Winners and Losers under the 'FairTax'

I see you'd have to charge tax for a laugh. Your sense of humor is still in the wrapper.

I'm a geologist, not an economist. Own a piece of the rock? I'll tell you what kind of rock it is!

And I AM investigating it. A lot of people seem to think this a free lunch. A chicken in every pot...TWO cars in every garage, etc.

If I had a dollar for every time I'd heard that crap over some disastrous scheme, I could buy a small country of my own.

SO just excuse the Hell out of me while I ask questions and tend to disagree about things here and there which do not flange up with reality.

The way I see it, any tax scheme is wealth reapportionment. The people who seem to think this most fair are the ones who think they will gain the most. I have spent the last 26 years doing what I do, through boom and bust and into my third marriage, and now that I am finally making 6 figures, I don't want to get screwed out of a bigger chunk of it by some fly by night scheme that will supposedly be more "fair".

Fair to whom?

With all the Orwellian Socialist newspeak around, even the title grates and is cause for distrust.

If I have a hard time comprehending how everything is going to be cheaper and we are all going to make more, and the government is going to get the same amount, forgive me, but it does not add up. What I do see is that the "poor" will pay less, the middle class (what is left of it) will pay more, and the rich will find a workaround. No matter how many rules you have or don't have, it works that way already.

With all your customer's bearing receipts, any one of which could be used as evidence of a sale not reported?

All the painter's customers' receipts only reflect the "on the books" transactions for which the painter remitted all the required tax. When you deal "off the books" you don't create a paper trail. The situation is no different than it is today ... any disgruntled so-and-so can turn in a tax cheat, it just doesn't happen very often. It's why the underground economy thrives today and will continue to thrive under any tax scheme.

I'm not about to deal with said painter ...

Just as you're unlikely to deal with the painter today. But, you're not representative of those who DO deal under the table. There are lots of folks who do ... without a second thought. That won't change.

I'm not interested in being drawn into a situation where I could be held to account as well.

Well, according to your answer in post 376, you have nothing to worry about. Have you changed your mind?

All you have stated is what already happens at lower risk today. There is no reason to believe an increase in such activity will occur ...

The risk is the same ; the odds of getting caught are no greater. The reward is the better; because of the FairTax, the painter's take home is higher (doesn't have to pay any Fed tax on income at all) and he gets to skim from somebody else's tax owed (his customers'.)

The customer is not at risk; he has a receipt. The painter is not at risk; he's got the same receipt and paid the tax it itemized ... he just got to pocket a little more that should have been tax because there's no record. He's way ahead of the income tax game; he has an additional source of income: other people's tax money. When people figure out that out, there will indeed be an increase of "off the books" activity.

Besides, you asked (albeit rhetorically) what could be easier ... and I've given you an example that is at least as easy and is highly likely.

Fair to whom?

To those who pay the freight.

Under the current system half the electorate do note perceive paying much of anything, in fact a substantial proportion figure not just a free lunch, but getting subsidized as well.

From, Effective Federal Tax Rates 1979-2001

Effective Individual Federal Income Tax Rate (Percent of gross family income)

Income Category

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

Lowest Quintile

0.0

0.5

0.4

0.5

-0.6

-1.6

-2.3

-4.4

-5.2

-5.6

Second Quintile

4.1

4.8

3.8

4.0

3.2

2.9

2.3

2.0

1.8

1.7

0.3

Middle Quintile

7.5

8.3

6.7

6.6

5.8

6.0

5.8

5.4

5.3

5.6

5.0

3.8

Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000

According to the most recent U.S. Treasury Department figures, in 1997 the top 1 percent of income-earners (those with income of $250,000 and higher) paid 33 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of income-earners ($108,000 and over) paid 52 percent, and the top 50 percent ($36,000 and over) paid 96 percent of income taxes. Guess what the bottom 50 percent of income earners paid?
If you're among those who pay little or no federal income taxes, what do you care about tax cuts? Moreover, if you think tax cuts pose a threat to government handout programs, you might be openly hostile and support Al Gore's silly "risky scheme" talk. So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?

