FairTax

FairTax is a proposal in the United States of America to impose a national sales tax and end the following federal taxes: personal income taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, self-employment taxes, gift taxes and inheritance taxes. Under the FairTax plan, the federal government will pay to all citizens a monthly entitlement equal to the average sales tax paid on necessities by similar individuals. The payment is meant to ensure that Americans have no net tax burden for spending on necessities up to a limit equal to the federal poverty level.

FairTax is essentially a national sales tax that includes a fixed monthly payment to all households.

Legislative overview

The FairTax bill was authored by Georgia Representative John Linder, a Republican. He has introduced the FairTax Bill in July 1999, in the 106th United States Congress, and has reintroduced the bill in every consecutive Congress since. However, the bill has seen major support mostly in the last two congresses attracting more co-sponsors than than any other fundamental tax reform bill introduced in the House of Representatives.

2003

The FairTax legislation was introduced in 2003 in the 108th Congress and had 56 co-sponsors, including Collin Peterson of Minnesota, a Democrat. The bill did not move past the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means. The Senate bill, which was sponsored by Senator Saxby Chambliss and co-sponsored by Senator Zell Miller of Georgia, another Democrat, never moved past the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance.

2005

The FairTax legislation has been introduced in the 109th United States Congress as H.R. 25 in the House of Representatives and S. 25 in the Senate. Its formal name is the Fair Tax Act of 2005. As of October 18, 2005, the FairTax has a combined 46 Congressional cosponsors in the House and Senate—all of them Republicans. John Linder remains the bill's primary sponsor, and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert support the bill.^[1] The Senate bill is sponsored by Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, a Republican.

The FairTax tax rate

In its current form, the FairTax legislation calls for a 23% federal sales tax included in the final price of retail goods and services—taxing 23 cents out of every dollar spent. When presented like a traditional sales tax, where the tax is added to the final price of a good, the rate would be 30%—items priced at $1.00 without the tax would cost $1.30 with the new tax added (see Tax burden comparison). The new federal levy would eliminate income, payroll, corporate, capital gains, self-employment, gift and inheritance taxes.

The FairTax legislation assesses taxes on the purchase of new goods and services. Spending on certain services (such as education) and used goods would not be taxed. Saving and financial investing also would be tax exempt. Families would receive monthly subsidy checks equal to the estimated amount similar families pay in sales taxes on necessities. The checks are meant to eliminate net federal sales taxes paid on those necessities. This amount is updated every year to keep up with inflation.

Due to the subsidy checks, the lowest effective tax rate under the FairTax plan can be negative: this occurs when a taxpayer spends less and pays less in taxes than the estimated average spending for similar individuals. In this case, the individual's entitlement check exceeds actual taxes collected from that individual. The effective tax rate for any taxpayer is variable due to the fixed monthly entitlement checks. The checks have the greatest impact at low spending levels, where they can lower a taxpayer's effective rate to zero or a negative rate. At higher spending levels, the entitlement has less impact, and a taxpayer's effective tax rate approaches 23%.^[2][3] For example, a family of three earning $30,000 a year and spending that much on taxable goods would pay about 6 percent of their income in tax after the subsidy. A family earning and spending $125,000, about 19 percent. By choosing what to consume (used goods) or how much is consumed, a taxpayer can indirectly determine his effective tax rate on spending.

Revenue-neutral rate studies

The FairTax revenue-neutral rate (collecting as much federal tax revenue as the current tax code being eliminated) proposed by the legislation has been scored by many economists and political research groups.

Dale Jorgenson, Professor of Economics at Harvard University and past President for the American Economics Association, estimated the rate to be 22.9%. Likewise, Jim Poterba of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found a rate of 23.1%. Laurence Kotlikoff of Boston University also found a rate of 24%. Furthermore, researchers at Stanford University, The Heritage Foundation, The Cato Institute, and Fiscal Associates have reached similar conclusions (found rates from 22.3% to 24%).

