| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/5 |
| 2007/8/21-22 [Reference/Tax] UID:47689 Activity:insanely high |
8/21 Seriously, what's wrong with the FairTax plan? psb and others
I'd like to see a real criticism without vague accusations of
"it's regressive!" It seems like a complete win-win situation
for everybody. I was concerned about the possibilities of
fraud and evasion, but when you really analyze it there should
be less of this than under the current system. Since the overall
tax on the economy is about the same ("revenue neutral") when
you consider it's businesses that pay the wages that currently
get taxed under income taxes, in the long run the cost of goods
should remain similar, while our exports would gain a
competitive advantage.
I'm no expert and I'm open to an honest rational explanation.
\_ screw you rich flat tax assholes.
\_ I didn't know what the FairTax plan *was* without looking
at Wikipedia, and wouldn't you know, Wikipedia also
provides the information you wanted from psb et al.
\_ No. Wikipedia's articles have a mostly neutral presentation.
What I want to know is where the hostility comes from.
Because I don't understand it. What particular economic analysis
do people think points to FairTax being a bad idea? Was that
analysis open to review? I see a arguments in the wiki entry
analysis open to review? I see arguments in the wiki entry
that contradict what the FairTax plan proposes. (i.e. straw
man arguments)
I just read this: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3428541
The statements by people opposing the plan are completely vague
and nonspecific. Look at Giuliani and Romney's answers.
The liberal think-tank quote they got is totally vague,
just saying "it shifts burden to middle class". That is false
as far as I can tell. I guess I'll vote for one of the
Republicans that support it.
\_ It's a consumption tax. Generally the more you make the
less of a percentage of your income you spend. So the less
you pay taxes. And since that means you save more you make
\_ "So the less percentage you pay taxes."
even more money. Yes eventually you might spend some of that
money, but in the meantime you have had a tax shelter for
years. Consider that 1. people spend a lower percentage
of their income when they make more and 2. you need the same
revenue as before, that means any sort of flat consumption
tax will need to shift (percentage-wise) the tax burder to
the lower wage earners. It's why sales taxes are regressive
and raising the sales taxes hits the poorest segments of our
society the worst.
\_ You're right as far as you go, however, FairTax
specifically provides for tax rebates to the poor,
making it not-so-clearly regressive. You didn't
address that point, and since you did not, your
criticism of the FairTax proposal is invalid. I
happen to agree with you that *despite* the rebate,
the middle class is going to get screwed, but I
can't really substantiate that in any quantitative
way. --PeterM
\_ A rebate may help the truely poor, but that actually
just shifts the burden even more to the middle class.
Unless the rebate is so large that it is going to
just lead to a broken tax system that doesn't work,
which may very well be the goal of the "FairTax"
(what a stupid, misleading, name) plan.
\_ No, because they get the rebate also. First you
need to define middle class, and show why the
analysis presented by the FairTax web site is
incorrect (showing that the poor have less burden
while the middle class is about the same as now.
Here's the thing: if these rich people stockpile
money, so what? Eventually it will be spent. Or if
\_ #f -dans
not it will be invested in the economy, creating
growth. Plus the economics indicate that the
\_ Also #f -dans
\_ I love your reasoning.
\_ The statements are trivially false. Thank
goodness you're smart enough to see that
too. -dans
plan would overall boost the economy.
And under the current system, capital gains taxes
are lower than regular income taxes. Plus we
have IRAs and 401ks to let people save tax-free.
The system will just be *massively* simplified.
\_ Hint: too much savings can be just as big
a problem for an economy as not enough. See Japan.
\_ I don't know if "see Japan" is useful... didn't
they have a structural problem with lack of
and/or difficulty for entrepreneurs? We are
so far from saving too much that I hardly think
that's a worthy fear. Middle class people are
probably not very savvy with their finances and
more likely to have money sitting in a non-tax
advantaged places like bank accounts. I don't
think having a bunch of poverty-stricken
seniors is a good plan. Meanwhile the existing
wealthy people would have their savings taxed
even though they already paid income tax on it:
sounds like a wealth tax to me.
\_ So you believe that on a sort of religious basis?
