Tax on smokes may benefit uninsured
200,000 in state could get coverage
COLUMBIA — As many as 200,000 uninsured South Carolinians could get health-care coverage if the state Legislature sticks to a plan to increase the cigarette tax by 50 cents a pack.
The Senate resumed debate Tuesday over whether to raise the state's 7-cent tax — the lowest in the nation — for the first time since 1977 when a pack of smokes cost an average of 49 cents.
Cigarette tax increase
THE ISSUE: Increasing South Carolina's lowest-in-the-nation 7-cent cigarette tax.
THE PROBLEM: The biggest sticking point is over how to use the money. Many legislators seem to want the revenue to go toward health care but can't agree on how to spend it.
WHAT'S THE NEXT: The state Senate is expected to continue debate today. The bill will most likely end up in conference negotiations with the House before it could go to the governor's desk.
The latest plan would generate $159 million a year, putting $5 million toward smoking cessation and prevention programs and splitting the rest of the money between Medicaid and credits for lower-income workers to purchase health insurance.
"A great many South Carolinians will be helped dramatically," said Senate Minority Leader John Land, D-Manning. An estimated 600,000 to 800,000 South Carolina residents are uninsured.
One catch that has many senators uneasy is a provision that would allow the cigarette tax to increase on an annual basis as health-care costs rise. In the last year, that would have meant a 3-cent increase.
The Senate is expected to resume debate today with at least a handful of proposals to revise the legislation. Any proposal would then need to get the approval of the House.
The first one up, by Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Bonneau, would use the bulk of the money from a 50-cent increase in the cigarette tax to provide credits worth up to $2,000 for workers who earn up to 250 percent of the poverty level to buy health insurance. The value of the credit would depend on how many people take advantage of the program.
Grooms said he wants to give workers the chance to afford health care but does not favor increasing entitlement under Medicaid.
A single person earning up to $25,525 would qualify for the insurance credit; two people could make $34,225; and a family of four could bring home an income of up to $51,625.
As they left it Tuesday, the Senate voted 27-16 for the plan to use the money toward insurance credits for workers and increasing income guidelines for Medicaid coverage.
To qualify for Medicaid, a family currently can earn no more than 50 percent of the federal poverty level, but the plan would double the threshold to 100 percent, from 200 to 250 percent for children and 100 to 135 percent for the elderly, blind and disabled.
Kelly Davis, cigarette tax campaign coordinator for the South Carolina Tobacco Col- laborative, said the collaborative and its health care advocates are pleased are with the Senate's process.
"We were just really struck by the history of that moment," Davis said.
More than 70 percent of state residents support a significant increase in the cigarette tax, Davis said. The national average is $1.14. The rate in Georgia is 37 cents a pack and 35 cents in North Carolina.
Sen. Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg, led the charge to raise the tax by 93 cents, for a total of $1 per pack. He wanted to use the money toward increasing the number of people who could qualify for Medicaid.
Hutto's proposal failed in a vote of 30-13.
Reach Yvonne Wenger at 803-799-9051 or ywenger@ postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 44 comment(s)
Posted by ridgerunner on May 7, 2008 at 6:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
JUST ANOTHER WAY TO TAKE MONEY FROM WORKING AMERICA TO GIVE TO THE ILLEGALS
Posted by abitskeptical on May 7, 2008 at 6:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If the ENTIRE tax system was switched from income tax to a consumption tax..well just look at & read all information at fairtax.org (we'd all be better off)
Posted by Riptide on May 7, 2008 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem with a sin tax is that once the consumption of a particular item starts to go down for any number of reasons the program still needs to be funded. You’ve created an agency that employs people with a benefit package and a certain portion of the population that is now dependent on this freebe. Once the sales of cigarettes starts to fall, then they either increase the tax or find something else to tax. Liberals will tax anything that moves and there is no end to programs or the limits of what to tax. Lets tax ammo for gunshot wounds. They do it out in California.
Posted by majorjohnson on May 7, 2008 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Over 70% of the people want the tax on cigarrettes, which is 90% of the people who don't smoke. In other words, let the people who won't pay the tax be the ones who get to decide if there will be a tax. That's democracy for you. Three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Riptide is exactly right. The purpose behind the tax is to discourage smoking, but they are going to build a dependency on the income from that smoking. As their plan works and the income decreases the dependency on the money will not, and they'll be looking around for something else to tax.
