With Special Guest Star.....Brian McLain

Posted by Jason Easley on 04.11.2007

With Special Guest Star is a new feature that highlights the views of readers, former 411 Politics contributors, and individuals from any and all walks of life. In Edition #1, “The Angry Scotsman”, Brian McLain writes about the flaws in The Fair Tax Act.

"With Special Guest Star" is a new feature that highlights the views of readers, former 411 Politics contributors, and individuals from any and all walks of life. In Edition #1, "The Angry Scotsman", Brian McLain writes about the flaws in The Fair Tax Act.


THE FLAWS OF THE FAIR TAX ACT

I have long been an advocate of the repeal of the income tax. It was a mindlessly conceived effort specifically meant to stick it to the robber barons and rich folk of the country and spread the wealth out a little bit. What's more is I have also pressed strongly for the implementation of a national sales tax to replace such a rotten tax system. So why am I not jumping for joy with the Fair Tax gaining momentum in congress in bills HR25 and S1025? The more I read in the two bills, the more I became disappointed. Taking a very simply tax system and adding more and more amendments to it to try and iron out its undesirable qualities, has ironically made it much more complex than need be for the type of tax it is meant to be. Let's start with the first argument I make against the Fair Tax, the horse before carriage argument:

Premise 1: The Fair Tax repeals all income taxes and abolishes the IRS.

Argument: Yes, within the text is the repeal of all income taxes and abolishment of the IRS. The only problem is it only gets rid of the symptom without concerning itself with the cure. Being oh so trusting of our dear federal legislatures, I would have to say it DOES NOT GET RID OF THE INCOME TAX, opening the door for the sales tax to be implemented and the income tax to come back at a later time. There is one major thing that needs to be done before the income tax system can be replaced, and that is an amendment to the Constitution repealing this amendment:

Amendment XVI: Income tax.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. The income tax prior to 1913 WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Until this amendment is repealed, there will be no end to the income tax.

Premise 2: The Fair Tax is more simple and understandable than the income tax system.

Argument : A drunken Scotsman with a bad lisp and no teeth singing "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is easier to understand than the current income tax code. That isn't hard to do. The problem is the Fair Tax isn't as simple as it SHOULD be. Including little things like monthly "prebates" to eliminate taxes on the impoverished (free money still requiring income and census guidelines) will require more government bureaus to be created, the government is just as much in your life, and requires a lot of money to be forked out. Want to make things simpler? Don't tax foods, don't tax homes under a certain price, don't tax rent under a certain amount, and don't tax public transportation. Exclude necessities from the tax, don't tax everything and then make people wait for their check at the end of the month.

Premise 3: Tax reform is not a jackalope.

Argument: I would like to speak with the idiot doing the Fair Tax's publicity. What crack addict did they pull off the street to write this garbage? I guess what they mean is tax reform is not as non-existent as one might think. Either that or tax reform is impossible without a poor, stuffed rabbit, some tiny antlers and a hot glue gun. Look, tax reform in this shape isn't a myth, it's a joke. It will change a system drastically without truly getting rid of the old one, boast simplicity without arriving at the lowest common denominator, and really do nothing that it is meant to do because of all the additions.

Premise 4: Income tax is already paid for in hidden increases of product prices, so to convert from one to the other would have little to no effect on prices.

Argument: Yes it would very much have an affect on the prices of products. This is the one flaw of the entire national sales tax concept, regardless of what you do. Prices will go up because they will have the cover of people expecting prices to go up and the brunt of the blame will be placed on the government, not gouging retailers. What's more our workers will be receiving their entire paycheck in one chunk, which means more immediate access to money, which means higher inflation. Eventually the prices will balance out when the realization sets in that money is being lost due to greed, but that might take a few years.

The whole point of a national sales tax in lieu of an income tax is to give the power to tax back to the people. With simple cost of living items (necessities, not your Lexus) removed from taxation, people can budget the amount of tax they pay and be able to understand how the taxes work. You want to buy something special for the misses? You just have to have that new plasma TV? You're going to pay a little extra for that. The benefit, you don't HAVE to pay it, you don't risk being shot at by IRS agents for not, nor do you have to worry about being imprisoned. This may create some difficulties in going after some organized crime bosses, but little else as far as I can see. So my support still lies with the common sense tax, but not the Fair Tax.

The Angry Scotsman

If you would like to featured in "With Special Guest Star," write a column and email it to me. Maybe you will be our next Politics Zone Guest Star.