So what does government do about the problem?

Bush touts relief as tax day looms

Another 3.9 million Americans will have their income tax liability completely eliminated, officials said.

That's 3.9 million Americans more added to the spending constituency of 70% of the public clamoring for more from government, figuring someone else foots the bill.

The Intent of the individual income tax is for political and social control not revenue collection. The Individual Income tax is maintained to establish and hold every person in the country perpetual legal jeopardy. That is a situation that must end with the repeal of the income tax from the statutes, and the prohibition of its use by Constitutional amendment that future generations will not face the same manner of manipulation and interference in their lives.

"As a matter of fact, what the income tax does — and this is the debate that I think we always try to get into in order to let you and him fight, see — and the people of this country are led down a path where the actual control of their resources, which in the end is the control over their will, is handed off to the government."

. . .

"The government then manipulates that will in order to destroy the freedom of our electoral system through the income tax structure, and we call the resulting slavery a free system."

"In point of fact, it is not as the founders understood, and the only way to restore real freedom is to give people back control over the income that they earn so that they won‘t, at the voting booth and in other phony issues, be subject to that manipulation."

- KEYES TRANSCRIPT (01/28/02)

If we expect to see control of government spending, we had best look to make the burden visible to the whole of the electorate, not just the few designated as the token guy behind the tree.

That my friend is one of the bottomline purposes of going to the NRST, make the cost of largess perceptible to the entire electorate, even the lowest most rungs of the economic ladder.

To remove perception of the tax burdens of the individual, is to remove the goad which assures accountability of government to the electorate. Federal tax rates are high and government grows ever larger because a majority of the electorate do not perceive proportionately the burden their demand for largesse imposes on the minority of citizens.

The siren call for representation without taxation is the formula that got us where we are at today. The ability to hide or disguise taxation from the view of large sectors of the electorate allows the Congress to get away with the creation of the evergrowing monster that it fosters.

Liberty and freedom have a price, responsibility. If the perception of burden laid by government is interfered with or avoided there are no brakes on the growth of government, the ultimate result is the end of freedom through creeping socialism.

Under a single stage, single rate, ubiquitous tax system such as the NRST, it is in everyone's interest to assure that government is restrained in what it does; thereby constraining the burden of each individual to that which is minimum in regard the whole federal voting base not just a small group of local partisans showing up on special elections enacting bond issues and the such while most default for lack of interest in local politics.

The federal NRST hits everyone with the same rate at the retail register on all new goods and services. Increase the tax rate in a federal retail sales tax, everyone gets the the same percentage on those products they purchase and is not isolated to any single group.

Get the tax collection mechanism separated from the individual citizen, but assure all voters perceive the burden that largess and excess government imposes in their daily lives. Only then can the electorate be said to have the opportunity to knowingly, intelligently and responsibly exercise their francise to vote or begin to exercise the eternal vigilence that is our duty to maintain under this representative republic.

All the painter's customers' receipts only reflect the "on the books" transactions for which the painter remitted all the required tax.

And for which the costomer knows is a fraudlent representation and hence a potential witness against said painter who has the legal liability to collect and remit the proper tax. That one of many many "customers" (any one of which may be a competitor, tax enforcment officer, p.o'd ex or whatever.) looking for a piece of hide to nail to the wall with no liability on themselves in turning said painter in.

When you deal "off the books" you don't create a paper trail.

You just create a trail of potential witnesses and being open to audit of matterials purchased against work done at rates consistently below market leaves an interesting puzzle for tax investigators to resolve.

The situation is no different than it is today ... any disgruntled so-and-so can turn in a tax cheat, it just doesn't happen very often.

Not without first hand knowledge. In a sale tax scam the many customers/witnesses have knowledge of the transaction and its reduced rate for cash nature.

