Karl Marx stated in his communist manifesto that for communism to work you had to have "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax", in effect punishing people for being successful (Robertson). The income tax was ruled as unconstitutional not once, but twice before becoming a burden on the American public. Originally it was targeted only at the very rich, though that ceased to be so around World War II. At this point it was spread across the board and even the middle class had to pay income tax rates that at one point would have been thought to be absurd, even for a millionaire (Roberts and Stratton). There is a solution this problem: get rid of the offending tax and replace it with something which is 100% voluntary and taxes everyone in the country equally. It sounds great does not it? It could be a reality if the FairTax bill passes in the good ole US of A. The FairTax, unlike our current tax, is a consumption tax. It would institute a national sales tax instead of being taxed on income. Along with the income tax the FairTax would eliminate all of the following: “the Social Security tax, the Medicare tax, corporate income taxes, the death tax, the self-employment tax, the alternative minimum tax, the gift tax, capital gains taxes, tax audits, and some major headaches every April 15 (Boortz and Linder).” This would do everything to jump start the American economy. Some of the perks you could look forward too would be: having the IRS and the income tax eliminated, removing all of the embedded taxes from everyday purchases, corporations would flock to the US to build their new factories which would open up lots of nice high paying jobs for college graduates, and you would get to keep every cent of your hard earned paycheck.
Well, sounds great right? But what is the FairTax exactly? The FairTax is the brain child of the Americans for Fair Taxation. They spent millions of dollars trying to figure out what the best and fairest way to tax people would be. They hired top notch economics people and did hours of research and interviews of the public to find out what they wanted. All of this resulted in the FairTax (Americans for Fair Taxation). Basically, the FairTax would replace an income tax with a national sales tax of 23% on goods and services at the retail level. If you are wondering what is wrong with our current tax system, try… everything. The codes and laws are so complicated (not to mention lengthy) that not a single person in the country understands the entire thing. “A few years ago this magazine [Money] sent out identical tax scenarios to 45 different professional tax preparers and got 45 different answers back” (Regnier). All this complication and confusion would be replaced with a simple 23% sales tax at the retail level. That may sound like a lot, but most people in the United States do not even know how much they pay in taxes a year. When asked how much people pay in taxes on April 15, most reply that they did not. They believe that they got money back. That is the beauty of withholding. Most Americans do not even know how much they are earning; they just how much they take home. It is a lovely system for the politicians. People are much less likely to complain about taxes if they do not know to how much they amount. Our system has not always been set up this way. It used to be that on a certain day people would write the government one big check based off the money they make in a year and send it in. This system was not beneficial to those who want to raise the tax because people know exactly what they are paying. Then some genius came up with the idea of withholding where the government gets its cut of your money before you even see it. This prevented people from keeping track of how much money the government is taking from them every two weeks (Boortz and Linder 19-30).
If the FairTax were put into play big business would come rushing back to America to build all of their new factories here. America treats companies much differently than the rest of the industrialized world. America not only charges American companies for the revenue that they bring in on the homeland but also for that which is made in another county on top of having to pay taxes to that country on that same money. It is for that reason that many American companies have to move their offices off our shores. Businesses that stay spend most of their meeting time trying to figure out what tax laws they would be breaking if they did a certain thing instead of trying to figure out what would be the most cost effective way to get business done. If the income tax were repealed there would be a grand exodus back to their homeland because the corporate income taxes would be eliminated. Everyone, employees, stockholders, and customers, would benefit from this transaction. Business would be hiring Americans, not only that but they would be hiring us – people graduating from college in the near future. The American economy would soar (Boortz and Linder 61-67)! Even if they brought their employees in from out of town, the foreigners would still be buying our products (food, clothes, etc) and paying our tax regardless. It is a win-win situation.
Because of the removal of withholding we would get to keep 100% of our paychecks, which would mean more money for us! Though this system is nice, it is not magic. In order for the price of goods to go down paychecks would be dropping by approximately twenty percent. This is not as big of a calamity as it sounds. Americans currently are not taking that twenty percent of their paychecks home- the government is taking it away in the form of taxes (Regnier).
