and
modified proposals that make exclusions and exceptions not included in The
FairTax Bill. Kepner also drags up that old and discredited "30%"
objection. He knows, and we state very clearly in the book, that if the
FairTax is quoted on an "exclusive" rather than an "inclusive" basis it would
calculate to roughly 30%, just as our 25% income tax bracket would calculate to
33%, and our 35% tax bracket could calculate to 53.8% if quoted the same way.
The FairTax replaces the income tax. Even Hayden Kepner might, when
cornered, admit that we should quote the FairTax exactly the same way we quote
the tax that it is replacing. Any way you look at it, under the FairTax
when you spend $100, $23 goes to the government. Get our your calculators.
That would mean that 23% of the purchase price goes to the feds.
Mr. Kepner is also upset that
we didn't include all of the research in the book. We're sorry, Mr.
Kepner, but we didn't want to make the book 750 pages long. The research
used in developing the FairTax plan is available online at
Fairtax.org. We are still anxiously
awaiting a critique of The FairTax Book by Mr. Kepner that does not distort the
facts. Perhaps Kepner's problem here is more with me, as a radio talk show
host, than with the FairTax as a tax reform plan. Attorneys. Gotta
love 'em. | A
win-win proposition should have no opposition Having just read "The FairTax Book,"
I'm scratching my head over some of the blogs in opposition to it. Under the FairTax, I'd get 100 percent
of my check. I'd pay no withholding tax, no Medicare tax, no Social
Security tax --- no income tax at any level. I could save, buy and sell
property at a profit with no tax liability. I'd pay a tax only when I
bought things, at prices no different from, or perhaps less than, what I
pay now. And I'd get a prebate for the necessities of life at the first of
every month. This tax would apply to everybody,
regardless of income. So the FairTax is unfair and evil because . .
? JIM CHEEK, Kennesaw |
Wow! Someone who actually gets it! Thank you ,
Mr. Cheek! We'll keep an eye out for more letters. In the
meantime, those of you who want to actually learn the truth about the FairTax
and the research behind it can either read the book or study the volumes of
information available at FairTax.Org. GOODBYE CINDY
After dominating the headlines for what seemed like an eternity, Cindy Sheehan
has packed up her folding chair and headed home from Crawford, Texas. Something
about being at the side of her ailing mother. Will she disappear from the
headlines? Probably not. The mainstream media and other assorted leftists will
keep the memory of her little Texas charade known for quite some time.
But does anyone care? There was an interesting poll taken recently. According
to the press in this country, Cindy Sheehan speaks for all mothers of the Iraq
war dead and reflects the mood of the entire country. But a new poll
(thankfully) shows that not to be so.
An online poll asked the question "Do you
agree with Sheehan's views?" Out of 290,000 respondents, 56% said no. In the
same poll, people were asked if they agreed with her tactics. 59% did not.
Perhaps there is still hope.
Which goes to show you that this was a media-generated story from the beginning.
Cindy Sheehan was covered to the extent that she was because her Bush-bashing
views were compatible with those of the media.
At least she's gone. We hope.
SADDAM RESIGNED TO FATE
 Looks like Saddam Hussein has resigned himself to receiving the proverbial
eternal celestial desert sand nap when he's tried by the Iraqis pretty soon.
Wonder if he'll wear his BVD's for the occasion? That should help keep out the
sand from those sensitive parts.
In a letter published yesterday, the Islamic Butcher of Baghdad seems to have
decided that he will become a martyr. He says that his "soul and existence is
to be sacrificed" for the Arab cause, whatever that means. Saddam also mentioned
Palestine in his letter, and something about his beloved, patient and suffering
Iraq. Talk about delusional. Hey, wait a minute...Saddam's letter sounds like
it could have been written by the Democratic Party here in the United States!
After all, Howard Dean says Iraqis were better off under Saddam than under the
U.S. occupation.