It's why the underground economy thrives today and will continue to thrive under any tax scheme.

No doubt they will, the fact however remains that some tax systems represent a bit more risk than others. It is risk against the gain that sets the level to be expected. Under the current system with a 120+ million filers to hide behind, and few knowing witnesses to the act of evasion the risks of discovery are very low. In a 12 million licensed filer universe with a multitude of witnesses for the acts of evasion the risks grow substantially.

True, there will continue to be evasion under any tax system, there is however no basis on which to believe that evasion will expand over the rather substantial levels (by some estimates as high as 10-25% of GDP) of cash underground and illegal trade evading taxes that exists in the U.S. under the current system.

The bottom line is not that there will be no evasion under a retail sales tax system, that is silly to maintain. By the same token however, there is little reason to believe that there would be any real expansion of evasion activity and many reasons to believe that a reduction may actually be the case.

refer ==> Tax Evasion: The Underground Economy

The issue of evasion, at bottomline, is a non issue. For, evasion as you state is common to every tax system, and lacking substantive reason for increase in evasion you are left without that argument as a basis on which to stay with an income tax in lieu of going to a retail sales tax system.

Well, according to your answer in post 376, you have nothing to worry about. Have you changed your mind?

Not at all, but collusion in commiting a crime does not leave one risk free. Be sure that tax evasion, even under the FairTax legislation does indeed remain a punishible crime.

The risk is the same ; the odds of getting caught are no greater.

It is easy to make an unsubstantiated claim, to back it up however is something else. The risks are substantially greater with more people knowingly participating in the act of evasion. 90% Fewer points of collection to monitor, and those points of collection licensed as business and open to audit as a consequence. The opportunites for discovery increase substantially from several fronts under a sales tax system of the income tax system with its self assessment mechanisms.

the painter's take home is higher (doesn't have to pay any Fed tax on income at all)

Interesting those that I have known to evade the income tax don't pay any fed tax on income or selfemployment tax at all either. The best way to evade such taxes is not file at all. Zilch probablility of being caught at all as long as you don't go around bragging about it.

and he gets to skim from somebody else's tax owed (his customers'.)

Ahh, but the fact that he has made a sale places the full liability on him to collect that tax and remit it in full. Therein is the high risk factor to the vendor and low risk to the customer that turns him in.

Just because it is derived from his customer is irrelevant. Bottomline the customer finances the painter's income tax liability as well. Thus is an irrelavant point in the discussion.

The customer is not at risk; he has a receipt.

Yep, thus is totally off the hook if he should take a dislike to the painter, or be a state sale tax enforcement officer looking for painters pulling a fast one.

. The painter is not at risk; he's got the same receipt and paid the tax it itemized ...

With those many "customers" any one of which witness in the know of a special deal for cash.

He's way ahead of the income tax game; he has an additional source of income: other people's tax money.

People tend to be abit perverse after reflecting on such. My tax money, wheres my cut. You should give me a better deal than you did that last time. Hmmm. yep wide open and ripe for the shakedown.

When people figure out that out, there will indeed be an increase of "off the books" activity.

Yep until he runs across that customer that's out there to louse up the deal that snags him.

Besides, you asked (albeit rhetorically) what could be easier ... and I've given you an example that is at least as easy and is highly likely.

Lets see, you have nicely established that there is a multitude of potential witnessess to multiple instances of a crime. How many repeats of said activity does it take before simple probabilities kill the goose vs the income tax situation where there really is only one in the know, (the one who does not file an income tax return.)

Ok What do these quintiles translate into in terms of household income?

No one is giving me any hard and fast numbers and this kind of BS pegs my BS meter.

And back to the great mission of making everyone percieve how much it costs, the only ones who will care are the ones who pay more than they get in the check.