\_ I would say intuition rather than religion.
I'll gladly change my mind if I see convincing
analysis and hard numbers. That is not
a religious conviction. --PeterM
\_ Payroll tax is eliminated and a family gets
$20-30k of spending tax free. That sounds pretty
good to me. Plus boosting the economy as a whole
benefits everyone.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_the_FairTax_burden
\_ Thanks for these URLs. I'm convinced now that
the middle class is going to take it in the ass
while the rich will get a break. The poor also
will get a break. I'm not in favor of screwing
the middle class. Look at 1st URL, #49.
I don't believe for a minute that the "fair tax
effective rate" is going to be lower for everyone
to the extent claimed--and it isn't going to
end up lower for the middle class, who will
end up worse off. --PeterM
\_ Where do you see data indicating middle class
gets screwed? #49 claims that it is lower across
the board. I can't tell you if that's true or
not but I wouldn't simply dismiss the
possibility. Everyone is supposed to get a break.
The retail sales base is larger than the income
tax base.
(pdf) http://urltea.com/1a80
http://urltea.com/1a85
\_ I specifically addressed your objection, my
reasoning is that the tax has to be
revenue neutral. So the money is going
to have to come from somewhere, and
the graphs show lower taxes across the
board. While that may happen in time
(that is hard to know), at the outset
the tax burden has to be equal. Now,
you may have a point about the tax base
being larger, but I do not see why that
should be, given that a large consumption
tax would act to limit consumption and
reduce the tax collected. --PeterM
\_ Everyone would also "have a bigger
paycheck" which encourages consumption.
Partially there will also be a shift
in costs to the business, allowing
them lower prices than otherwise.
them lower prices than otherwise (both
because they don't pay corporate tax,
and because they no longer have to
deal with paycheck taxes for their
employees).
Adminstrative costs: lower by $100s blns.
The tax base expands because you capture
everyone who buys anything, with whatever
money, not just labor income (e.g. it
taxes existing wealth and capital gains
ultimately at a much higher rate than
today).
Another problem is in the current
system, many lower income households
pay more "payroll tax" than income
tax. So replacing that with a sales
tax shifts the burden off them to
higher income brackets.
Plus the rebate is given even to
retired people who have no income.
Additionally the current system
involves tons of complex writeoffs.
That reduces the income base.
\_ You make an interesting case
for "FairTax". With 50 states, this
could be prototyped by having 1 state
shift from an income tax to a sales
tax to see what happens. A lab
experiment, in effect. Or you could
do comparisons with countries which
use a tax system similar to proposed.
(or between states...)
Last, we could phase in a fed. sales
tax by 10% per year, and phase out
income taxes at the same rate,
resulting in a 10-year changeover,
during the middle of which we could
turn in back if we didn't like it.
The income tax could be greatly
simplified along the way, 'cause it
would matter less and less. I
realize states are not analogous
and that burden on business will
increase, but as people have said,
businesses already collect sales
taxes. --PeterM
\- well since you named me specifically, i'll make a short
comment. my view is "even vaguer" than "it's regressive".
my answer is "the world is complicated and people who say
it can be magically simplified are either 1. clueless about
the complexity or 2. up to something". if you want to
\_ .ch has a very simple tax system (compared to the us).
I hope you aren't suggesting the us system is
'complex for a good reason.' -- ilyas
discuss in greater length, wall something when i am
around. in this case, for the commentators, i think the
are mostly in category #2 because they say such stupid
things like "we can get rid of the irs" [and dont mention
replacing it with state level collection and enforcement].
the heart of the tax code is "what is income" ... that's
where most of the instructions go. computing the tax owed
via tax brackets rather than a single division isnt that
big a deal. and corporate taxes [of which i know little]
is also complicated for a reason. some of this is bogus
[like claiming various pieces of IP have low values in
some contexts and high value in other contexts, playing
games with transfer prices etc] but parts of it is legit ...
depreciation, investment etc. --psb
\- this is going out on a limb but i basically think
flat tax proponelegit ...
depreciation, investment etc. --psb
\- this is going out on a limb but i basically think
flat tax proponents come on two flavors:
--weathly people who realize they will get off way easier
--upper middle class people paid via W-2+withholding who
realize this doesnt leave much scope to cheat compared
to their self-employed friends and the lower upper class
people whose employers collude to reduce taxes or can
hire tax lawyers etc
--psb
\_ See, that's a pretty cynical and hostile attitude.