Estimates calculated by Economist William Gale of the Brookings Institution puts the tax rate of the current legislation with no avoidance and no evasion at 31%.^[4][5] Congress’s bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation evaluated a similar proposal that included additional exemptions and determined that a revenue-neutral plan would require a tax rate of around 36%.^[6][7] When presented as a traditional sales tax, these rates would be 44% and 50% respectively.

Note: Many arguments in the remainder of this article assume that the rate in the FairTax bill is revenue-neutral and the legislation is not significantly modified. If a different rate is used, if the FairTax is not revenue-neutral in practice, or if exemptions are introduced into the legislation, some of the assumptions used and the comparisons presented may not apply. In addition, static scoring methodology was used in determining economic growth when calculating the rate. If dynamic scoring is used, a lower rate may be calculated. ^[8]

Tax burden comparison

The current tax system assesses taxes primarily on income. The tax base is an economic entity's pre-tax income. The appropriate income tax rate is applied to the pre-tax base in order to calculate taxes owed. Under this formula, taxes to be paid are included in the base on which the income tax is assessed. If an individual's gross income is $100 and income tax rate is 23%, taxes owed equals $23. The tax base of $100 can be treated as two parts—$77 of after-tax spending money and $23 of income taxes owed. The income tax is taken "off the top", so the individual is left with $77 in after-tax money.

With traditional sales taxes, the tax base is only the pre-tax portion of a good's price. Unlike income taxes, sales taxes do not include actual taxes owed as part of the base. A good priced at $77 with a 30% sales tax rate yields $23 in taxes owed. Since a sales tax is added "on the top", the individual pays $23 of tax on $77 of pre-tax goods.

Since sales and income taxes behave differently (due to differing definitions of tax base), direct rate comparisons between the two can be confusing. For direct rate comparisons, the sales tax rate or the income tax rate must be manipulated to look like the other rate. The 30% sales tax rate approximates a 23% income tax rate after adjustment. From the example above, an individual pays $23 of tax on $77 of goods. Total spending (pre-tax goods and taxes owed) for that transaction equals $100. $23 of taxes on $100 of total spending yields a 23% rate. By including taxed owed in the tax base, a sales tax rate can be directly compared to an income tax rate.

As presented by the legislation author Congressman John Linder, the FairTax, unlike most sales taxes, would be included in the final price of an item and not added “on the top”. An item costing $100 would contain $23 of included taxes. Like the income tax example above, the taxes to be paid are included in the base on which the FairTax is assessed. For this reason and easy comparison to the current system, the FairTax is often presented as a 23% tax rate. However, including the tax in the item price is not required or specified in the bill.

The current tax code's complexity makes it difficult to calculate a precise percentage tax burden for an average taxpayer. Under the current tax law, the average taxpayers' direct federal tax liability is around 23% of income. The average income tax rate was 14.23% of adjusted gross income (AGI) in 2001. ^[9] An employee's share of payroll taxes equals 7.65% of (unadjusted) wage income. With a FairTax 23% maximum rate and the average effective FairTax rate greatly decreased due to the monthly subsidy checks, a tax burden comparison can be examined.^[10]

Predicted benefits of FairTax

Tax burden visibility

FairTax supporters assert that the proposal makes the cost of federal government highly visible—consumers will see most of the cost of the federal government in a single tax paid every time they purchase a good or service. Under the current tax system, the federal government collects revenue through a wide variety of taxes on individuals and businesses. Thus the cost of government is spread out among many different avenues and may not be fully visible to individual citizens. For example, corporate taxes and compliance costs are passed partially from producers to final consumers by embedding those costs in the retail price of goods and services.