The opposition of the FairTax comes in many different forms. Some believe that think we should reform the tax laws, but with something other than the FairTax (like a flat tax or no tax at all). Some that believe that we should leave the tax laws just the way they are. And still others have nothing helpful to say except that they do not believe that the FairTax would work. Those in the last group say that the sales tax would rise above 23%- estimations of up to 57% exist. The reason that this would not happen is very simple: the people would not allow it. Another argument is that we would end up with both a sales tax and an income tax (Wolfe and Zelman). That is something that would not happen. One of the first steps to initiating the FairTax is to abolish the income tax. Others opposed to the FairTax believe that the costs of goods and services would go up (the example given was buying a house). While there would be a sales tax added, a lot of the embedded taxes would disappear from the price of the product. Embedded taxes are the ones that you do not realize you are paying when you are paying them.
Whenever you buy any consumer item- a loaf of bread, a can of food for the dog, a car, a house, a bowl of chili- part of the part of the cost goes to the people who had a hand in producing and selling you that item, and part of the cost is given to the federal government in taxes (Boortz and Linder 52).
This means that during every step of the process of making a certain item, every time a raw material or half finished item changes hands, that person or cooperation is taxed. To maintain a profit the person or cooperation simply incorporates the amount of tax they have to pay into the price of the product. They are not paying their taxes, we are. Because the 23% sales tax would only apply at the retail level and with the income tax being removed, prices on goods would actually drop by 20-25% after the magic of the free market worked its will. After the FairTax is added back onto the price at the cash register the item would cost almost the same as it does now. There is a legitimate claim against the FairTax- it would not be fair on retiring Baby Boomers. That generation worked very hard for a solid portion of their lifetime, only to have 1/4 (or more) of their income taken away from them in taxes. The FairTax would tax them again on their retirement money as they spent it (Wolfe and Zelman). But the laws have to be changed sometime and someone will be at disadvantage no matter what way you spin it. But they will not pay taxes on life’s necessities, so it is not as unfair as it sounds.
One of the best things about the FairTax is that it is voluntary. You only pay taxes on money you spend and the rest is yours to keep. The Americans for Fair Taxation took into consideration that no one should have to pay taxes on things necessities for life. They came up with a concept of a “prebate” which would be distributed to every household in America at the beginning of each month. This “prebate” would consist of enough money to cover the taxes on life necessities based on the current poverty rate. The only form that would have to be filled out would be a name and social security number of the head of the household and the names and social security numbers of others living in that household. That is much simpler than the tax forms as they currently stand.
The FairTax is Americas best shot at restoring a taxation system that treats all citizens equally under the law. It provides money to cover the taxes on basics of life. It opens up high paying jobs for college graduates and jobs for the unemployed all over the country. The IRS and many other taxes would disappear and people would get to keep every penny they earn. The citizens of the USA would also have the comforting knowledge that their government is no longer contradicting its self by appealing the 16th amendment. The simplicity of the FairTax is what makes it so beautiful and the next logical step in tax reform
Works cited:
Americans for Fair Taxation. Home page. Americans for Fair Taxation. 26 Nov. 2005 <www.fairtax.org>.
Boortz, Neil, and John Linder. The FairTax Book. New York: HarperCollins, 2005
Roberts, Paul Craig and Stratton Jr., Lawrence M. “The Roots of Income Tax.” National Review. 47 (1995)
Robertson, Charles. “Marx loses his grip, 156 years on.” New Statesmen. 133 (2004): 17
Regnier, Pat. "He wants to destroy the IRS." Money Oct 2005: 96-103.
Wolfe, Claire and Aaron Zelmon. "The FAIRTAX: A TROJAN HORSE FOR AMERICA?" 2004. Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership. 26 Nov. 2005 <http://www.jpfo.org/fairtax.htm>.
Wow! Dood! This is a wonderful and right-on review of the FairTax. This FairTax has gotta happen to this country! Fair! Simple! Transparent! No body likes to pay ANY tax but this FairTax seems palatable!
I certainly hope we can get more people to agree with this! It is a wonderful system, but it needs support!
I might research this more, but it sounds interesting. I think of the average amount of a citizen's income that is taxed away, about 21 thousand dollars. Imagine if your family had this much extra per year; a 23% tax then sounds manageable. The hard part is, of course, knowing what the actual consequences of this might be. The obvious thing here is that the tax is certainly not voluntary; you still must pay it if you buy anything. this grants further investigation.
Michael Allen Yarbrough
I'm not sure what consequences you're in reference to, care to give me an example?
But I will have to disagree with you: this tax is voluntary. Because the "prebate" is built in to it no one has to pay taxes on those things in life that people need. After that it's up to you to buy things voluntarily. The government isn't going to come to your house and make you buy things at gun point (which is what they do if you don't pay your taxes now). So it is voluntary.