Yet you admitted you don't base this on reasoning about
the actual plan or economics but on "the world is
complicated and The Man is trying to manipulate you".
That doesn't cut it with me.
\- my level of interest in "cutting it" with some
random anonymous person on the motd is pretty low.
i pointed you in the direction of my complaints
which you are free to persue or not, but ignoring
the specifics i list and focusing on "hostility"
or "cutting it" is silly.
\_ Ok so you basically think the plan won't actually
be less complex. Right? That's absurd... the
number of "filers" is reduced 90% or whatever.
Granted that saying "abolish the IRS" is somewhat
disingenuous but the underlying point appears
valid. To most people the IRS would no longer
be an entity they deal with. And the current
tax code has WAY more complexity than simple
"brackets". Hey I thought you were interested
in issues like this, Mr. Economist reader. I
guess I've learned what I wanted to learn.
\- i didnt say the current system is good.
i think the current system has massive
problems. same goes for say school vouchers.
the point again is what makes the current
system complicated is the detemination of
income and the flattax can either avoid this
question [making the the complicated simple]
or if it does address this, then this is the
heart of the proposal ... the problem isnt
tax brackets.
\_ Why not make taxes trivial for the
90% of filers? According to you,
that's an impossible motive for someone
who wants tax reform. Which really says
more about you than the US. -- ilyas
\_ Well clearly there is still some complexity
involved on the business side. But
businesses are already equipped to handle
this. The "fair tax" proposal isn't
based on the principle of flat tax
being more fair than progressive tax. That
is irrelevant IMHO.
As for motives, besides the filing hassle
(at cost in time, money, and privacy) there
is the possibility of increased economic
growth and competitiveness, plus
transparency: wouldn't it be nice to see
the federal tax rate right there at the
store or gas pump, in its entirety, and
see it go up and down instead of the
current incomprehensible mess with many
different tax sources and nobody really
knows who pays what?
\_ Those websites are pretty egregious examples of how to lie
with statistics, but I really don't think you are going to
be convinced no matter what I say, so what does it matter?
\_ I could easily be convinced, which is why I posted.
But I'm learning that a lot of people apparently are
just scared of change or something and intuitively think
it can't work. Isn't the income tax unnecessarily complex
and invasive of privacy? Don't all the analyses agree that
those near the poverty level benefit 100% from this plan?
\- what to do about the poor isnt the problem.
it's what to do about income to the wealthy:
wage incomes, return to capital incomes, complex
time structure of income, income in different
juristictions, state-federal issues, wealth and
property issues, large multiplier effects/higher
sensitivity etc. read e.g. Daivd Cay Johnson.
\_ Why is income the problem if we are talking
about eliminating personal income tax?
\-^income to the wealthy^the wealthy
\_ What is stop the wealthy from taking income here
and just shipping it overseas for all of their
purchases, dodging tax entirely?
\_ The point here is that they will not have a
large incentive to do so because prices will
not be significantly different than they are
now. This is because corporations will not
be paying income tax. For most purposes it
will not be practical to do this kind of
thing. Even if it happened, that would
have to be weighed against evasion practices
in the current system. Additionally, this
system would tax consumption by foreigners
here (e.g. tourists). Not sure how large
that is though.
Note that corporate income taxes affect
a product's lifecycle at every stage of
business; each of these adds cost to the
final product. And dealing with payroll taxes
for employees is an additional cost borne
by every company in a supply chain.
