Dear phil_will1,
"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?"
Could it be that I'm trying to pre-empt the argument that would run like this: "Oh, if we repeal the 16th amendment, then some elements of a transition, which might require the authority granted by the 16th amendment, would become unconstitutional! Oh, heavens no! We CAN'T repeal the 16th amendment first, because we NEED the 16th amendment during the transition!"
As far as I'm concerned, the income tax can end at midnight, and the NRST can begin at one second after midnight.
But if folks think we need a transition period, I'm merely pointing out that we have the ability to make one.
As well, my understanding is that there are large numbers of transitiion rules already contemplated in the NRST legislation. It may be that some of those transition rules may require a constitutional transition period for them to actually be constitutional. I don't really know.
If not, let's NOT have a transition period. Just make the amendment say, "After one year from the ratification of this article," and align the start-date of the NRST to be the day after.
It must really suck for you that you feel the need to impute evil motives to anyone who disagrees with you. The folks I've known like this were friends who got sucked into cults like the Moonies and the Scientologists.
Your assumption of evil motives on my part adds nothing to the debate except distrust of you.
sitetest
"As well, my understanding is that there are large numbers of transitiion rules already contemplated in the NRST legislation."
Your understanding is incorrect. There is only one transition rule and that is for a credit for inventory which has the imbedded taxes of the old system built in.
"It must really suck for you that you feel the need to impute evil motives to anyone who disagrees with you. The folks I've known like this were friends who got sucked into cults like the Moonies and the Scientologists.
Your assumption of evil motives on my part adds nothing to the debate except distrust of you."
"Evil motives" is your characterization, not mine. I merely pointed out that we approach this from totally opposite perspectives. As a FairTax supporter, I want to see the most politically practical approach taken to ensuring that a sales tax replaces - permanently - the horribly antiquated and inefficient tax system we now have. As an opponent of the FairTax (and an apologist for the current system), you want to see the most political roadblocks put in the path of the FairTax that can be constructed. "Evil" in this context is very subjective and not relevent to the discussion. The fact that we have different motives, however, is very relevent.