It may not be voluntary when it comes to necessities like food and utilities things that must be bought new, but that is what the prebate is for and any other spending on new items is voluntary. Used items are not taxed, so if you don't want to pay the tax buy used stuff, a 2 year old car, a 10 year old home, clothes from a thrift shop, furniture from the classifieds, and my personal favorite used items on e-bay, or any other used items. There are many ways to avoid volunteering to pay the Fair Tax.
However the only way to have this option is to convince our congressmen, senators and The President that the FairTax is what this country needs, so visit www.fairtaxvolunteer.org and sign their petition.
Voluntary? yes! You may choose to buy used items that are not taxed, or even choose not buy at all. Thus, no tax paid. One sense of voluntary means that the IRS won't show up on 4/15 demanding payment. You pay when you want to.
Go to http://www.fairtax.org and find out all about the FairTax. Also, see http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org.
This article is a very good representation of the Fair Tax Issue.
As a Community Coordinator in Oregon I would add the following.
If you believe that this is what this country needs then YOU, no one else, YOU must do the following:
1. Call your Congressman's Office in DC or Locally, TELL him/her that you support the Fair Tax and that you want him/her to Co-sponsor the bill and become an advocate for the bill.
2. Call both the Senators from your state with the same message.
3. Write each of them a letter to the same effect.
Do this once a month or more often if that works for you.
Next go to www.Fairtax.org, sign the petition, find a local group and join, get yourself "out in the street" for this effort.
The FAIR TAX will be passed if millions of YOU demand it. It will only come from the ground up. The Legislature will NOT willingly without pressure give up the power the Internal Revenue Code gives them. We MUST wrest it away from them.
Thanks,
Doug LaFeve
Community Coordinator
2nd Congressional District of the Republic of Oregon.
Do online petitions really mean anything? It's something I've always wondered but never had anyone to ask.
Thank you for the tips. I'll get right on that :)
Petitions build grassroot support by connecting together people who believe, and therefore act, to make change happen. Sign every petition as if it is a "vote" to make it occur. Petitions followed-up on are THAT important! Remember this " change is incremental, but not every increment leads to change". But without increments NO changes will take place.
Yes, I know petitions are important. But online petitions are what I was asking about. Do they actually count towards anything. You're not signing anything, unless the online signature suddenly counts towards something. That's what I was asking. Thank you for the information though.
Regarding the Fair Tax Petition,
If you would rather sign a paper petition, then I suggest you consider the following:
On www.fairtax.org you can download a multiline petition form. It has room for your signature and NINE others. Sign it and get nine of your friends, relatives and neighbors to sign as well. Mail it to the address on the petition. If you do that you have magnified the power of your signature by tenfold.
Doug LaFeve
Community Coordinator
2nd Congressional District - Oregon
Americans for Fair Taxation Volunteer
I'll say outright that I am a registered Libertarian, but I have never agreed with the notion of a national sales tax. Though I do think that current tax law needs to be simplified (but kept progressive), I do not believe that a sales tax is the solution we need. The beauty of the national income tax is the possibility of deffered payment. Not everyone has all the money they need to completely pay the tax upfront. With a sales tax, that wiggle room wouldn't exist.
Also, from a more fundamental point of view, the income tax is embedded into our government, and the income tax will be the main source of income to cover the trillions upon trillions of dollars of debt piling up. Trying to overturn completely the system in place is too ideological - simple reforms (like a more "equal" distribution of the tax blocks), are much more appropriate, in my opinion.
-elliot :)
"One must imagine Sisyphus happy."
The very fact that any sort of income tax is unconstitutional is enough reason for me to think any form of it should not exist in this country. The founding fathers are probably rolling in their graves. If they were still alive they'd be up in arms.
The tax is voluntary. You don't have to pay any more than you want to. So your argument that "not everyone has all the money they need to completely pay the tax upfront" doesn't make sense. Besides that prices of things wouldn't change so terribly much. If anything they'd go down, not up. Completely obliterating the current, very dodgy, tax system is the only workable option.
The taxes are already being paid upfront, it's called imbedded taxes. Remove the imbedded tax and pay the sales tax. The item will cost about the same.