Also note that this represents an inherent
disadvantage for US products in the global
market. Here, they compete against foreign
imports whose parent companies are exempt
from income tax or VAT on exports. Abroad, they
have foreign VAT applied, on top of the
"embedded cost" of US corporate tax. |
| 4/5 |
|
| abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3428541 org video in which Thompson is asked, "Senator, if the House and Senate pass the 'Fair Tax' bill do you feel right now that you would sign it?" Thompson replies to the question by saying, "Yeah, absolutely." The Democratic National Committee seized on the all-but-announced candidate's apparent contradiction with his own staff, questioning whether the actor turned politician is qualified for the role of commander-in-chief. "Fumbling Fred Thompson's flip flop on the 'Fair Tax' issue shows once again that his presidential campaign is just not ready for prime-time," said DNC spokeswoman Amaya Smith. "Next time Thompson should make sure that he's on the same script as his advisors before changing his position on an issue." org, asked him about the tax overhaul measure as the former senator greeted supporters at an airport hangar in Houston on July 24. Proposal Repeals Current Tax Code The federal taxes that would be swept away by the "Fair Tax" legislation include all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare and self-employment taxes. In place of those taxes, the "Fair Tax" legislation would impose a 23 percent sales tax. The legislation would abolish all current federal tax credits and tax deductions. But in order to offset the impact that the new 23 percent sales tax would have on American households languishing in poverty, the legislation would offer a monthly prebate. The size of a household's prebate would be calculated by multiplying 23 percent -- the size of the new tax -- against the government-established poverty level for a household of that size. According to the 2007 federal poverty level, an adult with no children would receive an annual prebate of $2,348 (which would come in monthly checks of $196). A married couple with two children would receive an annual prebate of $6,297, which would come in monthly checks of $525. Five Republican '08ers Have Agreed to Sign "Fair Tax" If Passed "Fair Tax" supporters opted for a prebate system, which would flow even to the richest Americans, rather than exempting certain staples of life, in the hopes of protecting the new sales tax from the kinds of lobbying-induced loopholes that pervade the current system. Privacy Policy/Your California Privacy Rights External links are provided for reference purposes. ABC News is not responsible for the content of external internet sites. |
| www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq Frequently Asked Questions:: Frequently Asked Questions about the FairTax Click on the questions below to view the answers. How does the FairTax protect low-income families and individuals and retirees on fixed incomes? Is it fair for rich people to get the exact same FairTax rebate from the federal government as the poorest person in America? Are seniors taxed twice on savings, once when they saved it, and now again when the spend it? How does the FairTax affect income tax preparers, accountants, and many government employees? How are state tax systems affected, and can states adequately collect a federal sales tax? Does the FairTax improve compliance and reduce evasion when compared to the current income tax? I know the FairTax rate is 23 percent when compared to current income taxes. What will the rate of the sales tax be at the retail counter? Since business purchases are not taxable, how does the FairTax keep individuals from pretending to have a business so they can buy things tax free? Is there any provision in the FairTax bill to prevent both an income tax and a sales tax? |
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_the_FairTax_burden effective tax rate for any household would be variable due to the fixed monthly tax rebates. The rebates would have the greatest impact at low spending levels, where they could lower a household's effective rate to zero or a negative rate. personal income tax replacement (excluding other taxes) and rebate system, the overall tax burden on middle-income Americans would increase while the tax burden on the very rich would drop. The report states, "Families with the top 10 percent of cash incomes would benefit substantially from the retail sales tax. Middle-income Americans, however, would bear more of the federal tax burden. A typical married couple at the bottom 25th percentile of the income distribution earns $39,300 per year and would pay $5,625 dollars in federal taxes in 2006. Proponents contend that since the FairTax base would be twice the size of taxable income, a revenue-neutral FairTax rate would be almost half the size of income and payroll taxes. Further, research by Arduan, Lapher & Moore Econometrics shows that consumption would increase by 24% in the first year of the FairTax. The increase in consumption would be fueled by the 17% increase in disposable (after-tax) personal income that occurs once the FairTax was enacted. 