Posted on 09/02/2005 11:01:09 AM PDT by pigdog
Comment: 50 Reasons I Support the FairTax (How many reasons can you give for supporting the present IRS tax system?)
Those Who Know the Facts Love the Fair Tax www.fairtax.org
FairTax and Individuals and Families (Family-friendly tax reform)
1. It allows workers to keep 100% of their pay, with nothing withheld the IRS or for Social Security and Medicare payments.
2. It is revenue neutral with the present income tax system, funding the federal budget at current levels.
3. It shifts the tax to consumption. Records show that consumption is more stable than income, therefore the tax revenue stream is likely to be a more stable and predictable amount.
4. It is progressive, a “prebate” of the tax amount up to the poverty level is given to everyone. This means that those spending below the poverty level have a net gain because the “prebate” exceeds the amount paid in taxes. (Under the present system the working poor pay the payroll tax even if they get a full refund of income tax withheld.)
5. It doesn’t tax pre-owned items – clothes, cars, homes. Only new items are taxed when sold by a business to an individual.
6. It is expected to remove an average of 22% of the cost of American made goods by removing the built-in payroll tax (the other 7.65% of earnings that employers pay), corporate income tax, and other business taxes that are now passed to consumers as an “embedded" tax of approximately 22% due to the cascading of income and payroll taxes paid by U.S. employers, at every step of production, to the U.S. Treasury. Competition will cause prices to fall by approximately that amount, on average.
7. It allows families to save more for home ownership, education, and retirement. An average family making $50,000 will have $7,500 more spendable income.
8. It removes the need for formal accounts of the 401(k), IRA, HSA, etc., varieties. Anyone, rich or poor, will be able to set up any kind of savings or investment account without regard to taxes or the government. No special knowledge of tax law is necessary.
9. It makes educational tuition a tax-free expenditure of tax-free income.
10. It eliminates the income tax and the IRS. Members of Congress and the public overwhelmingly agree that the current internal revenue code is cumbersome, intrusive, coercive, and inefficient.
11. It eliminates 90% of the cost of compliance. American families and American businesses waste an estimated $250 – $600 billion per year (and countless hours of time) doing the paperwork necessary to comply with the current tax code. That is roughly $1,000 – $2,000 annually for every man, woman and child in the U.S. (Businesses typically pass their tax bills and compliance costs on to the consumer, i.e., individuals and families.)
12. It’s simple, unambiguous, and certain, the opposite of the current tax code, 60,044 pages and counting.
13. It assures that no American will find, at the end of the year, a need to get a loan to pay taxes as an alternative to penalties, interest, or cheating.
14. The broader tax base comprises everyone spending money in the U.S., including the ten percent of our economy (an estimated $1 trillion) that today is underground or under the table. Under the FairTax, the illegal drug dealer will pay his tax just like the rest of us when he buys his sunglasses, BMW, and other items, as will those who work for cash and undocumented immigrants, all of whom receive government and societal benefits.
15. It encourages work by letting workers keep 100% of their earnings and giving a rebate, in addition, making the notion that “the more you work, the more money you have”, a reality, unlike the current system where welfare is lost when you go to work, so the first dollars earned after taxes just offset what a welfare recipient is currently receiving in assistance, so working is perceived as disadvantageous.
16. It allows more of the lower income families to become home owners by allowing a second job income above their current income (all tax free) to be applied to a mortgage. Money for down payments for homes is also saved totally tax free, causing it to accumulate faster.
17. It has the result that all lending in America will be at the equivalent of today’s tax exempt interest rates, which are 25%-30% less than today’s taxable home mortgage interest rates. This will create a huge boom in housing purchases and allow existing homeowners to refinance and reduce their cost of homeownership substantially.
18. It allows families to retain farms and businesses in the hands of those who built them through the elimination of the death tax.
19. It allows families to give tax-free assistance to one another by eliminating the gift tax.
20. It gives individuals (and businesses) the right to donate as much as they want to in a given year to charitable causes, without concern for exceeding an allowed limit on giving.
21. It encourages individuals to self-insure, making the health system more direct-pay (no 3rd party pay), thus bringing costs down.
