Author: Jared Fallon

For more information, see www.mofairtax.com 

 HJR 36, The MO Fair Tax plan, is a proposal to restore personal liberty, government transparency and fiscal accountability back into Missouri’s tax code.

It results in a real pay raise for residents, empowers the state’s economic engine and shifts the entire business system from taxation to customers and employees.

Ed Emery’s Fair Tax plan is a reform for the better, and truly seeks to restore Missouri’s competitiveness.

But what exactly is the MO Fair Tax?

HJR 36 seeks to ask the voters of Missouri to decide on a plan to replace the state income tax with a consumption (usage) tax. If put into law, the bill would raise the sales tax by 1.1% and broaden the scope of the tax to include personal and property and taxable services. The Missouri General Assembly would be allowed to make one adjustment to the rate to make it revenue/spending neutral.

Despite Emery’s plan to ensure Missouri’s economic growth, many people are questioning the timing of his proposal.

At a time when layoffs and fears of economic recession are commonplace, why would Missourians want to reform the state’s tax code?

The reason, sadly, is that Missouri is falling behind.

The tax system has become far too bulky and government transparency is wavering. Tax evasion is increasing while illegals avoid contributions. The complex tax code distracts from opportunity and discourages small businesses. Items are taxed every time they are sold, no matter how many times they are purchased and many services are not taxable. The solution? A usage tax that doesn’t fault individuals for working.

A single, revenue-neutral sales tax is the answer.

For proof, consider the Show-Me Institute’s report “Tennessee vs. Missouri: Taxes May Tip the Odds.” It states, “By any economic measure, Missouri dominated Tennessee at the end of World War II. Since then, Tennessee has reported faster economic growth and now has higher per-capita income than Missouri. With continued strong growth, the gap will just keep widening.”

The difference between the two states? Tennessee doesn’t have a state income tax.

“Consider two people with identical characteristics, one in Missouri, the other in Tennessee. Suppose those two people were given identical work opportunities, so that they had access to the same machines and plant surroundings. For one hour of work, each produced the same amount, and was paid $20. Excluding federal taxes, the person in Missouri would take home $18.80 while the person in Tennessee would take home $20. The person in Tennessee will supply more labor because he realizes a higher return for his effort.

The difference in returns applies also to those owning machines, plants, and other equipment. Other things being equal, the after-tax return to capital in Tennessee is higher than in Missouri. Consequently, when deciding where to locate plants and equipment, Tennessee has an advantage. Together, the incentives to locate machines and people in Tennessee can account for why the Tennessee economy is performing better than the Missouri.

This is not to ignore other factors that affect the two states’ economic performance. But the comparison does suggest that tax structure does matters. Perhaps it is time to ask: What tax structure is in Missouri’s best interest?”

The answer is the MO Fair Tax.

Author: Anonymous

We’ve seen lawmakers try to mislead the public by giving deceiving names to legislation. Look out for anything called “Tax Reform.” But the Fair Tax Act of 2009 is an apt title for Missouri House Bill 814, sponsored by Rep. Ed Emery. Rep. Chris Kelly has a similar piece of legislation (simply called “Elimination of Income Tax”), House Bill 318. Both bills legislation call for getting rid of the state’s individual and corporate income tax, along with the estate tax, and replacing them with a tax on retail and service transactions.

Both bills require a change in the constitution, which voters would have to approve.

The bill also would do away with the dozens of exemptions on the existing state sales tax, and tax credits would be phased out. Families would get a rebate, based on number of members and their poverty level.

For a lot of reasons, the fair tax make sense. An income tax acts as a drag on the economy because employers don’t like moving to states with income taxes and workers resent paying them. The result is lower productivity and fewer jobs. Eliminating the corporate income tax will spur business expansion. And the way the rebates are structured means poor families won’t pay a disproportionate share of the sales tax. That should hearten potential opponents like Jeannette Oxford, D-St. Louis, and Roman Lee LeBlanc, D-Kansas City.

Both are concerned that the bills would heap more taxes on the poor. But that’s not the case.

The bills, which are in the House Tax Reform Committee, also shouldn’t be viewed as partisan. While Emery is a Republican from Lamar, Kelly is a Democrat from Columbia. Oxford and LeBlanc should join their party colleague and get behind a truly fair tax. 

Author: Sarah Riordan

Ladies and gentlemen, Congress has a new bill proposing a bailout plan for their…well…bailout plan. According to a recent CBS poll, nearly 70 percent of Americans disapprove of the way the financial crisis was handled. Perhaps this is because unlike our trusted legislators, the American people foresaw a future where Congress would be suffering the consequences of a hasty decision.

Diane Feinstein’s new bill, S.3698, is one of many of these types of bills we can expect to see in the near future. In S.3698, Feinstein is clearly attempting to reform the bailout plan. To give the senator some credit, the bill she is proposing is unfortunately necessary. The 5-page proposal simply states that the money given as a result of the bailout should not be used for frivolous expenses. Examples of such expenses listed in the bill are lobbying, donating to political parties, renovating offices, and the purchasing of corporate jets.