Sorry, mrhare21, but a "simple reform" will not work. Until we get the lobbyists' hands off the tax code, with their "but give me an exemption for this" and "give me an exemption for that" we will never have true tax reform. The FairTax is not perfect. It can be gotten around, but then, so can the income tax. The FairTax is the simplest way to overhaul a hideously convuluted tax system that even the IRS cannot comprehend.
To everyone who is not a current supporter of the FairTax, ask youself one simple question. " Is it better for current taxpayers to foot the government bill, or should everyone who sets foot on U.S. soil pay." There's a huge huge difference.
I like the Fair Tax: It is Optional to Pay. If taxes go up you know it the next time you buy something.
Improvement to Plan: Each head of household could elect to put 1/2 of prebate into Personal Savings Account for retirement. Maybe the Government could match these contributions at .25 per $1 invested.
Other Improvement: Repeal 16th Amendment and replace it with a Balanced Budget Amendment. Failure to maintain balanced budget would require increased tax rate. People would complain about deficit spending.
Finally: Any plan must begin to reduce current debt obligations.
This, like almost all radical tax simplification proposals, is a horrible Conservative effort to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
The simple truth is that rich people spend a smaller percentage of their net worth consuming goods and services than do poor people. Don't believe me? Pretend a family of four is at the poverty line ($19,350 a year). How much does that family spend on food in a given year? Since I have no idea, I'll pretend it is a quarter of that, $4837.50, which works out to $3.31 per person, per day to eat off of.
Now let us create a person of considerable means. How about a person who makes $800,000/year. (I used to work for an attorney who billed at $400/hour, which if done at the same forty hour work week of the man at the poverty line comes out to something around $832,000, I'm rounding down to emphasize my point.) Now let's pretend this attorney also has a family of four. Imagine if he spent the same percent of his income on food. That would give each member of his family $547.95 to spend on food a day. Now, let's be realistic - they're not going to eat golden grahms made out of real gold. There's no way they're hungry enough to spend that much money on food every day. Let's create a more modest estimate, $100/day/person. That sounds like some fairly nice food still. What is he going to do with that other $450 dollars? Economists will tell you that he will not spend all of it. Consumers spend and save different portions of that money depending on market conditions. Regardless, as long as he put some of that money into things you don't want to tax (oh! how about capital gains? Savings accounts? Bonds? Anything that isn't a good or service) then the POOR PERSON ENDS UP PAYING MORE OF THEIR MONEY FOR TAXES. The tax burden gets levied harder on the poor population, while all people end up using the services of the government.
Never mind the entire concept of social responsibility (ya know, not everybody gets lucky, some people despite being very hard workers were not born with the same connections, or don't get the lucky breaks that other more successful people get).
This is a dumb concept that only makes sense if you are a hard hearted cruel individual that enjoys making the poor suffer.
Jurisprudence, please know your facts before you criticize something.
I am only using food as an example since that is what you base your argument on.
There is a Prebate based on the poverty level (http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.html)
Your example "Pretend a family of four is at the poverty line ($19,350 a year)." You say they will spend $4837.50 on food a year. Their inclusive "fair tax" will be $1112.63 . Their prebate will be $4450.50 They gained $3337.87.
Now your "person who makes $800,000/year" that spends "$100/day/person". They spent $146,000.00 on food. Their inclusive "fair tax" will be $33,580.00 . Their Prebate for the year will be $4450.50 . They paid $29,129.50 in taxes.
Using your own arguments who is paying a higher % of taxes ??
Again this is only based on your argument.
I never got a job from a poor person !!!!
Lyndell,
It is very rare that somebody attempts to claim my arguments are flawed. In your case, you have misread my conclusion. I do not dispute that, for example, a millionare paying 1% of his yearly income pays more to the government than somebody at the poverty line paying 10%. (those numbers being roughly, $10,000 and $1,000 respectively)
What I argued is that the tax burden is unfairly levied on the poor, that the poor paying 10% of what they have compared to the rich paying 1% of what they have is wrong.
My point in my numbers scenario was that there is NO WAY that a rich person will end up spending the same percentage of his money on ANY "fair taxable" good or service as a poor person will.
If you truly think it is fair for the rich to pay a lower percent of their yearly income to the government, then go ahead and use a "fairtax".
Now, the rich can do three things with the money they would have been sending to the government. 1) they can give it to people by way of philanthropy, or 2) they can invest it in such a manner that only benefits themselves, or 3) they can use it to make jobs that give some of the money to those poorer than them, and gets them some money too.