22. It puts an end to the anxiety for honest taxpayers that begins soon after January 1 for most of use, culminating in wondering whether we’ve claimed everything we legally could and nothing we shouldn’t, all without raising questions at the IRS. It makes April 15 just another day. (Perhaps it will be a holiday after the FairTax is enacted!) FairTax and Social Security and Medicare
23. It eliminates the regressive payroll tax that hurts the poor. Currently, every one of us is taxed a minimum of 7.65% on our first-dollar of wages up to $90,000 (the cap for FICA, not Medicare), if we earn that much. It provides funding for Social Security and Medicare at a level equal to or greater than the present.
24. It provides that all 290 million Americans and 51 million visiting tourists fund Social Security and Medicare with their purchases. Today only 110 million workers fund these programs via deductions from their paychecks.
25. It assures that the wealthiest Americans will be voluntarily helping to fund social security with every last dollar they spend above the poverty level. Today, earnings are subject to FICA taxes only up to $90,000. The wealthiest Americans therefore do not pay into the system above that amount. If their earnings are from investments, no earnings fund the Social Security system.
FairTax and the Economy
26. It increases investment in business by eliminating the capital gains tax.
27. It allows for better planning by businesses, because they no longer have to consider tax implications for everything they do.
28. It makes higher employment or better compensation possible in the small business sector, where today it costs approximately three dollars in compliance costs to pay one dollar in payroll and income taxes.
29. It makes American products more competitive overseas by removing the embedded tax from them, thus lowering the prices of our exports, which compensates for low foreign wages.
30. By making our exports more competitive overseas, it lowers our balance of trade deficit and increases employment at home.
31. By removing the embedded tax from them, it makes American products more competitive with imports here, compensating for the low cost of imported products from which taxes have been removed before exportation to the U.S.
32. It encourages investment in companies located in the U.S., thus providing a home for money already in the U.S. and attracting more. The U.S. will be the most attractive tax-free haven in the world for doing business.
33. It encourages repatriation to the U.S. of money held by U.S. individuals and companies now in foreign countries, with no tax consequence. American companies will return from offshore and overseas.
34. It results in a windfall profit, likely to be invested in job-making businesses, for many of those holding taxable corporate high interest bonds at the time of passage of FairTax, since the bonds will not be taxed under FairTax. (Currently, a higher interest rate is usually paid to entice investors to buy the corporate bonds rather than go with the lower interest, but tax free, municipal bonds.)
35. It results in Federal Reserve rates being based on current consumption, which is rather stable, instead of future earnings, which are less predictable, resulting in surer inflation prevention.
36. It reduces production costs for farmers and other subsidized businesses, leading to a reduction in subsidies, thus reducing the federal budget.
37. It moves many individuals now providing tax advice (return preparation, advice, accounting, planning, and records maintenance) into an expansive economy where they will be producing goods and services. There they can add to the standard of living of all Americans and likely earn more than they do currently, instead of shuffling paper for the government (and not contributing anything economically to society).
FairTax and Churches and Non-profit Organizations
38. It frees churches and other non-profit organizations from the expense of filing tax returns and paying their half of Social Security and Medicare payments for employees. There will no longer be any 501(c) (3), 501(c) (4), etc., non-profit tax status, because there will be no more tax to be exempt from.
39. It restores to churches and non-profit organizations the 1st Amendment right to engage in free speech, without fear of losing their tax-free status. FairTax and Rights and Freedoms
40. It restores the 4th Amendment, protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures, from which the IRS presently is exempt.
41. It restores the 5th Amendment, which guarantees the right to due process. Under current systems the IRS has their own courts with their own set of rules not included in the 5th.
42. It restores individual privacy. The government no longer needs to know where you work, what you are earning, and what you are doing with it.
43. It relieves citizens of the risk of facing the shift in burden of proof that is so common with the current system, i.e., the taxpayer is guilty unless innocence can be proved, but even the IRS staff sometimes gives conflicting interpretations.
44. It eliminates the need to have a "marriage" clarification declaring who you live with, as that no longer has any bearing at all on a state or federal sales tax.
45. It eliminates the need for courts to decide which divorced parent gets to take the tax deduction for children.
46. Without FICA to pay, most states, counties, municipalities, and school districts will see a large increase in their state budget revenues, additionally lowering the overall tax burden (State & Federal) for most Americans.
47. It eliminates the administrative costs incurred by states in collection of state sales taxes because states will piggyback the state tax collection onto the national tax collection, for which they are compensated by the FairTax ¼% administrative cost give-back. (Retailers receive an equal amount for collecting the FairTax.)