Posted by majorjohnson on May 7, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And lets not forget the tobacco lawsuit settlement. We took the $2.3 billion dollar settlement over 25 years and traded it for a lump sum payoff of $912 million, bonded by our tax dollars against the $2.3 billion potential. The payoff of the $2.3 billion is tied to the number of smokers every year, among other things, so as people quit smoking the $2.3 billion actually decreases, but we have bonds against the full amount. So what that means is if this tax is successful in decreasing the number of smokers substantially we're going to have to pay off those bonds with tax dollars to make up the difference. Talk about a double whammy.
And that settlement was supposedly to pay for exactly what they now say they need to raise tobacco taxes to pay for.
Posted by whycantitbebetterhere on May 7, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm all for taxing drinkers next! They are a burden to the health care system. Oops! Its okay to drink and not okay smoke, I guess that will never happen. How bout a tax hike on food - a lot of people are looking pretty heavy to me - they are a burden on the health care system too. Oops! Its okay to be heavy, so I guess that won't happen. Poor smokers - there just aren't enough of you to stop this. I guess when the republicans said no new taxes - they only meant for people that don't have a smoking habit. Shouldn't this money offset the higher cost of health care because smokers are such a burden on the system? That argument doesn't hold because they die approximately 10 years earlier than others, so there's ten years of health care the state doesn't have to pay for. Stupid.
Posted by whycantitbebetterhere on May 7, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, and isn't that elimination/reduction of property taxes workin' out well too? Did you notice the budget deficit this year? I guess Sanford got that sales tax idea wrong too.... Maybe he ought to go back to school and take economics again....
Posted by oldglory on May 7, 2008 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
majorjohnson - good reporting! I was too lazy to search for that info, glad you weren't as bad as me.
whycantitbebetterhere - you've nailed it.
Sadly, all this 'for the good of the people' is motivated by what is politically expedient this year, this month, today!!
Posted by RTC on May 7, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Singling out a particular group to overtax.
They won't increase the tax on alcohol, because the politicians like it too much.
You will never see any of these issues put to public vote. Here again, more government interference.
Posted by feb251939 on May 7, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
LOCAL DRIVER HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF NICOTINE AFTER HE RAN DOWN A MOTHER AND CHILDREN AT CROSS WALK.
Ever seen a headline like that? Of course not but alcohol is a cheap way to get high and can kill instantly and happens everyday.
Why won't our tax hungry law makers try to tax THIS deadly product?
Posted by Zod on May 7, 2008 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hmmm......
The original justification for increasing the tax on cigarettes was the burden that smokers place on the healthcare system. I can buy into that idea. It all sounds logical. That is until you take a look at this bill which gives 5% of the total revenue received to the practice of QUITING smoking altogether.
The laest wonderdrug to assist in the stop smoking endeavor is called Chantix. The current monthly prescription has a cost $125. I would be willing to bet my annual salary that not one dime of this tax increase will be used toward making that medication affordable. Quiting smoking isn't the priority. The priority is the tax increase.
I will not vote for one single republican this election cycle. The bastards are a bunch of liars too. I will be voting Democrat. At least they are honest about their communist intentions.
Posted by beckymonroe54 on May 7, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm in . . . tax alcohol. It causes just as much illness and most of the heartache in the world. How many drinkers can say they never laid out of work because of a hangover?
Posted by Zod on May 7, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
.....and one other thing. As time runs out on an education reform bill (that costs the taxpayers nothing) these dumb bastards are raising taxes. The senate session is set to expire with this bill going unaddressed. Does this not show the REAL priority of the State Senate.
http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007...
Posted by Zod on May 7, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Beckymonroe,
If productivity is criteria for taxation, volunteerism should be taxed too. I take all my allocated days off from work to participate in my volunteer activities.
In general, you people better be careful in wishing taxes on anything. One of these days you are going to find you are in the minority in your use of some proposed tax item. It's just a matter of time.
I find it safer just to oppose every tax they can originate. Treat politicians like mushrooms. Feed them crap and keep them in the dark.
Posted by outrage on May 7, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
abitskeptical - I have mentioned the Fairtax on numerous threads and nobody seems to get it but you. I have read both Fairtax books and stay updated on the Fairtax.org webpage. The information would turn our economy into a jaggernaut.
Start hammering the politicains with the facts about the Fairtax. The poor would get a prebate monthly and you only pay taxes when you buy something!
Lets go people - time to take the government back and give it to the people.
Posted by ln1959 on May 7, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ha ha ha ...Good one Coldbeer.