Frankly, most of the ones who aren't footing the bill will not care, unless their stipend is late, and the rest will have to pay for the checks. I fail to see how this is going to cut costs, if checks must be issued or payments must be made to every household in the country. But I can see a plethora of complications inherent in such a system, from misentered account numbers, electronic transfers which don't, changed addresses, fraud, and the like. This will require an army of people to sort out, in and of itself.

At least now, with Earned income credit, people have to make money to get that portion of the "negative income tax". With a stipend to offset taxes on basic living expenses is there some means test, some earnings requirement to cause these people to work at all, or is it more welfare, and not a heightened sense of what the tax burden is. Remember, the poorest are not really worried about taxes, and now they will have the money to not be.

Which brings me back to the crux of the equation, all rhetoric aside. Is this going to be cheaper than the current system? I'm not seeing that. You still need an army of clerks, you still need tax collectors, and you need a disbursement force to send out the stipends and sort out problems.

What guarantees are there that the current "hidden" taxes will disappear, like the excise tax on tires, or telecommunications taxes which double my basic phone bill?

Or will we all end up paying taxes on those hidden taxes. I have not seen nor heard guarantees that those will go away.

2. New homes are 23% higher than old homes. This kills the new home construction industry. (Personally I believe the rate would be MUCH higher).

Every piece of wood/drywall/fixtures/electricial equipment in new home construction would also have an upfront increase of 23% - in the short run, new housing would suffer. In the long run, ( when the economy recovers from the massive sudden drop in new construction) it would be the same.

Exactly. And a consumption tax would create a political constituency for REDUCING the size of government since when people go out and spend their money, they will see exactly how much they pay in taxes up front. . . Under the present income tax system, people have no idea what government actually costs them and the politicians can take advantage of their ignorance by simply increasing the amount with-held from their paychecks. DUH.

Which is why we should get rid of withholding FIRST. I believe EVERYONE on this list agrees with that, Yes? Let's work FIRST on what we all agree on!Then we will have tax reform.

Not counting HR25, Has anyone in Congress proposed getting rid of withholding ?

And if the taxes are too high, people will simply spend less, resulting in decreased revenue for the government.

Which is why I say a big loser for the 'FairTax' will be retail spending. Bye-bye coin, stamp, gold and jewelry stores. On the other hand, incomes will no longer be penalized, so they will go up.

Like I said originally, there are BOTH Winners AND Losers under this plan. Quote: The 'FairTax' is not tax reform, it is tax upheaval.

This is due to the dramatically different incentives/penalties.

TO ALL: I am really surprised that one of my predicted winners was never addressed. Indian reservations would become tax-free zones to a level not even contemplated. (Would I have to pay a Use tax to the new and improved IRS? How would they even know? Would I have to keep all receipts to prove that I DIDN'T buy it on the reservation?) And non-Indian casinos would be severely hurt due to the provision that they have to pay in effect a 23% income tax on gross profits (gross receipts minus payoffs and other taxes)!? My reading of Section 702(e).

Ok What do these quintiles translate into in terms of household income?
No one is giving me any hard and fast numbers and this kind of BS pegs my BS meter.

A link to the source of the data was provided, why haven't you availed yourself of the opportunity to investigate. That hard data is on the tables there, provided by CBO.

==> From, Effective Federal Tax Rates 1979-2001

The only reason your BS meter is pegging is because of your own BS as a consequence of not bothering to even look at the information provided to you.

And back to the great mission of making everyone percieve how much it costs, the only ones who will care are the ones who pay more than they get in the check.

Since when does the source of what one preceives as their income, make a difference in what one preceives in what they pay out to the tax man. add an extra 30% ontop of one's grocery bill even that welfare mother is going to blanch at the idea abit.

The key is to assure participation at a fundamental level in which an individual perceives a cost. Normal human psychology takes over at that point.

Frankly, most of the ones who aren't footing the bill will not care, unless their stipend is late,

The key is the fundamental belief that what they pay out in the grocery bill is theirs, regardless of source. Especially for someone who is living on the edge to begin with.