FairTax and Politics<\b>
48. It cleans up a major flaw in campaign financing, eliminating campaign donations for "tax favors".
49. It eliminates wrangling in Congress over tax cuts, the tax code, and who is or is not paying a fair share of the tax bill, providing more time for debate on more productive issues.
FairTax and the Environment
50. It’s good for the environment. Reportedly, the IRS sends out 8 billion pages of forms and instructions each year. Laid end to end, they would stretch 28 times around the earth. Nearly 300,000 trees are cut down yearly to produce the paper for all the IRS forms and instructions. Also, since it taxes only new items, it would encourage buying tax-free pre-owned cars, clothes, furniture, houses, etc. Reuse is good for the environment, too.
Kenneth J. Van Dellen (with help from friends)
Daer phil_will1,
"You have posted how many anti-FairTax posts on how many threads because you think the FairTax is a 'distraction'?"
Yup. It distracts from real, and more pressing tax and spending problems and issues, like Social Security privatization, what to do about Medicare, and how to reduce government spending in general.
I spend a lot of my posts trying to relate that message.
And relating that the NRST is flawed if the problem of outsized federal control of GDP is not addressed first.
sitetest
At the same time, FairTax proponents totally ignore misstatements and obvious falsehoods that are made by other proponents, making the debate too muddy to even follow.
I don't know about "evil" but there are plenty of disparaging comments made not about the points that someone raises, but about the motivation for daring to question the Plan at all. It is an "anything but the IRS" mentality and I think there are many possible plans that would be worse than what we have now, so I'm not willing to jump on the "Anything But" bandwagon.
Are you sure this is what is required as opposed to the same as done now? I confess that I don't know the details of filling for a rebate of taxes paid. I will try to find it but since you already seem to know perhaps you can guide me.
Dear RobFromGa,
Actually, it's phil_will1 that imputed evil intentions to me, with this comment:
"So you want a period of several years in which we have both an income tax and a sales tax? Could it be that the reason that you want that is that you know it would kill the FairTax politically by validating the very fear you pretend to address?"
Here, ol' phil states that I take a position - providing a constitutionally-mandated transition period - for the purpose of harming the implementation of the NRST, rather than for the actual purpose - to make sure that the income tax can't be eventually resurrected, because the 16th amendment will be finally repealed.
From my own perspective, and you may judge from yours, Rob, it seems to me that this is a low tactic, that if I and others lose the argument straight up, and the NRST is passed as is, in the current environment, that I would do all that I could to sabotage its implementation so that people will then reject it.
I suppose that phil_will1 thinks that is an acceptable way to play the game.
I don't. I view it as deceitful, even perhaps unpatriotic.
If a majority of Americans supported this mess, and the Congress passed it into law, and the President signed it, I'd do what I could, as a loyal American, to make it work.
To do less is kinda skunky.
At least that's my view.
To be accused of anything else impugns my integrity.
sitetest
This information would be on the receipts themselves that were presented for reimbursement, or in the books kept by the retail establishment to document tax-exempt purchases.
I don't know how it will work exactly. When I first asked the question a month ago, I got a number of answers ranging from:
Businesses have to pay the tax like anyone else (wrong) to
You show a cetificate to the retail establishment ( basically a 30% off card) and they don't charge the tax and report the transaction to the HappyTax Compliance Center. to
You pay the Tax, and get a rebate later since you should never have been charged to begin with.
No matter what way they do it, it is going to have to be monitored in an extremely aggressive fashion to keep evasion at a reasonable level. 30% is a large incentive and will need to be guarded to keep people from creating fake businesses just to save the 30%.
The people who are hurt by this are NOT the cheaters, but the regular honest business owner like me who is subjected to these intrusive compliance methods.
The FairTax crowd claims that:
A. Income Taxes are Bad and
B. Politicians must be taken out of Tax Law because they create Unfair Tax Codes;
But they are unwilling to MAKE SURE that Income Taxes are DEAD before instituting a NRST. So, they are trusting the very politicians they say we can't trust.
You have made many good points on these threads. I agree with you that the Expense side of the Tax ledger is where the most imminent crises are, starting with SocSec. I think that this is Priority #1 as well, but this effort has lost steam unfortunately.
Dear RobFromGa,
My guess is that it will be a mix of the second and third.
Where one deals regularly with a business, one will likely have an open account, and one will file a copy of one's sales tax and use license that permits one to buy exempt from the tax.
