Some other reasons to add to your list. Of course, these would be some reasons to NOT have a "fair tax":
51. It encourages a "black-market" un-taxed economy.
52. It makes it very easy for some taxpayers to "cheat" -- thereby increasing the tax burden on honest taxpayers.
53. It will probably decrease consumption.
54. Poor taxpayers would pay substantially more tax,
unless a mammoth "rebate bureaucracy" is established.
55. There is no proof that the "rebate bureaucracy" would be more competenet or smaller or less expensive than the IRS is 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.
57. The income tax wouldn't "go away" anyway. So we would have both: an income tax AND a consumption tax.
58. etc..
51. It encourages a "black-market" un-taxed economy.
Interesting that the income payroll tax seems to be able to do that very nicely already. When all it takes to evade an income tax is to not report the income. Hiding out among 120 million taxpayers for the IRS to track down an check on evading income and payroll taxes today is easier than evading a retail sales tax anyday.
52. It makes it very easy for some taxpayers to "cheat" -- thereby increasing the tax burden on honest taxpayers.
Lets see to make a living off of an retail sales tax one must have a business large enough to attract customers and saletax enforcement types. Not a very good prospect for significant cheating, considering that to attract customers to such an enterprize they have to offer lower total prices to compete with legal sales, and operating without business certification means purchasing goods and services for use of the business means paying the retail tax further decreasing the profit potential of such cheating. Not too good a deal for the risk of getting caught it looks to me.
On the otherhand, the income tax it replace only requires failing to report cash transactions to evade as above.
Hmmm, yer right lets stick with the income tax so we can play with the IRS, the odds are better at not getting caught.
53. It will probably decrease consumption.
At least until savings and investment pick up driving up productivity advancements and increasing income to savers and investors as well as providing downward pressure on prices through increased competition. Seems to me that an overall increase in purchasing power as opposed to ever losing it would be a plus not a negative to any economy. Especially taking into consideration that remove the tax burdens from business open competition in foreign trade in US exports and invites new industry to locate in the US rather than drive it out.
Increasing opertunity for jobs and income rarely is a cause for decrease in the real value of consumption.
54. Poor taxpayers would pay substantially more tax,
unless a mammoth "rebate bureaucracy" is established.
Lets see, Social Security manages to provide checks to a rather large portion of the U.S. households today, no reason why they can't track their own SSN data and disburse fixed payments to all households for the amount sales tax rebate based on tax rate times the HHS povertylevel.
Seems to cover all taxpayers well, tax on the purchases of the poor (below povertylevel) would net out to zero while anyone spending more than povertylevel would see an net tax based on their expenditure above that line.
No tracking of income or expenditure required, just disbursment to know SS# holders. Necessary bureaucracy and infra-structure already there, net increase minimal.
55. There is no proof that the "rebate bureaucracy" would be more competenet or smaller or less expensive than the IRS is now.
Lets see, all that is required is sending a check to each household based on the number of SS# holders in that household. Feat accomplished by an already existing agency that pretty much does that already known as the Social Security Administration.
56. As that "rebate bureaucracy" would be disbursing rather than collecting dollars, it would be more prone to corruption than the IRS is now.
Sending out dollars on the basis of household size rather than shaking taxpayers down for dollars that folks tend to hide is somehow more corrupting. Let me think on that a while. Hmmm, danged can't seem to find a handle there.
57. The income tax wouldn't "go away" anyway. So we would have both: an income tax AND a consumption tax.
Lets see the income tax hasn't gone away in the last century, the constitution empowers congress with the power to lay and collect excises and duties of all kinds including sales taxes if it so chooses, and we don't have both today after a century of income tax. Wonder why.
Some how there seems to be a disconnect in the logic there.
If there is enough electorate interest in tax reform to throw out the existing income tax to replace it with a retail sales tax, you can believe there is enough public support to keep it that way just as there has been enough to prevent the institution of consumption tax with income taxes for the last 90+ years.
Do you think there is not a lot of etc., in today's system? That is why it is so long and so complicated, it is full of etc. The K-Street lobbyists exist to impose etc. on the rest of us. How else does a code get to be 60,000 pages long and weigh more than Big Bertha? It is full of etc.
The Fair Tax is not perfect because people are not perfect. It is not immune to abuse because people are imperfect, especially many who are seduced by the spotlight and ego building perks of politics. But it will start out without all the etc. that is in the present system and we can try hard to keep it that way.
To cling to the bad until the perfect comes along is a fools game, and I know you are not a fool.
51. It encourages a "black-market" un-taxed economy.
No tax system can or will eliminate tax evasion but the fair Tax can reduce it dramatically( http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.html#33).
52. It makes it very easy for some taxpayers to "cheat" -- thereby increasing the tax burden on honest taxpayers.
This is the same as question #51. See answer for #51
53. It will probably decrease consumption.
The Fair Tax will increase consumption. People will keep 100% of their paychecks. Typically people spend more as their income grows. Consequently more money will be pumped into the economy (http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.html#26
54. Poor taxpayers would pay substantially more tax, unless a mammoth "rebate bureaucracy" is established.
Poorer people will pay less taxes because they the less money people have the less they tend to spend. Consequently the will be taxed less with the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.html#48). Also all taxpayers, including the poor will get a rebate for the taxes on necessities up to the poverty levelhttp://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.html#3
55. There is no proof that the "rebate bureaucracy" would be more competent or smaller or less expensive than the IRS is now.
The bureaucracy is already in place to collect the tax. The U.S. Treasury would ultimately be in charge of collecting the tax (http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.html#10).
56. As that "rebate bureaucracy" would be disbursing rather than collecting dollars, it would be more prone to corruption than the IRS is now.
Congress is and would be in charge of disbursing tax dollars regardless of the tax collection system.
57. The income tax wouldn't "go away" anyway. So we would have both: an income tax AND a consumption tax.
Fair Tax supporters demand the 16th Amendment be repealed and would never support any other plan (http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.html#38
58. etc..
etc??? What kind of a reason is that?
I suggest you read information on the Fair Tax http://www.fairtax.org before you make anymore statements.