At least now, with Earned income credit, people have to make money to get that portion of the "negative income tax".

LOL, one of the biggest problems with EITC is the horrendous fraud attending it, and the fact that it is provided in a manner directly associated with a form that says it is gimmie ostentaciously reducing tax liability to the point of being a subsidy.

How could anyone even begin to perceive such a handout as anything but the other guy paying.

With a stipend to offset taxes on basic living expenses is there some means test, some earnings requirement to cause these people to work at all, or is it more welfare, and not a heightened sense of what the tax burden is.

Why should there be a means test, everyone is treated equally without regard to income or wealth. Family size (i.e. how much does a household eat in a healthy diet) is the basic measure applied in the HHS provertylevel statistic used.

In what way is a base offset for overpayent of tax provided equally to every legal resident a welfare payment?

Remember, the poorest are not really worried about taxes, and now they will have the money to not be.

Remember the poorest get a blatent subsidy in the current system by filling out tax returns that say it a gimme and not tax on them. (regardless of the fact that they continue to fund taxes through their daily purchases in the prices they pay for goods and services).

Is this going to be cheaper than the current system? I'm not seeing that.

It is meant to be reform in how taxes are collected not a tax cut. The rate is being chosen to be revenue neutral with the current taxes it replaces. As far as being cheaper, it is certainly cheaper in regards the overhead costs imposed on individuals and businesses having to comply with the tax system. The estimates are compliance and overhead costs around 90% cheaper to deal with in a retail sales tax system over a income/payroll tax system. Any savings arise out of a more efficient economy as a consequence of changing the method of taxation.

What guarantees are there that the current "hidden" taxes will disappear,

The taxes that disappear amount to >95% of federal revenues and are expressly repealed by the legislation, the dominating "hidden" portion being corporate income and payroll excises:

H.R.25

Fair Tax Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.25:

TITLE I--REPEAL OF THE INCOME TAX, PAYROLL TAXES, AND ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES

Sec. 101. Income taxes repealed.

Sec. 102. Payroll taxes repealed.

Sec. 103. Estate and gift taxes repealed.

Sec. 104. Conforming amendments; effective date.

like the excise tax on tires, or telecommunications taxes which double my basic phone bill?

You want everything to dissapear, you have to get on the phone and start lobbying for those excises to be repealed as well, not to mention the addon by state and local governments that a federal tax bill cannot address.

I'll except 95% of federal tax revenues as a good start myself and work to include the rest later once we have a basic retail sales tax system in place.

============================================================================
          PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION OF RECEIPTS BY SOURCE: 1945-1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source                               1945   1955   1965   1975   1985   1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual Income Taxes...........   40.7   43.9   41.8   43.9   45.6   43.6
Corporation Income Taxes..........   35.4   27.3   21.8   14.6    8.4   11.6
Social Insurance Taxes & Contrib..    7.6   12.0   19.0   30.3   36.1   35.7
Excise Taxes......................   13.9   14.0   12.5    5.9    4.9    4.2
Other.............................    2.4    2.8    4.9    5.4    5.0    4.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FEDERAL RECEIPTS...........  100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Budget of the United States Government, FY 1997,
        Historical Tables, table 2.2
============================================================================

Or will we all end up paying taxes on those hidden taxes.

Where detailed separately in a bill, like your phone bill they escape the tax on tax scenario. The real problem lay with import tariffs that get folded into the base price of goods upstream from the retail level which need to be replaced as well.

I have not seen nor heard guarantees that those will go away.

And you won't see them go away until you are willing to work with the rest of us to replace those individual excises and tariffs bolluxing up the the picture with a visible retail tax as well.

And you won't see them go away until you are willing to work with the rest of us to replace those individual excises and tariffs bolluxing up the the picture with a visible retail tax as well.