Where one deals occasionally with a business, and where they're set up to handle it, one will be able to present a copy at the point of sale to buy exempt.
For businesses that don't want to keep those records, or where the level of personnel may not be appropriate, or the method of transaction may make it inappropriate, one will have to pay the tax, get a receipt, and file for reimbursement. Clearly, the part of the code that you cited gives the option to the retailer to accept or reject the tax exemption certification.
I figure that places like drug stores, perhaps grocery stores, five and dime stores, and some other retailers that deal mostly with consumers will not want to deal, at the point of sale, with this. They don't have to, now.
I think places like gas stations may find it difficult to sell both ways, and thus may require that one pays the tax and files for reimbursement. However, I could see ways around it at places like gas stations, perhaps through state-issued cards with magnetic strips that one could use to make tax-free purchases. However, I'm not sure all states would be willing to implement that plan, and I'm not sure of the effects of having some states implement the plan, and others refusing.
It gets kind of hairy, when you think of all the possible different actors that are involved (the retailer, the retailer's franchisor - like Exxon or Shell, the company that writes the software for the point of sale equipment, the 50 states, the federal government, different credit card companies [you could implement it through credit card accounts set up for business purposes only - although that creates a whole 'nother compliance issue], etc.).
And then, for the first bunch of years, all these folks would then have to incorporate all the changes to the law that would pop up every year until the new code settled down.
I think eventually, it would be possible to handle most of this electronically, but it might take a while.
Certainly, it doesn't seem that the legislation proposes any mandated point-of-sale system to handle the specifics of these transactions.
sitetest
Dear RobFromGa,
"I hear you but he didn't actually call you 'evil' he just feels like you might be willing to use procedural maneuvers to KILL the FairTax, not to harm it once it was already passed."
I don't think so. He was talking about the period AFTER a repeal amendment would have been enacted. I'd suggested that if we need a transition period, we could even write that into the repeal amendment, much like a transition period was written into the 18th amendment, as I cited in #65.
At this point, if we had a transition period built into the amendment, we COULD have both taxes - and that's what he's referring to.
However, in retrospect, his comment doesn't really make sense.
Once the repeal amendment had been passed, even if both an income tax and an NRST were both up and running simultaneously, it wouldn't matter. The transition period, mandated in the constitutional amendment, would run out, and that would be that!
Thus, the only way to make any sense at all of the comment is that perhaps my motive was to create a failure of confidence in the new system. That would be a rotten thing to do, and it would be to harm the NRST after it was already passed.
But, I'm not sure to what end. To another constitutional amendment, to re-authorized the income tax?? Gee whiz!! I can scarcely see the repeal amendment getting through! I can't even imagine a reauthorization amendment getting through!
In fact, that's why I'm pretty insistent about repeal of the 16th amendment. I'm pretty sure you will be able, at some point in the future, get 218 Congresscritters and 51 Senators, and one dumb-ass President to reinstate the income tax.
I find it ludicrous that you could get 290 Congresscritters, 67 Senators, and THIRTY-EIGHT STATE LEGISLATURES to pass an amendment re-authorizing the income tax.
I probably should have ignored from phil_will1's remark because it was incoherent.
sitetest
I'm not the one "misrepresenting" the FairTax, Robbie-san. It is you with your idiotic "letters to Santa".
I've yet to see any explanation that make sense that explains how wage-earners do not receive their full pay (as you claim).
But you just go on merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, misrepresenting down the stream.
This was not his claim. I could explain it to you for the 100th time, but it really won't help. You will continue to misrepresent everything. You lie about what Jorgenson says. You lie about what I said. And you lie about what Rob says. I think I see a pattern here.
Dear RobFromGa,
"But they are unwilling to MAKE SURE that Income Taxes are DEAD before instituting a NRST. So, they are trusting the very politicians they say we can't trust."
Yes, that's true.
But even worse is the assumption that the politicians that can't be trusted with the income tax can be trusted not to manipulate the NRST. Yeah, right!
"You have made many good points on these threads. I agree with you that the Expense side of the Tax ledger is where the most imminent crises are, starting with SocSec."
Thanks.
"I think that this is Priority #1 as well, but this effort has lost steam unfortunately."
I wish the folks with all this NRST fervor would wake up and realize that our country is on-track for one really outrageous economic trainwreck if we don't fix Social Security, and pretty much fix it now.