Impact on tax compliance costs

The cost of preparing and filing all business and personal tax returns is estimated at over $225 billion each year. Approximately the same amount of money was estimated for calculating the tax implications of business decisions. That means an estimated $450 billion was spent just to collect roughly three times as much in tax revenues. According to a 2005 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, we pay a very heavy price for the taxation of saving, investment, corporations and estates. It found that the efficiency cost of the tax system—the output that is lost over and above the tax itself—is between $240 billion and $600 billion every year.^[11][12] This loss to economic growth is ultimately paid by the non-wealthy in the form of lower productivity and, hence, lower wages and incomes. FairTax supporters argue that a simplified tax system will reduce these compliance and efficiency costs and return a larger share of that money to the productive economy. With the FairTax system, the cost of compliance is built into the tax by allowing the business and the State to keep 1/4 of 1% of taxes collected.

Effects on Tax Code Compliance

FairTax supporters state that underground or illegal economic activity is largely untaxed under the current tax system. Economists estimate that the underground economy in the United States exceeds $1 trillion annually. By imposing a sales tax, underground economic activity will be taxed when proceeds from such activity are spent on legal consumption. For example, the sale of illegal narcotics will remain untaxed, but drug dealers will face taxation when they use drug proceeds to buy food, clothing and cars.

FairTax supporters' own logic, however, states that the cost of some taxes are already included in domestic retail prices which are inflated to recoup from the consumer businesses' tax and compliance costs. This reasoning suggests that the FairTax will only partially change the taxation of the underground economy on domestic goods and services. The FairTax will replace tax costs embedded in those domestic retail prices with a visible sales tax. In doing so, FairTax supporters state the underground economy will be paying their share of otherwise uncollected income and payroll taxes.

Tax compliance

The current income tax system fails to collect on a significant percentage of taxes owed. The IRS estimates there are twenty additional cents of taxes owed on unreported income for every tax dollar collected. In 2001, the IRS estimated this shortfall to be over $312 billion.^[13] These figures do not include taxes lost on illegal sources of income.

Proponents assert that the transparency and simplicity of the FairTax will subject much of this unreported income to taxation. Some research supports the claim that simplified tax systems lead to greater compliance. The IMF found that Russia's transition to a flat tax increased income reporting from 52% to 68% in one year. Similar results have occurred in Slovenia. ^[14] The FairTax would reduce the amount of tax filers by 80% and reduce the filing complexity to a state sales tax form. Eighty percent of tax collection would be concentrated on less than 15% of retailers. Retailers would receive one quarter of 1% for compliance.

FairTax opponents point out that tax compliance rates decrease when taxes are not automatically withheld or collected as tax liability is incurred. Compliance rates also fall when taxed entities, rather than a third party, self-report their tax liability. For example, ordinary personal income taxes can be automatically withheld and are reported to the government by a third party. Taxes without withholding and with self-reporting, such as FairTax, can see evasion rates of 30% or more. William Gale has estimated that an evasion rate of 20% would require a FairTax rate of 39% in order to replace revenue lost through evasion. ^[15][16] This would be a 65% rate when presented as a traditional sales tax.

The FairTax is a national retail sales tax, but it is to be administered by the states and not a federal agency like the IRS. This has a bearing on compliance because it will be a state's own agency that monitors and audits businesses within that state. The 25 basis points paid to the states amounts to 5 billion dollars the states will have available for enforcement. As an example, California should receive over $500 million for enforcement. According to the first line of the second paragraph here ^[17] this is more than the $327 million California is currently spending enforcing its own much more complex sales tax and excise taxes. The FairTax is simpler, but extends to cover services which are not currently subject to the California sales tax. Because the federal money paid to the states for enforcement is a percentage of the total revenue collected, the states will have an incentive to maximize collections -- FairTax supporters speculate that a reward system may be used by the states.