Excise taxes and tarrifs are COnstitutional. The income tax is questionable, even the passage of the Amendment is coming under question in terms of whether it was actually ratified.

As for chasing links, my time is limited--I am working an an oil rig at the moment. I will peruse the data later and get back to you. Thanks.

Which brings me back to the crux of the equation, all rhetoric aside.
Is this going to be cheaper than the current system?
I'm not seeing that.
Smokin Joe

Like I said originally, there are BOTH Winners AND Losers under this plan. Quote: The 'FairTax' is not tax reform, it is tax upheaval.
hripka

Of course its "upheaval", -- the intent is to create a tax system that is [in it basic structure] cheaper.

The fair tax scheme [as proposed] does exactly that in all of its important aspects.

You anti-fairtaxers are in actuality arguing against meaningful, much needed tax reform. You have no other solutions to our current tax/SS withholding nightmare, yet you fight this one..

"I'm not seeing that" you're making much sense, -- that is the real crux of the matter.

Which is why I say a big loser for the 'FairTax' will be retail spending. Bye-bye coin, stamp, gold and jewelry stores.

Hmmm, women are going to want to give up pretty jewelry, or folks are going to not invest in coins, stamps and gold tax free? (remember assets purchased for the purpose of their potential for appreciation like stocks, bonds, precious metals etc. are investment vehicles not taxed under the FairTax.) Only that which is preceived as purchased for personal consumption is taxed.

On the other hand, incomes will no longer be penalized, so they will go up.

Ahmm, what use is an increasing income if not used to enhance one's standard of living? (i.e. purchases for consumption). Increase of income assures that consumption continues to grow. The change in the percentage level of saving out of growning income that becomes feasibl reverses current trends induced by the federal income/payroll tax system that is anti-saving and anti-investment assuring severe problems ahead for everyone.

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/family_a.htm#saving

Rate of Personal Saving Plunges 100% - to new record low - $985 Billion missing

saving from disposable income If families have less inflation-adjusted income, despite mother working, then family personal savings must suffer as a consequence - unless, of course, families reduce their consumption. But, families increased consumption spending and, to cover this, they reduced savings to historic lows and increased household debt to historic highs. Dangerous Trend !!!

The chart at the left shows a 45 year trend of that part of disposable income that has been saved - - called 'personal savings rate'.

Note: prior to 1970 the rate of personal savings was rising smartly - - as were family incomes per the first chart above - despite most families then having but one wage earner while also living without increasing debt ratios (chart below).

Then, family incomes stagnated - - and the saving ratio stopped rising as seen in the left chart - - then started falling rapidly - - plummeting since 1992. As of June 2005, savings were at an all-time record low of zero percent !! $985 Billion in savings missing in 2004 compared to savings ratio of 2 decades ago. (realized capital gains, not calculated in the savings rate, mitigate this chart somewhat if one wishes to call such savings - - but the trend with and without is at all-time record lows).

One of the largest looming problems ahead lay squarely with the Social Security system that effectively undercuts personal saving and investment. A rapidly growing problem that is feeding on itself in portending very destructive trends in this society.

The 'FairTax' is not tax reform, it is tax upheaval. This is due to the dramatically different incentives/penalties.

I would certainly hope so as that is what it is going to take to reverse the destructived ingrained economic habits of generations under the income tax system.

I am really surprised that one of my predicted winners was never addressed. Indian reservations would become tax-free zones to a level not even contemplated.

Sorry even that is anticipated and not the problem you perceive as item bought on such reservations and brought into the jurisdiction of the U.S. are indeed taxable under the provisions of the legislation.

It is use and consumption in the US that taxed, customs being authorized to collect said taxes on entry of personal items brought back from such "tax free" zones.