Listen folks, I uses to smoke until Virginia put a 70 cent tax on tobacco products. I seeked help to kick the addiction, which cause me $325.00 and it all came out of my pocket. They said I could claim it at tax time, but it was not over $1000.00 dollars, so that was no good.
They ran a few stop smoking adds, but thats about all the money I knew of them spending to help people out. Telling them where they can go for help and how much it will cost.
Most people who stop smoking do it on there on, or pay for assistance out of there pockets.
The money state gains, went to pork barrel projects, that had nothing to do with health.
whycantitbebetterhere hit it on the nose. If smokers die 10 years earlier then others, its not the smokers that a burden on the system, its sounds more like the politician are the burden.
Posted by Chilldiesel83 on May 7, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think there should be a tax on the lottery. I think it is more addictive to low income people than cigarettes or alcohol ever was. I have actually stood in line, seen people borrow money to buy a lottery ticket, they in fact one 20 bucks, did not go home and save that money, or put it in their car for gas, or go get their suit cleaned so they could actually go out and look for a job!!!! Heck no, they turned around, got back in line, and bought more lottery tickets. I smoke, I can afford the tax, it doesn't bother me a whole heck of a lot, but what does bother me, is that the rest of South Carolina, and the nation is left dangling upside down with their money falling out of their pockets, going to help people that refuse to help themselves because we have created a safety net for them and they have been re-assured that the government will always take care of them.
Posted by Zod on May 7, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
outrage, the fair tax is not fair at all.
The number one reason why it isn't "fair" is that it does not include state tax.
The number two reason why it isn't "fair" is that it does not include Social Security tax.
The number three reason why it isn't "fair" is that it does not include Medicare/Medicaid tax.
The "Fair Tax" substitutes the federal tax. After 15% of my income goes into my 401k, another sizable amount of interest on my mortgage, my kids, and lord knows what else is deducted - I pay less than 10% a year in federal tax. The current federal tax structure is actually beneficial to the middle class FAMILY. I will spend 25 years of my working life writing off children. I will spend 30 years of my working life writing off my home.
Why in the hell would I want to INCREASE my federal tax to 25 percent? The more important question is - "Who is driving this conversation about a so called "fair tax"? Evidently that person is paying more than me. I (and most people that know the motives behind the discussion) do not wish to participate in the discussion.
Posted by JohnS on May 7, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What is the reason most people are uninsured? If it is low income and you make less than 20,000.00 a year single you can get a low income deal at MUSC. You can make more if you are married. Your healthcare will cost next to nothing. Call MUSC for details.
I think the real reason most people are uninsured is they are not low income but choose to pay for things like a new car instead of paying on a policy.
Posted by outrage on May 7, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You people need to read the book and all your questions will be answered. I had alot of the same questions you had, but they were answered. Read the books, not the blogs and then let me know what you think.
ColdBeer - Do you really want you government to work on a budget that has no guaranteed income?
*It will have an income, and it will shrink government into a transparent entity so you can see were all of the money really goes.
Zod - I (and most people that know the motives behind the discussion) do not wish to participate in the discussion.
*Yes, you are talking about Democrats not being able to buy votes anymore. Please, advise me of the motives you are talking about?
Posted by Zod on May 7, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ColdBeer, you inspired me to go to the website. The first thing I did was take their challenge. Their challenge was a comparison between my current tax status and their proposed tax. At the end of the calculation the first thing I noticed is that they NOW propose that I will no longer have to pay a social security tax. They also propose that I will no longer have to pay a medicare/medicaid tax. They also say that I will receive something called a "prebate" in the amount of 6400 dollars for my family status. After all is said and done, they claim that I will save 1%.
(excuse me while I laugh a bit)
Could someone remind me. Why are we talking about a "fair tax"? Is it for that 1%? Is a person in the middle class really foolish enough to believe that the politicians in Washington would not have a field day rewriting the tax code?
Posted by Zod on May 7, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is the issue with people selling this idea outrage. The first thing you said was -
"I have mentioned the Fairtax on numerous threads and nobody seems to get it but you."
That leads one to believe that they are missing out on something. Okay, the next thing you say is -
"Start hammering the politicains with the facts about the Fairtax."
That seems to imply that something will change. It seems that YOUR bill is bulletproof.
"Lets go people - time to take the government back and give it to the people."
Well I need to get off my ass for something. What is it?
