Dear phil_will1,
"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."
No, first, what you're suggesting as a device to prevent the NRST is an underhanded action. Thus, yes, you impute evil motives to me, as you suggest that I would do evil to defeat the NRST.
It's interesting that you don't recognize that you suggested that I'd be willing to commit an underhanded act to defeat the NRST. Perhaps you don't view it as underhanded? That would say a lot.
Second, you impute other motives that don't exist.
I'm not an apologist for the current system. But neither am I a proponent of the NRST in the current environment.
I don't believe it actually attacks the real problems we face regarding funding the federal government. I believe it's a distraction from the real problems.
As to "transition rules," well, as simple as they may be in principle, in my discussions with NRSTers, I found that they could not explain to me how they would work in practice in every case that I presented.
The income tax is pretty simple in principle, too. You have income, you pay taxes. The details are what's tricky.
sitetest
"No, first, what you're suggesting as a device to prevent the NRST is an underhanded action. Thus, yes, you impute evil motives to me, as you suggest that I would do evil to defeat the NRST."
The terms "underhanded" and "evil" are ones which you interjected into the thread, not me. Your attempts to spin this as a "good vs evil" confrontation are very weak.
Give it up.
"I don't believe it actually attacks the real problems we face regarding funding the federal government. I believe it's a distraction from the real problems."
That statement is not credible. You have posted how many anti-FairTax posts on how many threads because you think the FairTax is a "distraction"? If it is, it has certainly distracted you from more important things for some time now.
You may want to rethink that statement.