Your predicted winner is a null. By the way the ramifications of the collection of NRST at borders is a certain incentive for federal government to actually do it job in controlling border crossing by illegals and smugglers. A 23% percent revenue incentive to do that job to be exact. The winner homeland security above and beyound the collection of revenue occuring from trade imports through such borders. In this the NRST acts as a strong tariff on all retail goods brought into the US correcting the tax advantage that imports have over domestic production acting to reverse the severe and chronic trade deficits we now live under.

(Would I have to pay a Use tax to the new and improved IRS? How would they even know?

Nope, you would pay it to customs as you bring your stuff across the border, just as would be required with any import duty owed today.

Would I have to keep all receipts to prove that I DIDN'T buy it on the reservation?)

Nope just make sure anything you carry with you can be proven not to have been purchased on said reservation on your return as you pass through customs just as happens today in return from foreign travels. Same techniques will be usable to government reservation borders I assure you.

And non-Indian casinos would be severely hurt due to the provision that they have to pay in effect a 23% income tax on gross profits (gross receipts minus payoffs and other taxes)!? My reading of Section 702(e).

And they aren't heart today under the income/payroll tax laws they are subject to. Indian casino's are great for losing your money at by the way, and if indian casino operators/employees decide they must leave the reservation to buy something in town, guess what they pay the full 23% and get no FCA sales tax rebate. The little swinging door works two ways.

Somehow I'm not overly worried about indian casino "advantages" at all.

Excise taxes and tarrifs are COnstitutional. The income tax is questionable, even the passage of the Amendment is coming under question in terms of whether it was actually ratified.

Sell that one to the courts the next time you figure on ignoring said tax. By the way, taxes on wage and salary income have never been found unconstitutional at anytime in our history of taxing such even prior to the 16th amendment.

As for chasing links, my time is limited--I am working an an oil rig at the moment. I will peruse the data later and get back to you. Thanks.

Then I would be abit more careful about complaining of not have hard data.

The only hard data is to be found elsewhere than the rhetoric of these threads. I get blasted all the time by complaints of too much data in my comments, so I try to be less verbose and provide those links for good purpose.

As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on the fairtax. Hostility toward vigorous questioning of the results of this program is not selling me one bit.

I am in no rush to burn the house down to keep warm because the furnace is faulty.

Frankly, I have been paying taxes since I was 14.

I am soon to be a great-grandfather.

The Social Security I have been promised probably will not exist when I think about retirement.

None of the programs I paid for did squat for me when times were tough, I made the comeback from virtual homelessness without any help but a couple of friends and some slow moving deer.

Now that I have made that long climb back, frankly, if this is going to cost me more, I an not about to support it.

Now that I have made that long climb back, frankly, if this is going to cost me more, I an not about to support it.

Then I suggest you look at the full picture rather than a piece here and a piece there without putting all together.

That includes the effect on prices of removing the income/payroll tax burden from businesses and exempting all purchases for business use from the retail sales tax implemented; the FCA tax rebate provided to every household based of the number of legal residents in the household, and the fact that no income is taxed under the Fairtax legislation unless it is spent for consumption which pretty much puts control into your hands as to when and howmuch tax you actually do pay.

Federalist #21:

"Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. "

"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess.
They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed - that is, an extension of the revenue."

The legislation is a whole work to assure the lowest tax burden possible at the individual level while assuring the entire electorate visibly participates in the tax system, unlike the current system designed to obscure tax burdens from the view of voters.

the intent is to create a tax system that is [in it basic structure] cheaper.

The fair tax scheme [as proposed] does exactly that in all of its important aspects.
You anti-fairtaxers are in actuality arguing against meaningful, much needed tax reform. You have no other solutions to our current tax/SS withholding nightmare, yet you fight this one..
"I'm not seeing that" you're making much sense, -- that is the real crux of the matter.

As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on the fairtax.
Hostility toward vigorous questioning of the results of this program is not selling me one bit.

There are no "results"yet. -- It's a proposed program, and the anti-faction here are far beyond 'questioning', and into speculative & hostile opposition.

I am in no rush to burn the house down to keep warm because the furnace is faulty.