Then I challenge you to tell me YOUR details. You are the one wanting to change something. I have already told you that I'm fine. I have already told you that I have worked my way around this tax system. I told you how I worked my way around this federal tax system. Obviously I fall directly in the middle class as I have even provided you a percentage that I pay (after all the deductions of course).
The answer I received to my reply was the same answer I always receive from the half-baked investigaters of our tax code.
"You people need to read the book and all your questions will be answered."
Well shoot.... I thought you were going to tell me where I am wrong. You sure seemed to be sure of yourself when you started this conversation. Here is my thing. I pay less than 10% of my families income on federal taxes. Can your bill do better than that? If not, why should I talk about it?
The people selling this crack pot idea know that most people do not know the actual amount they pay in taxes. Most people do not understand taxes at all. Heck, I was talking to a 40 year old man yesterday who didn't know the definition of "dividend". Fair tax is a play on that stupidity. It's a chance to change the subject in order to lower the tax of the upper class. I can't find a nice way to say that either you know the motive or you are dumb. I like to think that you are well to do and you know the motives.
Posted by RTC on May 7, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My daughter and I were bombarded by a young man in a shopping center parking lot. He was handing out info on the fair tax agenda. Looking around, I never saw a single person over 25 handing out these pamplets.
I was curious as to why there were no older people doing this. I am going to take the time to seriously read up on this, but from what I've been told, this program cannot be feasible.
Posted by outrage on May 7, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Zod - Read chapter 8 in the Fairtax book and it will explain to you something that will make you made about the current tax codes.
Posted by whycantitbebetterhere on May 7, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am fine with income tax, just please stop calculating it before you take out my social security and medicare, I would like to get to keep at least 60% of my paycheck. Fair tax won't work - toooo many cheaters.... !
Posted by MACOA on May 7, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
raise taxes on Alcohol, cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and tattoos.
Posted by Zod on May 7, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Outrage, I came back to the computer because I said I could not find a better way to say something and then I included "dumb" in that comment. I was dumb for not finding a better way to say it.
Maybe you do not have kids.
Maybe you are not married.
Maybe you do not have a mortgage.
Maybe you do not carry all your other debt on a mortgage based loan.
Maybe you do not invest 15% in a 401k.
All of these are reasons why you would pay too much as a middle class taxpayer. If someone is not taking advantage of the current laws, why would we want to rewrite them? It is their negligence and who is to say that they would not be negligent under a new law.
I do not have the book. I'm not interested in reading the book. My time would be better served explaining to the majority of america that falls in the same tax bracket why they benefit MORE from the current tax code than that which is proposed by the fairtax crowd. Think of the fairtax as changing the subject. Why does someone usually want to change a subject? It's usually because they do not like the current subject. It is then you have to ask yourself why. When you know their situation, you compare it to yours. Your cause is not their cause. They are selling their cause. Have you ever bought something you wish you could take back? The fairtax would be one of those items.
If the fairtax crowd really wanted something good for America, they would be selling a tax on imports. The country was founded upon that form of taxation. I do not know why we think we know better than using that form of taxation now.
Posted by Zod on May 7, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Raise taxes on MACOA.
Posted by outrage on May 7, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Zod - "I like to think that you are well to do and you know the motives."
I am not well to do, I am a Deputy Sheriff. Middle class I guess.
"I pay less than 10% of my families income on federal taxes. Can your bill do better than that? If not, why should I talk about it?"
Most Americans' paychecks are debited 25% for income taxes, nearly 8% for payroll taxes before the paycheck even reaches you. The nearly 8% the employer must pay on behalf of every employee. Virtually all economists agree that that 8% effectively comes right out of the employee's paycheck.
Not to mention all the taxes imbedded in the price of goods you buy. I will go out on a limb and say you pay alot more than 10%, but I could just be dumb.
If you want I will lend you both books to investigate the theory thoroughly and then you can tell me what you think.
Posted by outrage on May 7, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
zod - I know you didn't have any malice in your comment. No hard feelings. I have enjoyed the debate.
Believe me, I was the same way about the Fairtax when people brought it up, but I have changed my mind.
I think you would enjoy the read and realize that a 65,000 plus page tax code with over 2.5 million words is to complicated. Call the IRS next year and ask a tax question and you will find that that answer is wrong over 40% of the time. Have a nice day:-)
Posted by Riptide on May 7, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The definition of fair: It is where a boy scout will break a candy bar into 2 pieces and offer his friend a piece.
The definition of justice: It is where the 2 boy scouts goes to a judge to make a decision.