The rich will consistently favor 2 and 3 over 1. These days I'm working at a wealth management firm, and all I encounter is rich people looking for ways to invest their money in real estate, the stock market, bonds, mutual funds, high yield savings accounts, commodity notes etc. The only thing they come close to doing for poor people is the very indirect benefits of the stock market.
Most of what I just referred to would NOT be taxed under your "fairtax" system, despite the fact that it has no relationship to job growth.
Moreover, (since this is a personal favorite issue of mine) eliminating the tax on the corporation is the single most sleazy effort by the government to benefit the rich and stick it to the poor. The poor aren't investing in companies, therefore would never benefit from that tax break. More importantly however, the entire reason that corporations exist is because they ARE PERSONS. They absorb liability so that rich people don't have to worry about being liable for their employees, but the price they have to pay is that somebody else is taking that liability. (Number 23 is a combination of lie and misleading fact)
You might try and point to number 14 on that little fairtax faq - but you should notice one glaring assumption. That is that all persons income will equal expenditure. Do you spend all you earn? Do the world's richest spend all they earn?
My central point is that the world's poorest HAVE to spend more of their earned income. Therefore they HAVE to pay more tax. The poor and middle class MUST expend more of their income, while the rich have more liberty to do what they please with their income they do not expend. Even pretending that the assumptions made are correct, and that those under the poverty line would never have to pay a cent into the tax, that would not solve the problem for the middle class. And while the richest may be happily spending at their 23% tax rate, the richer they come, the less of their income they have to spend.
Interesting enough, what a huge incentive it then becomes to NOT spend money - but instead to save it in the highest yield investments that are CONVENIENTLY NOT TAXED. The only way the rich would want to spend large amounts of their non-necessary expenditures is if the return on investment was greater than 23%. Even then, imagine they had a savings account that yielded 3.5% interest (I just happened to choose the exceedingly modest interest rate of a US savings bond) Then, the only way that it would make financial sense to invest money in a venture would be to make sure that they would get 126.5%. And that's assuming the most modest interest rates.
I do see one incredibly truthful statement in here:
What happens to the stock market, mutual funds, and retirement funds? Investors prosper greatly under this plan
- jurisprudence: the philosophy or science of law
PS Do not accuse me of not knowing facts. While I freely acknowledged I was making up some of the numbers, I did so to illustrate a symbolic point which I was reticent to leave to words alone.
I am discussing the Fair Tax,,,,,, not the flat tax (10%). Here's what you wrote ...."What I argued is that the tax burden is unfairly levied on the poor"
Dir Sir or Madam,
Under this plan anyone at or under the poverty level will not pay any taxes, that includes SSI & medicare.
You said ,,,
"What I argued is that the tax burden is unfairly levied on the poor, that the poor paying 10% of what they have compared to the rich paying 1% of what they have is wrong."
Read my argument,,,,,, anyone under the poverty level pay nothing. There is a Prebate to cover the basics of life.
How do business's pay taxes ????? Does that fall out of the sky ?
Tell me where they get the money to pay their taxes ?
Again,,,, I've never got a job from a poor person !!
I did not cite a flat tax - as I discussed later on, the percentage of income that is turned into expenditure for the middle class and poor is higher than for the rich. Thus, the taxable percentage of income is less for the rich, since they are spending a smaller percentage of their income.
For the purposes of argument, I will drop those at or below the poverty line from argument. Nevertheless, those in the middle class remain, and my argument still stands for them. (and until you've tried to support a family of four off of $40,000/year in a metropolitan area, tried to get them the same educational advantages as the rich, sent them to the same schools etc, you'll probably not realize the difficulties of living as the "middle class").
I'm going to ignore your "refutation" of the next bit you quoted... since you didn't actually refute what I was saying. Even the middle class paying a higher percentage of their total income to taxes compared to the percentage paid by the upper class is bad.
Anyhow, under your system businesses wouldn't pay taxes. If your comment was meant as some sort of refutation of my justification of why a corporation should have to pay a tax, please use the proper words. Businesses are not the same things as corporations - all corporations are a type of business, not the other way around.
Since you asked, a corporation initially gets its money from investors. But the corporation is essentially providing a kind of service to investors - the corporation takes away risk. In exchange, this type of transaction should be taxed. You know how you buy insurance? You are paying somebody else to take risk for you. This is the same thing, you are creating a corporation, and then paying it to take risk for you. In the end, you may profit from the corporation, but in exchange for you not having to have assumed that risk in the beginning, the corporation must be taxed.