The issue with this bill isn’t the content, but the reason that it’s necessary. Decisions regarding the law should never be made in haste. Though an economic crisis is cause for a hard decision, it’s certainly not cause for a rushed one. In the long run, Congress simply created for themselves a situation in which they’re continually backtracking. The sad truth is, the first bailout plan was made in haste, and not well thought out. Therefore, Feinstein has to go back and fill in what’s missing. To think that the original plan didn’t spell out how this money can be used is incredibly disturbing. To state the obvious, all Americans are taxpayers. As a result, 700 billion of your money was given away. As taxpayers, we should all question Congress’s decision, and the apparent lack of regulation placed on the money. Imagine a business buying a luxury jet for their employees with the money from thousands of college students working and paying taxes just to get an education. Why didn’t the original bailout plan include these spending restrictions? Why didn’t Congress think about these possible scenarios before giving out hundreds of billions of your dollars?

If a business fails to meet the restrictions listed in the bill, Feinstein proposes some possible consequences. The primary punishment is a hefty fine of up to $100,000. This is rather humorous, because it begs the question “can the bailout money be used to pay the fine?” If so, what’s the point of the fine? Nowhere in the bill did it state what money should be used to pay the $100,000. So essentially, the government is just getting a refund check. Perhaps they should refund the actual people this money belongs to; us!

Feinstein’s bill should be passed. Passing bills of this type is worthwhile and tragically necessary. I’m certain Senator Diane Feinstein won’t be the only member of Congress proposing restrictions on bailout funds. In the future, Congress should be more careful before spending our money. Every citizen can agree that Congress’ main duty is to protect the American people and their assets. This duty does not include making hasty and potentially harmful decisions.

Author: Jared Fallon

At a time when the United States is looking to greatly increase social welfare programs and overall increased government involvement, a large group of legislators are looking to make beer cheaper for all of us (finally Congress is getting the right idea). H.R.1610, originally introduced by Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), has a staggering 240 co-sponsors, totaling over 50% of House members. Most people agree with the notion that it’s hard to find politicians that don’t drink, and bills such as this can begin to provide evidence to help make the case.

Earl’s 240 member army consists of a wide range of both republicans and democrats, all behind one of the shortest bills to ever be introduced in the House. The bill’s official text is barely over one page long, offering a genius solution based on pure simplicity: amending the IRS Code of 1986 in order to reduce the beer tax before the 1990 tax increase took place. The bill officially cuts the overall tax by 50%, making it a more viable option for the American public to get liquid bread at a discounted rate 7 days out of the week. Cheers to you Congress-hopefully we can sing 100 bottles of beer on the wall AND save money soon. 

Author: Jared Fallon

It seems that increasing oil revenues is the only reliable component of the US corporate world we can depend on. 2008 has brought some of the most challenging oil prices America has ever endured and yet oil companies continually make increasingly greater profits. This will probably come as no surprise, but needs to be stated: the second quarter of this year has again proved itself to be the most profitable in history for Big Oil. The leader of the Western six pack – Exxon Mobil – raked in an excess of $1.7 billion, surpassing its own records to yet again have the title as the highest-ever quarterly profits earner for an American firm. Bravo Exxon Mobile – none of us saw it coming.

For the most part, there are not many pending bills on the legislation front that attempt to provide additional regulation for oil companies and/or oil price increases. The central bill of interest does not seem too likely to pass although it would be fun to watch. The bill’s only advocate so far is the sponsor – Janice D. Schakowsy (D-IL) – a risky position for a lone politician to take against such an influence-packed group of monoliths. Her bill – H.R.6653 – aims “To provide energy price relief and hold oil companies and other entities accountable for their actions with regard to high energy prices,” H.R.6653 proposes a 4 part strategy that denies oil companies tax deductions, conforms tax treatment for foreign tax credits, imposes a windfall profits tax on major oil companies, and establishes an Energy Independence and Security Trust Fund. In addition Schakowsy wants to amend the Sherman Act to prevent foreign states to act with each other to limit the production of oil, set energy prices, or take any actions in restraining free trade of energy sources. This bill will be interesting to watch (and Schakowsky’s future endorsements for that matter) – follow this link to find the most up-to-date information on this and other pieces of pending legislation available on the web.

The House Committee on Financial Services is currently reviewing H.R.6864, a proposal to “prohibit golden parachute payments for former executives and directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” The bill is being sponsored by Steve King (R-IA) and already has 27 cosponsors – a significant number due to the fact that the bill was first introduced in the House on September 10. It will be interesting to see how this plays out and what tactics the politically-charged former directors and executives will utilize. The power packed political influence the members have is alarming, ranging from the former Secretary of the Senate to the former director of the FBI under President Clinton’s administration.