In fact, we're going to have the trainwreck, at this point, no matter what we do. The only thing we can do is take steps to have the collision take place at lower speeds, so that our economy isn't destroyed by the wreck.
I wish Messrs. Linder and Boortz had written a book about a way to privatize Social Security so that folks would be able to take all that dough and put it toward building up their own financial assets, their own retirement nest eggs, rather than feeding it in to a grand Ponzi scheme.
Of course, in Social Security reform, there is no free lunch, and for my generation and one or two generations after me, there will be some pain.
Oh well.
sitetest
So now you've decided to misrepresent what the 75 economists say???? Unreal!!
And you routinely castigate and denigrate FairTax supporters claiming that THEY are "misrepresenting"??? LOL!
`SEC. 501. MONTHLY REPORTS AND PAYMENTS. `(a) Tax Reports and Filing Dates- `(1) IN GENERAL- On or before the 15th day of each month, each person who is-- `(A) liable to collect and remit the tax imposed by this subtitle by reason of section 103(a), or `(B) liable to pay tax imposed by this subtitle which is not collected pursuant to section 103(a), shall submit to the appropriate sales tax administering authority (in a form prescribed by the Secretary) a report relating to the previous calendar month. `(2) CONTENTS OF REPORT- The report required under paragraph (1) shall set forth-- `(A) the gross payments referred to in section 101, `(B) the tax collected under chapter 4 in connection with such payments, `(C) the amount and type of any credit claimed, and `(D) other information reasonably required by the Secretary or the sales tax administering authority for the administration, collection, and remittance of the tax imposed by this subtitle.
(A) the gross payments referred to in section 101,
In your case I would suppose this would mean a statement of the total amount spent on taxable items that you used in your business. That would be no different from what you are doing now in listing total expenses. I can't think of any normal sales expense that wouldn't be taxed though there may be some.
(B) the tax collected under chapter 4 in connection with such payments,
Sounds straight forward enough and the amount will be on all receipts labeled as such.
(C) the amount and type of any credit claimed, and
That would be the total amount of taxes paid and the type of credit claimed would be business to business expenses, probably a multiple choice code.
`(D) other information reasonably required by the Secretary or the sales tax administering authority for the administration, collection, and remittance of the tax imposed by this subtitle.
That seems to be no different from what is in place today. The IRS makes inquiries all the time.
I honestly see no increase in difficulty. In fact, the NRST reporting seems less difficult.
Keep in mind, that with no income tax your salesmen are reporting their expenses for your own corporate bookkeeping needs, not for your tax deduction purposes.
If the elimination of embedded tax related expenses keeps prices the same, your salesmen will be spending no more than they are now. That means your refunds will be more like "found money" than recovering what you have spent.
Rather than reenter that argument let us assume prices will increase by the tax amount. The absence of the income and withholding taxes will bring you back to level. Isn't that agreed to by all? The same advantages as listed above will again accrue.
I understand that if you have a satisfactory thing going now you don't want to rock the boat. However, once we get accustomed to thinking one way, as we have been doing for over 70 years with the income tax, it is hard to imagine things without the basis for those thoughts. If you feel that you are doing quite well right now and have been able to minimize your taxes to an acceptable level, maybe even zero, then seeing any benefit to a change will be difficult.
That is where it is necessary to see the overall effect of such a tax on the economy and how it will benefit you with more business and retainable income than you have now. In order not to see that one has to bring up the objections we see here from you and others. I don't impugn any ones motives. I am just saying that to not see how a sales tax would be superior to an income tax as far as the economy is concerned, and that a rising tide lifts all boats, one must have the objections you guys do.
When I refer to What Karl Marx said about the stealth aspect of an income tax in taking over a society, I am not accusing anyone of favoring Communism, I am simply saying that an income tax structure has so many tentacles as to permeate all our society and guide many of our actions. It gives the government more control over our daily lives than we want them to have.
When I point to what Alan Keyes says about how an income tax eventually deadens our soul and makes us less likely to rest the government, I am not saying any one is dumb, only that the stealth aspect of the tax is working.
We know that through a variety of tax angles, today about half the population pays taxes directly. The rest are subsidized by the government and pay taxes only though increased prices as consumers, those much maligned embedded taxe related costs. Whether I can explain it in a way for all to see or not, most economists agree they are there.