Black markets

Opponents of FairTax argue that imposing a national sales tax will drive transactions underground, creating a vast black market. This effect can occur for two primary reasons:

1. The first arises from the use of a sales tax rather than a value added tax (VAT). A VAT imposes a tax at every intermediate step of production, so the goods reach the final consumer with much of the tax already implicit in the price. Thus the retail seller has little incentive to conceal retail sales, since he has already paid much of the good's tax. Retailers are unlikely to subsidize the consumer's tax evasion by concealing sales. In contrast, a retailer has paid no tax on goods under a sales tax system. This provides an incentive for retailers to conceal sales and engage in "tax arbitrage" by sharing some of the illicit tax savings with the final consumer.
2. Under a sales tax system, the purchase of intermediate goods is not taxed, since those goods are supposed to be used to produce a final, retail good that will be fully taxed. Individuals and businesses may be able to manipulate the tax system by claiming that purchases are for intermediate goods, when in fact they are final purchases that should be taxed. At present, however, some business owners overstate business expenses or claim that expenses that are largely or solely personal are business expenses. No income tax would mean no business expense deduction.

It is important to note that a VAT and a sales tax have no impact on who bears the tax burden. Rather, a VAT conceals most of that burden by distributing it along the value chain. In contrast, a sales tax explicitly identifies the entire tax amount on the consumer's receipt. Both tax structures distribute the tax burden between the consumer and producer depending on a specific product's supply and demand characteristics.

Opponents also argue that the increase in sales tax (needed to replace the loss of revenue from other taxes) would produce such a high rate that there would be a much higher incentive to trade on the black market, and much of the economy would be driven underground.

Effects on distribution of tax burden

FairTax opponents argue that the proposal would alter significantly the distribution of tax burden among citizens. Economist William G. Gale at the Brookings Institution writes: "Under the AFT proposal, taxes would rise for households in the bottom 90% of the income distribution, while households in the top 1 percent would receive an average tax cut of over $75,000." Gale continues, "If households are classified by consumption level, a somewhat different pattern emerges. Households in the bottom two-thirds of the distribution would pay less than currently, households in the top third would pay more." Gale is referring to absolute tax dollars—ranked by income, households at the lower end of the distribution will tend to pay more in absolute taxes, while households at the higher end will tend to pay less in absolute taxes. Ranked by spending or consumption, households that currently spend less on consumption would pay less total taxes, while households that currently spend more would pay more. A low income family may spend $25,000 on goods and services consuming 100% of their income. A higher income family making $100,000 may spend $80,000 on goods and services and save $20,000. The higher income family is consuming only 80% of their income on taxable goods and services. When presented with an estimated effective tax rate, the low income family above would pay a tax rate of 0% on the 100% of consumption and the higher income family would pay a tax rate of 15% on the 80% of consumption.

These conclusions are apparently contradictory; according to Gale, the FairTax proposal is regressive on income and progressive on sales. Classical economic analysis indicates that the marginal propensity to consume (MPC) decreases as income increases. Households at the lower end of the income scale are spending almost all of their income, while households at the higher end are more likely to devote a portion of income to saving. MPC and income elasticity of demand tends to increase as wealth increases however. These facts explain the apparent contradiction in the data; households at the extreme high end of consumption often finance their purchases out of savings, not income. This savings would be taxed when it becomes sales. Income earned and saved would not be taxed immediately under the proposal. In other words, savings is spent at some point in the future and taxed according to that consumption. FairTax advocates state this improves taxing of wealth. Under the current system, low income high wealth Americans pay little as a percentage. FairTax supporters would also add that the payroll tax system, the largest tax burden for the poor, is regressive on income.

Many economists believe that due to the subsidy checks, the tax burden would not necessarily shift from the wealthy to the less wealthy.^[18] The bipartisan President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform, with the help of the Treasury Department, concluded that the FairTax is the only reform proposal that completely untaxes the poor.^[19] FairTax supporters claim that the tax burden shifts to those who do not pay taxes under the current system. The FairTax would dramatically broaden the tax base to include all 295 million Americans and an estimated 30 million to 40 million foreign tourists and visitors. This more than doubles the federal government's tax base. Other economists have claimed that the FairTax would be a significant tax break for high net-worth individuals, so it should be combined with a wealth tax. Such a system would allow a lower tax rate on consumption while maintaining current levels of taxation on high net-worth individuals. As stated above, proponents offer that the FairTax is a tax on wealth unlike the current system that taxes income.