As you can see there is no such thing as fair. What may be fair to one person may not be fair to another. The Fair Tax may benefit most people but it won‘t benefit all. The idea of abolishing the IRS and the tax prepayer industry is a long shot at best. The former Eastern Block countries of Europe has something similar to the fair tax but they were coming out of a failed system called socialism and starting anew. This country hasn’t hit rock bottom yet but looking at the candidates we may be getting close.
Posted by KidYendor on May 7, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This cigarette tax to make money for welfare state Medicaid is sickening. The politicians know we want tax relief and not more welfare. After filing income taxes, the state could issue dividends from cigarette tax revenue and add the amount to refund checks or mail separate checks to those that owed taxes and paid them. Write your senator and tell him or her, no cigarette money for Medicaid welfare! We want tax relief that benefits all.
Posted by crankyyankee on May 7, 2008 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Zod if you are only paying 10% of your salary in taxes your are either working for little of nothing or you have bred youself into poverty. Either way you come accross as the biggest loser!
Posted by Larz13 on May 7, 2008 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How about reducing the INCOME TAX in SC so that all WORKING people get a break. That is what the governor originally proposed but I suppose things like the church playground were more important than helping out all working citizens of the state.
Posted by whome on May 7, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As our state is starting to realize, any tax system unfortunately must not be too dependent on one source (yes, a discretionary spending tax is probably not the wisest thing in the face of a prolonged recession); fairtax suffers from the same problem. But the more perplexing issue is why the middle class has not pushed for the repeal of the payroll tax, which is approximately 15 percent. Since there is no "lock box" or "trust fund" just pay the SSI and Medicare entitlements out of income tax.
Posted by majorjohnson on May 7, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
People obviously aren't getting the fair tax at all. I support it 100%. If you don't then you aren't capable of understanding it. That's not a problem with the fair tax, it's a problem with your economic education.
Posted by ForPnC on May 7, 2008 at 7:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I still say throw more tax on the Ryan's Buffet on Sundays. The after-church crowd that goes in there stuffing their faces will supply more money than the state can spend!
Posted by Zod on May 7, 2008 at 7:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Most Americans' paychecks are debited 25% for income taxes, nearly 8% for payroll taxes before the paycheck even reaches you. The nearly 8% the employer must pay on behalf of every employee. Virtually all economists agree that that 8% effectively comes right out of the employee's paycheck.
Not to mention all the taxes imbedded in the price of goods you buy. I will go out on a limb and say you pay alot more than 10%, but I could just be dumb."
It's more of a case of being naive. The first premise that you must accept under the current proposal is that 25% of your income is debited. I do not buy into that notion. What I buy into is that business pays a tax for each employee. What is being sold is that I will receive that which the employer is presently paying the government. We could debate forever how this money is mine or theirs but I have a better idea. Watch the guinea pig. I think we will see socialized medicine before the we see a fair tax (if we see a fairtax at all).
My current employer pays 850 dollars per month for my families health insurance. By way of the fairtax economist theory, my income should increase 10,000 dollars per year when socialized medicine is passed. You must believe that will happen if you believe fairtax theory. I do not believe it. I think (in theory) my gross income will be reduced by at least $10,000 on the day medicine is socialized. I can only hope that $10,000 per year benefit is rolled over to pay my new tax for socialized medicine. Either way, I know I am not going to see a raise in salary.
The fairtax is snake oil. I don't buy snake oil.
Posted by majorjohnson on May 7, 2008 at 10:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, me and quite a few economists. The fact is you pay the employers share, you pay peoples FICA, you pay corporations taxes. Do you think they get the money from a money tree? They get it by adding the cost of the tax to the price of what they sell you. You buy a screw, the cost of that screw includes the manufacturers taxes, their employees payroll taxes, their share of SSI taxes, every penny of every tax that gets paid comes out of the price of the goods you buy right now. The fair tax just means the tax is on the product and out in the open instead of being hidden in the price of the product. If you can't understand that then yes, you are economically ignorant.
Posted by rollo on May 7, 2008 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Zod, poor unenlightened soul, I will attempt that which you accuse others of failing.
"My current employer pays 850 dollars per month for my families health insurance. By way of the fairtax economist theory, my income should increase 10,000 dollars per year when socialized medicine is passed."
Your employer no more pays $850 for your health insurance than he pays half of your Soc.Sec.! Those expenses were figured into your compensation package as part of his decision that he could afford to hire you! In other words, he expects you to earn more money for his business than it costs him to employ you.