The 'furnace' has been poisoning america since withholding/SS was enacted, about the time I was born.

Frankly, I have been paying taxes since I was 14.

Me too.

I am soon to be a great-grandfather. The Social Security I have been promised probably will not exist when I think about retirement.

I started drawing mine 6 years ago. If I live another 10 years or so, I might break even.

None of the programs I paid for did squat for me when times were tough, I made the comeback from virtual homelessness without any help but a couple of friends and some slow moving deer.

We all have problems. I'd like to see a fairtax type scheme passed to insure freedom for my grandkids from income taxation.

Now that I have made that long climb back, frankly, if this is going to cost me more, I an not about to support it.

Fixing the present mess would have to cost less in the long run. Doing nothing is leading us down the road to serfdom.

The main problem with the Fairtax is that there is no way that you are going to get employees to accept a reduction in their gross pay to the current amount of their takehome pay. As you know, this is necessary in order to have prices "stay about the same".

Until the mainstream FairTax warriors come clean with the people that they are trying to sway that they are expecting every wage earner to take a 20-30% cut in gorss wages (takehome pay will remain about the same) then the program has no chance of enactment.

You may be able to fool people a little lontger, but eventually you have to come clean and then the plan is dead. Boortz and Linder took a big gamble in making the 100% paycheck promise in their book, and they can't back it up in reality. Most of the people who bought the book and who are talking it up have no idea what the plan means in reality.

see #416

Fixing the present mess would have to cost less in the long run. Doing nothing is leading us down the road to serfdom.

Only if it is fixed. I agree doing "nothing" is not good, but sometimes doing nothing is the best thing you can do for the moment.

I just want to be sure the cure is not worse than the malady. I have a host of descendants who depend on me whether they know it or not, to try to make decisions based on hard facts which will eventually benefit them.

The only numbers we really know are what we have. I have heard a lot of rhetoric about "revenue neutral" which means the Government is going to be getting the same amount. If they have fewer expenses, that could be used to pay down the debt, the service of which is a major expense. Will it? Giving surplus money to Congress has traditionally been like getting a needle junkie to keep the keys to the drug locker. That is why Social Security is such a mess, for starters.

Now I am supposed to trust the spending addicts on Capitol Hill to pass something which will shrink government (and cut all those lovely Government jobs/grants/subsidies which BUY, yes, BUY votes through the ubiquitous application of generous portions of pork), pay off the debt, and reduce my taxes all at the same time.

Maybe, someday, with an end to politics and a judicious return to Constitutional statecraft, such a thing could happen.

But in the real world, I really think I have a far better chance of watching squadrons of pigs take off and land in formation at the local airport.

What I see happening is what is happening here. In the midst of contention and confusion, Congress enacts legislation which changes the tax code to the advantage of....Congress. Which keeps the pork barrel running over, and will earn the incumbents a majority fo the votes in their respective districts. Which means the upper two quintiles get to foot the bill. For those who have just arrived in the lower of those two, it means an increase in tax burden when we should be paying off the house and stuffing those bucks away for retirement.

For those in the lower three quintiles, it is a pure gimmie, especially at the bottom. Thus the votes are there to reelect the COngress and the rest of us can wish solidly in one hand while the other fills up. Human (political) nature.

As far as solutions go, not having one does not mean I cannot object to another. I do not have to be a brain surgeon to know that decapitation is not a viable solution to a brain tumor.

I'll agree that, " -- Most of the people --- have no idea what the plan means in reality. -- "

No one is making "100% paycheck promises". It just stands to reason that under a fairtax type plan, if you made $20 an hour before the plan, you would still make that much after enactment, -- and take home all of it.
Your employer would be happy because he no longer would have to pay his half of SS, or do all the withholding BS & bookwork.

Where do you get this bit about taking "-- a 20-30% cut in gross wages (takehome pay) " -- ?

Thank you for your input.