Repeal of 16th Amendment

If the FairTax bill is passed, elimination of income taxation is not guaranteed; the FairTax bill repeals much existing tax code^[20], but passage of this measure may in fact simply add an additional tax system. The elimination of the possibility that income taxation would return (though a seperate Congressional bill), requires a repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.^[21]

Since passing the FairTax would only require a simple majority in each house of Congress and the signature of the President, and repeal of a Constitutional Amendment must be approved by two thirds of each house of Congress, and three quarters of the individual U.S. states, it is possible that passage of the FairTax bill will simply add another tax system rather than replacing the existing one.

Transition effects on savers

Because the FairTax proposal replaces various taxes with a single sales tax, individuals who live through the transition will experience unique effects.

In this case, individuals under the current system who accumulated savings from ordinary income (by choosing not to spend their money when the income was earned) paid taxes on that income before it was placed in savings. When individuals spend their money saved under the current system, that spending would be subject to new federal taxes. People living through the transition find both their earning and their spending taxed.

The FairTax proposal does not address the transition effect on taxpayers who have accumulated significant savings from after-tax dollars, especially retirees who have finished their careers and switched to spending down their life savings. Under the FairTax proposal, this money would be fully taxed again as it is spent. Critics have spoken out against the FairTax proposal, claiming that it would result in double taxation. ^{[22] [23] [24]}

FairTax supporters claim that the current system is no different; due to "hidden taxes" embedded in the current prices of goods and services, savings are being taxed a second time already when spent. Also, the monthly checks for necessities would supplement accrued savings; this would mean they would continue receiving money (not even including Social Security or Medicare payments for retirees) as they draw from their savings.

In contrast to ordinary savings, money in tax-deferred savings plans such as IRA, 401k, etc. would be withdrawn tax free. There is currently $11 trillion in such accounts. This represents a future tax revenue owed to the Federal government under the income tax system which has been estimated at $3 trillion. ^[25]

Changes in the retail economy

Implementation

Like other firms, retailers will enjoy a zero corporate tax rate. Under the FairTax, however, retailers would be required to collect the federal sales tax on all sales occurring within the United States. Retailers will receive a collection fee of 25 basis points on federal funds collected.

States that choose to conform to the federal base will have the added advantage of information sharing and clear interstate revenue allocation rules. The ability for the state to collect these heretofore-uncollected taxes would be a major incentive for states to conform their sales tax to the federal sales tax base. Retailers suffering from tax-free direct mail competition or from tax-free sales from out of state retailers would see a major competitive disadvantage removed. However, this would have the effect of discouraging consumers from purchasing items through the thriving mail-order and online industry, potentially hurting a multi-billion-dollar segment of the American economy.

Supporting theories of effect

Supporters estimate that the economy will be 10 to 14 percent larger within 10 years and consumption will grow very substantially. Some studies show the potential gains to be much higher. Under the current federal income tax system, as well as under the FairTax, consumption purchases must be made from after-tax dollars. Therefore, the primary difference between a sales tax and an income tax is not the way they impact consumption, but rather how they impact savings. Dale Jorgensen, head of the Economics Department at Harvard University, has presented theories that producer prices will drop between 15 and 25 percent after the switch to consumption-based tax. A substantial part of producer price reductions can be passed on to the consumer in the form of lower retail prices, which will increase consumer demand. But, while offering lower prices, retailers will be able to maintain their current profit margins. Such logic is endorsed by a recent letter to the commission on tax reform by dozens of leading economists. ^[26]

Proponents of the FairTax state that the cost of domestic goods and services would decrease by approximately 23% after embedded taxes are removed leaving the cost nearly the same after taxes.^[27] This would not apply to imported products, so it would provide tax advantages for domestic production, thereby reducing the trade deficit.