YOU earn all that money, or your employer would be sending you on a field assignment to the unemployment office.(Perhaps this concept is beyond your grasp as well as the Fair Tax?)
"It's more of a case of being naive. The first premise that you must accept under the current proposal is that 25% of your income is debited. I do not buy into that notion. What I buy into is that business pays a tax for each employee. What is being sold is that I will receive that which the employer is presently paying the government."
So, you believe that your employer out of largess, pulls money out of his own pocket to pay your taxes?
And you think supporters of the Fair Tax are naive,...? LOL!
I've followed the debate on the Fair Tax for years, and I have come to the conclusion that doubters are either afraid of facing the fact that they have to produce whatever their employer 'provides' for them, or they are simply adverse to such a magnitude of change in their relationship to the Fed Gov't.
Anyone who has his arms(mentally) around the concept of the Fair Tax can see what an economic powerhouse would be unleashed with its' passage, and the opportunities that would be opened up to every American.
"I have a better idea. Watch the guinea pig. I think we will see socialized medicine before the we see a fair tax (if we see a fairtax at all)."
So, now we are to assume that having the political will to do a certain thing makes it right, and lacking the political will makes it wrong?
That is the argument of a coward who hides behind the will of the masses. Or a politician who checks the latest poll numbers before he takes a position.
Are you sure that is where you will stand? Or will you change your mind if situations change?
Posted by outrage on May 7, 2008 at 10:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
majorjohnson and rollo - It is nice to see some people read the books and understand them. I think the people not beyond the Fairtax just have not read them.
It is nice to see the ranks are growing! :-)
Posted by abitskeptical on May 7, 2008 at 11:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The fair tax is not nearly as complicated as what we now have, but it does take more than a few moments to read through & understand.
For all of you who seem to "trust" the present system & nothing else, well I guess that is the easy way of the sheeple--doesn't require any real thinking. You have bought the class warfare party line that any change to the present system will only help the "rich". As the system now works, the rich who benefit most from changes in the tax code are corporations & their stockholders.
I find it incredible that people think it is OK for most Americans to have to keep records of EVERYTHING merely so they can keep a bit more of what they earned.
I find it discouraging that people seem not see anything wrong with the fact that the tax code has morphed such that the IRS has gotten more & more power..answering to virtually no one. That the IRS has been given the right to know just about everything about you in order to make sure you hand over what they deem is the appropriate amount of your hard earned money.
Our founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves, not only at what has become of our country, but that after all they sacrificed & fought for, it was so easy to accomplish.
Posted by rollo on May 8, 2008 at 12:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Outrage,
As I said, I've been watching and supporting the movement for years. I bought 10 copies of "The Fair Tax Book" and distributed them to family and friends. My oldest daughter is a jr accountant, she told me that the amount of time her firm could free up from tax issues and focus on helping their clients to grow financially would be such a boon to her firm and their clients that economic growth would make anything we've ever seen look like a recession.
My oldest son is a personnel manager for a large construction company that would like to offer more incentives to their employees, but the tax liabilities add up quickly. He thinks the Fair Tax would help his industry and its' employees tremendously.
My youngest daughter is an accounts manager for a bank, too many of her clients spend too much time worrying about tax consequences before they make a good financial move.
My youngest son moves furniture, physically, and he just hopes someone will come up with a better aspirin. I'm working on him.
I told them when I gave them TFTB to talk to me if they had any questions, and if they had no questions, pass the book on!
I also gave copies to my Mom, my sybs, and told them to pass them on to cousins and niece/nephew and so forth. I've seen some "DUH??" I've also gotten some terrific response!
The movement is growing.
Posted by Zod on May 8, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Economically ignorant majorjohnson? I believe that I have told you that I pay less than 10% in federal tax. Let me make this even more clear.
Married claiming two kids.
100,000 per year gross income.
7,130 per year in federal taxes.
Those are 2007 numbers. What are you promising with your scheme majorjohnson? Since I am economically ignorant you will have to break it down for the stupid.
Let me guess:
Magically my income (which is contractually bound for the next five years) will rise. Magically consumer prices will go down. Magically the IRS will disappear.
The entire world will live in euphoria all because we shuffled the way the US government collects taxes. NO, NO, we are not changing who they collect the taxes from. We are just changing how they collect taxes. That will make everything better. If someone dare challenges our idea with hard numbers, we shall deem them economically ignorant. Yea, yea, that's the ticket......