Perhaps Howard Dean and Saddam should get together and work on political
strategy. While there's still time, that is. It looks like Saddam is headed
for trial in about 6 weeks...and if convicted, could be dangling from a rope
soon after.
REPUBLICANS DIVIDED ON WAR?
It is interesting to note that whenever a Republican senator goes on one of the
talking head shows on Sunday and praises the Bush administration or speaks out
in support of our policy in Iraq, it makes zero news. Not important. 99% of
the U.S. Senate could support the war in Iraq and it wouldn't matter to the
mainstream media...all they care about is the one, single, lone Republican that
speaks out against the president.
If a Republican opposes the president, even though it is a single politician,
that opposition can be used in the press to make it look like George Bush
doesn't even have the support of his own party, even though he does. The lone
Republican that speaks out against Bush is held up as a principled, thoughtful
person of conscience. So which senator is filling that role this week? Why,
it's our good friend and Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel.
Speaking yesterday on ABC's 'This Week,' Saint Hagel repeated the same nonsense
he's been espousing for months:
--Iraq is like Vietnam. (It isn't. Not even close.)
--The Iraq war is destabilizing the Middle East. (Really? More democracy is
destabilizing? Right.)
--We should pull out. (Wouldn't that really destabilize the Middle East? Not
in Chuck's world.)
--Oh...and we're losing the war. If that's the case, then the United States also
lost World War II, because you could draw many of the same parallels between
where we are in this conflict and where we were in that one.
The headlines will continue to broadcast the lie that there is turmoil in the
Republican Party over Iraq, even though there isn't. Why doesn't Hagel just
switch parties? He'd fit right in on the left. REDNECK SCRAP BOOK Today we have something a little different in the
Redneck Scrap Book A few of
you have sent us this little movie set to dueling banjos. Warning to those of
you on dial-up, it's a 7mb Quicktime movie.
READING ASSIGNMENTS
 Spotted by Psycho. For the morbid child. Click it to see
more. |
Mark Steyn explores the Cindy Sheehan drama, and says her actions are a
metaphor for the Democrats. He also says the left is trying to demonize the
military...characterizing them as poor, defenseless children. Don't miss this
one.
A talk show host in Washington, D.C.
has been fired for calling Islam a terrorist organization. It would seem
CAIR, a real terrorist organization, didn't take too kindly to his statements.
The 'Able Danger' plot is thickening again...this time it looks like some
documents are missing. Where did those documents go and who has them? Someone
who doesn't want their contents to be known?
It looks like Democrats
are finally starting to get the message and realize something. Opposition
to the war in Iraq is getting them nowhere politically. Of course, they're
still Democrats, so that means they'll keep doing it.
George Will checks in on U.S. policy in the Middle East, and notes that our
policy toward Iran is preposterous.
Did you know that there is good news about the high gas prices? How could there
be anything good about paying $50 or $60 bucks to fill up your tank?
Steve Chapman explains.
Now that Cindy Sheehan has drifted back into the obscurity from whence she came,
will the media stop harping about the Iraq war?
Of course not, as the Media Research Center tells us.
Hiding beneath the political surface is the latest round of military base
closings...known as BRAC.
Robert Novak has one example where not saving a base is going to cost one
Republican his career.
What is the solution to illegal immigration?
Star Parker says Mexico and the United States have to work together.
Although it's pretty difficult to see how that would work...considering 50% of
the Mexicans want to come here.
Diana West has an interesting take on George Bush's problems....she says the
president needs to get back to his first term self, and forget his second term
alter-ego. |
Neal Boortz's Latest Tweets
.
You're Almost Done!
Select a display name and password
{* #socialRegistrationForm *} {* socialRegistration_displayName *} {* socialRegistration_emailAddress *} {* traditionalRegistration_password *} {* traditionalRegistration_passwordConfirm *}Tell us about yourself
{* registration_firstName *} {* registration_lastName *} {* registration_postalZip *} {* registration_birthday *} {* registration_gender *} {* agreeToTerms *}