And for your obnoxious repeated statement - fine, maybe you didn't get a job from a poor person. But, allowing the rich to vastly increase their wealth at the expense of encouraging the stagnation of the poor and middle class does not seem like the solution the masses deserve. Nor does it seem ethically fair.
- jurisprudence: the philosophy or science of law
In many cases poor people are poor because of the actions they choose. Why does society have the responsiblity to correct someone elses foolishness?
If a family of 4 is at the poverty line that you stated then the government should try and convict the head of household for Child Negligence. Especially if they are not going to school or working 2 or more jobs to improve their familys place in life.
You can say that I am callous, that I do not care to help the poor or that I am crazy to expect all people to be responsible for their own lives and you would be right. IT is time for poor people, illegal aliens, foriegn tourist and every other person in this country to pay taxes when they buy something.
Furthermore, it is time to get the government out of our financial affairs and stop penalizing people for making good decisions and saving money.
This brings me to the last point, it is good for people to save money. This gives markets more capital to create jobs for those poor people you so desparately are trying to save.
If you feel poor people deserve our money, give them yours first and then maybe the rest of us will contribute to correct thier negligence.
well, as soon as you show me that poor people and illegal aliens escape the present sales tax, I'll be very impressed.
Poor people do pay taxes like the others in the country.
Many illegal aliens pay income taxes.
When has the government penalized people for making good decisions and saving money?
I do believe that I have been given better opportunities than many people I encounter. First, my parents had the money to focus on my education from an early age. The amount of my intellectual succes that can be attributed to their hard work as compared to my God given intelligence is impossible to determine. However, I do know that right now I am sitting at work, with nothing to do but write a comment on a blog. I've gone around asking for new projects to do, but the office I'm at is going through a lull right now.
I'm getting paid ~13 dollars an hour to do nothing, and none of that money goes to my fundamental needs that my parents provide.
Meanwhile I pass a site where day laborers are congregating, hoping to be picked up to do a days worth of hard work, for far less an hourly rate than I'm getting.
Those poor persons are not poor because of lazyness, or foolishness. They are poor because they cannot go to a temp agency to get work - they don't have college experience or sometimes a high school diploma. Why? because they didn't have the parents or background to simply go to school - instead they had to work.
Anyhow, I do believe poor people deserve our money - they had no control over the conditions in which they were born. I believe very strongly in the field of Microfinance (although it is primarily on a global scale now) - and donate a significant portion of my money and time to help those who are disadvantaged.
And since I don't think you really know what you're talking about with your "last point" about saving money giving markets more capital which creates jobs... I just won't even start. Once money is invested in a business it becomes capital (in the form of buildings, materials, and reserve cash). If you are referring to the money that is saved in banks and then traded overnight, I really don't think you know what you're talking about at all, since that has no relation to job creation. Saving money (not spending it) does not create jobs. I may not be a full fledged economist, but focused my university studies on it long enough to know that you're definitely wrong.
-jurisprudence: the philosophy or science of law
The Americans For Fair Taxation (fairtax.org) are on a mission to squash out any public criticism of the FairTax plan and are attempting to exploit the federal trademark system for the ADMITTED purpose of being able to shut down anti-FairTax websites during the upcoming elections. They have an open application to obtain a service mark for the word "FairTax." Genie Hayes, the communications director for AFFT, openly admitted that the goal of AFFT is to get this service mark and be able to yank any anti-FairTax websites as well as to have total control over any shirts, bumper stickers, or anything of that nature that is printed with the word FairTax. They are attempting to get the strong arm of the federal government to back them up in hindering free speech and open/honest debate.
The FairTax is promising to become a rather prominent issue in the upcoming Congressional elections--and if AFFT succeeds in obtaining this service mark, they are going to be in an excellent position to keep people from criticizing the FairTax Act.
The time for opposition to their application is fast approaching. I know that an application for a service mark can't be opposed just because the applicant's motive is unethical. However, I do believe that there is a very STRONG case that AFFT doesn't meet the legal requirements for obtaining a service mark. The strongest argument is all around us--the phrase "Fairtax" is SYNONYMOUS with H.R. 25 and the Fair Tax Plan.
Unfortunately, as it stands right now, I think they'll win their service mark and they'll be on the road to having the power to tell people that they cannot participate in public debate regarding H.R. 25. Perhaps, at least, the public will be informed of this attempt to filter open and honest critiques.