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% would receive an average tax cut of over $75,000." Gale continues, "If households are classified by consumption level, a somewhat different pattern emerges. While Gale's analysis differed from the FairTax legislation, he 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. For example, a family of four (a couple with two children) earning about $25,000 and spending this on taxable goods and services, would consume 100% of their income. A higher income family of four making about $100,000, spending $75,000, and saving $25,000, would consume only 75% 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 75% of consumption (with the other 25% taxed at a later point in time). marginal propensity to consume (MPC) decreases as income increases. Households at the lower end of the income scale spend almost all their income, while households at the higher end are more likely to devote a portion of income to saving. Income earned and saved would not be taxed immediately under the proposal. In other words, savings would be spent at some point in the future and taxed according to that consumption. FairTax advocates state that this would improve the taxing of wealth. "Their view that taxing sales is regressive is just plain wrong. Taxing consumption is effectively the same as taxing wages plus taxing wealth." Kotlikoff continues, "But what about saving one's wages and wealth and spending these funds plus accumulated interest in the future? payroll tax system is regressive on income with no standard deduction or personal exemptions taxing only the first $97,500 ($94,200 for the year 2006) from gross wages, and none earned from capital investments or interest. the FairTax Consumption assumptions for the 42 stylized households in the study are the basis for the relative progressivity over the current system. If the assumptions are changed, the adjusted tax rates below would also change. edit Marginal effective federal tax rates on working Marginal Effective Federal Tax Rates on Working *Note the difference between marginal rates (the rate of tax paid in the last dollar spent) and actual average rates. Under the FairTax, no taxpayer in this chart pays any FairTax until they spend above the poverty level, whereas the first dollar spent above the poverty level has a marginal rate of 23%. |
| urltea.com/1a80 -> people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/Comparing%20Average%20and%20Marginal%20Tax%20Rates%2010-17-06.pdf lz"s/feE^s/{&4RkR Rk *A@L QfE0> T"wcp1 & /p:xv#VYJc'-PMs2ug'nZFJRPjpDhjtknriUGaXll8cHR>,**'|$ub28+{D0C7# 'y<:8oq%j sfp(hy6>! N\9 U "_QFY-><Y<bHj/YOy)qY6q5m HUNY<ohC:8|RtGi2/<dpb3xbHs\9y@mP< T>oj93av\R&3k-v0 & FP0i-,XMJ 0CSE(L$B%pVv L%+"? |
| urltea.com/1a85 -> www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_myths_factcheck Any reasonable person will conclude, after reading through the specifics, that Mr Miller based negative conclusions, pejorative in nature, on erroneous assumptions that, in themselves, reveal either a bias or a faulty process of analysis. org: remove the article from your Web site until we are able to resolve the key errors we have brought to your attention (or at least agree that we cannot reach a resolution); org article for the same period of time the at-issue article is available to visitors to your Web site; org's senior editors to discuss our concerns in greater detail. I would ask that you provide me your response to these requests in writing. There is little doubt Mr Miller has spent much time researching the FairTax, but either because he was determined to produce a "gotcha!" org has now published an unfair and factually inaccurate analysis of the FairTax. As a follow-up to our telephone conversation with Mr Miller on Friday, I want to reiterate our disappointment with what can only be described as an unfair and unsupported analysis of the FairTax Plan. In addition to the attached rebuttal document, I would like to list a few key points that have caused me great concern as to whether your writer conducted a fair and impartial review of the FairTax Plan: 1) As I stated in my May 29, 2007 e-mail to Messrs. Jackson and Miller, Americans For Fair Taxation would make available to your organization the entirety of the $20 million in research that well-respected economists across the country have conducted in review of the FairTax proposal. Mr Miller dismissed this research out of hand in our last phone conversation with him because it was, in his words, "commissioned," which assumes that the nation's foremost public finance economists can be swayed by a contract, ignores the fact that most research is commissioned and that all of our research has been subject to critical peer review over many years. And please consider this another request on behalf of Americans For Fair Taxation and our hundreds of thousands of supporters nationwide to provide us with the "research" Mr Miller relied upon to reach the conclusions stated in this article. Clearly, the citations he points to are not sufficient to come to the assumptions and incorrect conclusions he makes in the article. That the graph does not relate to the FairTax is made even more clear in the text of the Treasury study. The graph looked at a proposal with a different tax base and that did not repeal the regressive payroll tax. Mr Miller states that as a result, "many FairTax supporters do not understand that the 23 percent number is tax inclusive." Notwithstanding our very own explicit notation of "inclusive," he insists that we intend to mislead, even though, as we tried