A study prepared by Nathan Associates for the National Retail Institute, which made many adverse assumptions, represents supporters' worst case scenario for a consumption tax. The study predicts that the economy will grow only three percent more in ten years than it would have under the income tax and that the increase in consumption will be 1.15 percent less in the first year relative to what it would have been under the income tax. This study concludes that consumption will be higher in the fourth year and every year thereafter than it would have been under the income tax.

Other indirect effects

Like any policy change, the FairTax proposal would create several effects in other markets:

• As previously discussed, the FairTax will apply to new homes. Many economists state that the embedded cost in new home construction is an estimated 25% and home prices would stay consistent. Since the FairTax will not be applied to existing homes and their cost is closely linked to new home prices, any cost change in new home prices will also be reflected in used home prices. If new home costs were to inflate, homeowners would enjoy a capital gain on the value of their home. Conversely, non-homeowners (future homebuyers) would face a loss as their future expenditure on a home would rise. However, with families bringing home their entire paycheck, the FairTax would allow the faster accumulation of a down payment as savings and investment are not taxed.
• States and municipalities would see their cost of debt increase. Currently, the federal income tax system provides tax advantages to state and local government bonds. Specifically, the interest paid on such securities is exempt from federal taxation. This "tax discount" allows state and local governments to issue debt at low yields, which reduces their interest costs. By eliminating income taxes, FairTax removes the tax advantage of holding state and local bonds. Issuers would have to offer higher interest rates to attract investors.
• The current federal tax law allows individuals to deduct the interest cost on home mortgages. Home mortgage interest is one of the few personal expenditures that is treated in this manner. While most do not itemize the deduction for full benefit, this preferential treatment of mortgage interest encourages households to spend relatively more of their income on housing than would otherwise be the case. The FairTax would also be tax exempt on home mortgage interest and has the added value of what would be considered a payroll tax deduction under the current system. However, since there are several areas that are considered tax free under the FairTax plan, it may decrease the incentive to spend more on homes in favor of savings, education, or other investments.
• John Golob, formerly of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, analyzed several different tax reform proposals in the 1990s. Some of his conclusions can be applied to FairTax. Golob concluded that replacement of personal and corporate income taxation with consumption taxes would lower interest rates by approximately one-fourth. If rates were 4% before the change, they would be around 3% afterwards.
• In general, FairTax would exert upward pressure on the value of most financial securities. Since a security's present value is based on all future cash flows adjusted for time, falling interest rates raise the present value of future cash flows. The effect on specific securities is indeterminate, however, because FairTax represents sweeping changes to the economy. The current pricing of financial securities includes assumptions that the basic rules of the tax code will remain largely unchanged. For example, FairTax will end corporate taxation. This eliminates the tax benefit which partially offsets many corporate expenses. In the case of non-cash expenses, they will reduce coporate earnings by their full amount rather than by the ~70% of their amount under the current tax regime. In another example, FairTax will cause investors to favor certain types of securities over others. Such cases illustrate that it is difficult to predict how FairTax will effect the value of a single securitiy or an asset class.
• When insufficient direct evidence exists to prosecute members of organized crime, it is often possible to convict on charges of income tax evasion. The most famous example of this is the 1931 conviction of Al Capone, though this tactic continues to be used today. This avenue of law enforcement would disappear under the proposed plan. However, it should also be noted that every income taxpayer is currently subjected to the possibility of unjust arrest for unintentionally violating the 50,000+ pages of tax code which even experts cannot consistently interpret. Using peripheral laws to catch criminals simply points out flaws in the legal system perhaps better dealt with through a mechanism other than tax laws.