The NRST levels the playing field so that all are participating in the tax base equally. None can play the tax game to advantage over others the way it is now proposed. All are paying for the government rather than some riding and some pulling.
I think if you were to really see the advantages of such a system to you personally, you would be able to put those differences you see in perspective and know they are either minimal or nonexistent.
Either it will pass or it won't.Not before it goes through committee and it hasn't. That's where all the changes happen...Be careful what you wish for.
Too, too phunnie, Looey. Check post #78 before running your mouth off. It's been posted for a long time.Still waiting big mouth Phunniehog.Perhaps you just to read phaster???
Where do your 75 economists say that employees would get 100% paychecks and 20% (or any percent) price reductions?...
He does not withhold it from his employee and has no obligation to give it to him.Where, except at AFFT is that written?
That must be recovered in his selling price.No. The employer half is paid on behalf of the employee. The Fairtax rate is calculated to replace the employer half to be paid by the employee in sales taxes. The employer would not be paying sales taxes, the employee would.Would you agree with that?
If the employee doesn't recover the employer half it would be a windfall to the employer at the employee's expense. Retail prices could only be reduced on domestic produced goods...that's not very much if any.
`(d) OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE RATE- The old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate shall be determined by the Social Security Administration. The old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate shall be that sales tax rate which is necessary to raise the same amount of revenue that would have been raised by imposing a 12.4 percent tax on the Social Security wage base (including self-employment income) as determined in accordance with chapter 21 of the Internal Revenue Code most recently in effect prior to the enactment of this Act. The rate shall be determined using actuarially sound methodology and announced at least 6 months prior to the beginning of the Calendar year for which it applies.Add it up. That puts the entire 15.3% burden on the employee/consumer.`(e) HOSPITAL INSURANCE RATE- The hospital insurance rate shall be determined by the Social Security Administration. The hospital insurance rate shall be that sales tax rate which is necessary to raise the same amount of revenue that would have been raised by imposing a 2.9 percent tax on the Medicare wage base (including self-employment income) as determined in accordance with chapter 21 of the Internal Revenue Code most recently in effect prior to the enactment of this Act. The rate shall be determined using actuarially sound methodology and announced at least 6 months prior to the beginning of the calendar year for which it applies.
Naysayers that agree:
Pondman88 in Post 8
It's akin to legalizing pot....makes perfect sense, but ain't gonna happen
American Quilter in Post 9
Great idea, but the govt will never return that much of our freedom. Our leaders have us right where they want us--shackled to their monstrously bloated spending programs.
Sonny M in Post 13
I'm a realist not an closed eyed idealist, maybe I am to cynical, but reality is reality
Leftcoastlibertarian in Post 14
The IRS will not go away, ever. The Govt is self serving and self propagating and NEVER gets smaller, only bigger.
The "it will never happen" argument is not an argument against a NST. It is part of a much larger problem in this country.
51. It encourages a "black-market" un-taxed economy.
and we don't have that now?
52. It makes it very easy for some taxpayers to "cheat" -- thereby increasing the tax burden on honest taxpayers.
and we don't have that now?
53. It will probably decrease consumption.
How?
54. Poor taxpayers would pay substantially more tax,
unless a mammoth "rebate bureaucracy" is established
Poor taxpayers should pay for government services at the same rate as any other taxpayer. The "mammoth rebate bureaucracy" is already established.
55. There is no proof that the "rebate bureaucracy" would be more competenet or smaller or less expensive than the IRS is now.
Every American with a SS number would get a check. The same check, the same amount. Sounds easier to me than the what the IRS is doing now.
56. As that "rebate bureaucracy" would be disbursing rather than collecting dollars, it would be more prone to corruption than the IRS is now.
How?
57. The income tax wouldn't "go away" anyway. So we would have both: an income tax AND a consumption tax.
That is my only concern .
So there is already one built in loophole? How many more will follow? What makes tuition so special?How is that a loophole. Investment in business is tax-free under a NST. Most people don't go to college simply to become more informed. They go to increase their earning power(an investment in business).
But instead of making these arguments, fair taxers insist that this is some kind of miracle cure for everything.I am a "fair taxer". I never make any claims of a miracle cure but there are economic advantages to a NST. No one can predict the future but making anything more understandable to every citizen has to help. I want a way to collect taxes from every citizen which doesn't penalize success. The name calling, on both sides, doesn't move this argument anywhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.