to patiently explain, the coporate tax, individual income tax, capital gains taxes and estate and gift taxes, the flat tax proposal, and every other tax reform proposal introduced uses the exact same method of calculation. org understood the difference between tax-inclusive and exclusive, and then he tellingly spins the remaining 15 percent who misunderstood as evidence that we have misled the public. He ignored our point to him that numerous places on our Web site and in our materials we define the difference between "inclusive" and "exclusive" and he was similarly unmoved by our honest plea that our only alternative for those seeking a comparison to the present system was to express income tax rates in "exclusive" terms which we feel would make us subject to the very charges of misleading the public we are now suffering at Mr Miller's hands. He also seemed unmoved that, in light of his first stated discomfort, we published again in a most visible manner yet another explanation of the different calculation methods on our Web site. org to express their displeasure with the illogical conclusions of the article understood the difference present plain evidence that an overwhelming number of supporters understand the exclusive vs. The only data he uses to justify the statement that most FairTax supporters are unaware of the difference between "inclusive" and "exclusive" taxation nomenclature is the fact that 85 percent of FairTax respondents who made contact with him did understand the difference. How can we or any other reader when presented these facts not conclude that Mr Miller's logic is either flawed or his conclusions fundamentally disingenuous in presentation? If in your polling you found the United States Congress had reached an 85 percent approval rating, would you declare that "15 percent of Americans disapprove of Congress?" We spent a considerable amount of time with Mr Miller on the phone Friday even offering to conference in Dr. Laurence Kotlikoff, a respected economist who has written on this very area in an effort to put Mr Miller's charges of an "accounting trick" to rest. When he refused this offer, we suggested that he, at the very least, modify his language to more fairly indicate that a difference of opinion on this highly complex subject exists and that Dr. Kotlikoff's scholarly paper on the subject published in Tax Notes, to date has not been refuted or criticized even by Mr Miller's advisor, Mr Gale, who recently lost a debate at AEI on the subject. We had understood from Mr Miller that he would, at the very least, use less pejorative language that would indicate a difference of opinion on this subject by experts, but such a change has not been made to the article. This unfounded accusation of "trickery" on the part of me, my board of directors, my staff, consulting team, independent researchers, and our hundreds of thousands of supporters nationwide is insulting and without merit and would seem to require of any fair editor the wholesale revision of this section, if not deletion. While Mr Miller briefly mentions the fact that the panel failed to release its methodology, why not take the time to investigate our supportable assertion that the presidential panel never conducted an in-depth analysis of the FairTax Plan itself? In fact, I specifically asked Mr Miller to request clarification on this point from the Treasury Department and/or from members of the 2005 panel a responsible request that seems to have fallen on deaf ears. org regarding your story was merely the afternoon prior to your hoped-for publication date. Certainly it would have been fairer had we been given a greater opportunity to work through Mr Miller's questions on the FairTax days in advance a benefit that was undoubtedly bestowed upon FairTax detractors. Our sources indicate that some of your "advisors" on this article were contacted about a month ago. Gentlemen, I have provided you with a concise rebuttal to many of the glaring inaccuracies and biased commentary found in the at-issue article. This type of unfair writing is inexcusable and does great harm to our honest effort. It is for these reasons and more that I must assure you that we will do what is necessary to make these facts known. Therefore, I must once again reiterate my request that you immediately take down the article in question and/or allow us to post our attached rebuttal on your Web site. Should you not meet this request, I will be posting our rebuttal on our Web site and will publicly release our claims after 2:00 pm EDT today. My hope is that we can work towards a fair and amicable resolution of this issue without having to move our conversation to the public forum. I look forward to your positive response to my stated concerns. org/Joe Miller article conclusion: "We stand behind our earlier analysis of the FairTax. Huckabee referred is not a 23 percent tax, but rather a 30 percent tax. And it is revenue-neutral only through an accounting trick. It will collect more money from those earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year and less from those earning more than $200,000 per year. It is possible that the FairTax would make most people better off, but much of that gain would be a direct result of making the tax code less fair." The letters in parentheses have been added to aid the reader in following the response. Introductory remarks Americans For F... |