References

1. ^ H.R. 25 Co-sponsors
2. ^ National Retail Sales Association Calculator
3. ^ Effective Tax Rates ' Americans for Fair Taxation
4. ^ TaxAnalysts TaxBreak, by William G. Gale "The National Retail Sales Tax: What Would The Rate Have To Be?" May 16, 2005; retrieved June 15, 2005
5. ^ Rebuttal of the William Gale papers
6. ^ The FairTax: A Trojan Horse For America? By Claire Wolfe & Aaron Zelman retrieved May 19, 2005
7. ^ Rebuttal of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) letter
8. ^ Doesn't Anyone Know the Score? By Newt Gingrich and Peter Ferrara
9. ^ U.S. Internal Revenue Service (2001). SOI Bulletin article - Individual Income Tax Rates and Tax Shares (Table 6). Retrieved June 14, 2005. (Excel spreadsheet)
10. ^ Effective Tax Rates ' Americans for Fair Taxation
11. ^ Summary of Estimates of the Costs of the Federal Tax System by the U.S. Government Accountability Office
12. ^ The Times is still wrong on taxation By Bruce Bartlett
13. ^ Fair Tax America
14. ^ Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures of the House Committee on Ways and Means
15. ^ "Simplifying tax systems:The case for flat taxes." The Economist, 2005 April 14.
16. ^ ibid.
17. ^ TaxAnalysts TaxBreak, by William G. Gale "The National Retail Sales Tax: What Would The Rate Have To Be?" May 16, 2005; retrieved June 15, 2005
18. ^ Rebuttal of the William Gale papers
19. ^ California Sales Tax Enforcement Costs
20. ^ op. cit., Wolfe
21. ^ Why Not Repeal the 16th Amendment First?
22. ^ . President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform
23. ^ FairTax - Income Taxes vs. Sales Taxes (About.com)
24. ^ op. cit., Wolfe
25. ^ Future Income Tax Revenue from Deferred Accounts
26. ^ Economists' Endorsement
27. ^ Americans for Fair Taxation

External links

• H.R. 25: Fair Tax Act of 2005 - text of bill
• Fair Tax Blog - Group blog with news and discussion of the FairTax plan

For FairTax

Associations

• Americans for Fair Taxation and Their Blog
• 60 Plus Association
• American Farm Bureau Federation
• American Rental Association
• American Veterans in Domestic Defense (AVIDD)
• The Argus Group
• Associated General Contractors (AGC)
• Black America’s PAC
• Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW)
• The Club for Growth
• Coalition for Urban Renewal & Education
• Council of Smaller Enterprises (COSE)
• Don Baldwin & Associates
• Galen Institute
• Heartland Institute
• Heritage Foundation
• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation
• Independent Women’s Forum
• Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation (IRET)
• Iowans for Tax Relief
• National Retail Sales Tax Alliance (NRSTA)
• National Small Business United (NSBU)
• National Tax Limitation Committee
• National Taxpayers Union (NTU)
• Physicians Who Care
• Small Business Survival Committee (SBSC)
• U.S. Business and Industrial Council (USBIC)
• World Taxpayers Alliance

Books

• The Fair Tax Book by Neal Boortz and John Linder ISBN 0060875410
• America's Best Kept Secret: Fairtax : Give Yourself a 25% Raise by Al Ose ISBN 1403391890

Articles

• FairTax would reduce, simplify farmers' tax burden, by Rep. John Linder retreived June 8, 2005
• Imagine receiving 100% of your paycheck! by Neal Boortz
• Answering a Fair Tax Question by Neal Boortz
• End of Income Tax? by Neal Boortz
• A Tax Bill Worth Getting Excited About

Against FairTax

Associations

• Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP)
• National Retail Federation

Articles

• Don't Buy the Sales Tax by William G. Gale, March, 1998 retrieved May 19, 2005
• Fair Tax Isn't Fair by the NESARA Institute
• Against the Fair Tax Proposal
• The Fair Tax Fraud by Laurence Vance
• Fair Tax Summary
• The Case Against the National Sales Tax
• Free Republic posts for and against the Fair Tax
• Exposing the "Fair Tax" Hoax by John William Kurowski