AUTHOR: John Elsik

Senate Joint Resolution 33, sponsored by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) on May 21, 2008, recognizes the efforts of Ohio’s Departments of Mental Health and of Alcohol & Drug Services, in addressing the stigma associated with mental health and substance abuse disorders. The resolution pertains to, and recognizes, those American and Ohio citizens affected by mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders, as well the plethora of exceptional costs incurred through the neglect of treatment, and continued suffering, of American and Ohio citizens. Furthermore, this resolution recognizes the results of treatment, and of subsequent cost benefits. This resolution further recognizes the reality of the stigma attached with mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders. The resolution has been forwarded to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

The resolution points to the fact that 54,000,000 Americans suffer from a mental illness, and another 26,000,000 live with addiction. Recently within the entirety of the United States, only 10.8% of those suffering from mental illness or addiction received treatment. The resolution further recognizes the social and economic costs incurred through loss of productivity, crime, and other issues associated with mental illnesses and addiction. The estimated costs per year of untreated mental illnesses amounts to $100,000,000,000, while the costs of untreated addiction is $500,000,000,000. The Surgeon General has reported that mental illness and substance abuse account for one fifth of work days missed. This exceeds the combined burden of cardiovascular disease and cancer.

While recognizing the numbers of Americans affected by mental illness and addiction, and the further economic and social costs associated with neglecting treatment, this resolution recognizes the proven results of treatment. The resolution states that 70% to 90% of individuals with a mental illness or substance use disorder find a reduction in symptoms, and subsequent improvement in quality of life, from treatment. Furthermore, treatment has proven to cut substance use in half, reduce crime by upwards of 80%, and reduce arrests by some 64%. Within Ohio, the cost-benefit stands that for every dollar invested and spent on treatment there is an economic savings of 7$ through reduction of crime, child abuse and neglect, homelessness, and lost work productivity.

Whole focusing on the numbers who suffer, the costs, and the benefits of treatment, the resolution also recognizes the complications and reality of the stigma attached to mental illness and addiction. The resolution points to the damage resulting from mental illness and addiction stigmas in such ways as inadequate insurance coverage for health services, fear and mistrust towards those who suffer from such illnesses and disorders, and ultimately in the potential of family and friends to turn their backs on their loved ones. In point of fact, the Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration has found that individuals would rather admit to a petty crime than to spending time in a psychiatric facility. Furthermore, the Surgeon General stated that stigma towards mental illness and addiction can no longer be tolerated if there is to be a reduction in the burdens placed on society by mental illness, improvement in actual access to care for those suffering from mental illness and addiction, and ultimately in achieving knowledge of the brain, mind, and human behavior that is urgently needed to combat the multiplicity of problems associated with mental illness and addiction. The resolution also recognizes that the American Medical Associated, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the National Institute on Alcohol & Addiction all concur that addiction is a chemical change in the brain.

In concluding, the Senate and House of Representative’s jointly recognize that stigma fosters discrimination and discourages victims from seeking treatment, and encourages efforts to increase awareness of the existence and impact of mental illness and substance abuse disorder stigmas. Further, it encourages Americans to work towards overcoming the stigma associated with mental illness and substance abuse disorders. Finally, it recognizes Ohio’s “Think Outside the Stigma Campaign”.

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

It seems like every time I turn around the two words “credit report” jump out at me. I go to buy a car and the salesman must run a credit report. I go to buy a house and they ask for my credit. Even at home a commercial for FreeCreditReport.com is telling me to check out my credit report on their website. Hey, it’s free, right? The availability of your credit report to numerous hands may make your stomach churn. But wait, there is a solution.

According to the bill SB712, a “security freeze” may be placed on a consumer’s credit report if the consumer so wishes to choose. This security freeze prevents any credit reporting agency from reporting someone’s credit to a third party without the person’s explicit consent. The freeze must be in place within five days and the customer is to be notified within ten days of the restriction. In order to lift the freeze, a credit agency must receive instructions from the consumer. The first security request is, of course, free; however, a consumer will be subjected to a fee of $10 for every freeze thereafter.

A security freeze does not mean that a credit reporting agency does not ever give out a customer’s credit report. There are many circumstances in which a credit agency may give out a report. For instance, a credit report may be made if the State of Missouri requests it in an investigation of fraud. A credit report may also be made for certain insurance purposes, pursuant of a court order, and for a variety of other reasons. This bill also mandates that a credit reporting agency must provide summary rights to anyone who believes that they have been a victim of identity theft. If the agency violates the act, they are subjected to any actual damages that a consumer may experience, the court cost, as well as other reasonable assistance that the court may deem necessary.

The bill SB712 may also limit the type of information required to submit in receiving any rebates on purchases. Nevertheless, a business may ask for additional information if they believe that a rebate claim is fraudulent. The consumer at the time of the claim will be provided a mail-in-rebate form and they will be given 30 days to submit the form. After receiving the mail-in-rebate, a business shall send payment to the consumer within 30 days.

Amid the crowd of businesses and sales representatives thirsting for your credit, it’s nice to know that not everyone can see it. A credit report is like the report card you got in grade school: not everyone needs to know how well you’ve done (or even how well you haven’t).