Pulling out the old "vested interest" card I see. I thought you were better than that. The people I know who oppose the FairTax mainly oppose it for one of two reasons: they think it looks unworkable and will or might lead to economic crisis, or they have paid income tax all their lives and don't wish to now start paying taxes as they spend the money.
re: "the current dysfunctional system" as you put it: our economic system is the envy of the entire world, and if weren't carrying half the world on our backs with our military and medical infrastructure (think CDC, etc) we would be in even better comparative shape. While the income tax hasn't created that economic miracle, it hasn't prevented it either.
So, "dysfunctional" is a mighty hard word to use when one is proposing an unproven FairTax plan that is full of obvious holes to describe a system that has allowed our economy to perform as well as it does.
"Pulling out the old "vested interest" card I see. "
And properly so since he may have seen you blast on another thread that clearly shows your own vested interest.
You merely pretend you wish to be the savior or all humanity from the "evils of the FairTax" and were whining on the other thread about doing well under the income tax and having to pay under the FairTax. That's what happen with you big spenders, you see. You may be able to protect some of your money under the income tax but you can't under the FairTax. Your bias is quite clear.
"....they think it looks unworkable and will or might lead to economic crisis,...."
And are they as oblivious to the economic challenges that we face under the status quo as you seem to be? (BTW that is a dead tipoff that someone has a hidden agenda - they only want to consider one side of the risk equation) You might want to at least feign interest in some of our more serious economic challenges (such as the trade deficit, federal budget deficit, the looming insolvency of Medicare and SS) that we face in order to not come across as someone who indeed does have a hidden agenda.
" or they have paid income tax all their lives and don't wish to now start paying taxes as they spend the money."
That is a legitimate concern for those who haven't studied the proposal and don't understand how the rebate protects lower and mid level consumers, or how the removal of the current system partially offsets the imposition of the sales tax, or how the expanded growth of the economy, as well as the removal of the tax burden from businesses increases the value of any equity holdings they may have.
I have met very few people who still opposed the FairTax on those two grounds once they have had a chance to understand the proposal better. I have, however, met quite a few people in the "real world" who make their living from some of the billions that we waste on compliance costs or who have some other angle going that makes them indifferent to the huge economic advantages, which even economists who don't support the FairTax acknowledge.
I have also met some who say that they believe they will be paying more taxes under the FT, but they still support it because it will be far better for the country in the long run. My view is that the only people who would pay more under the FairTax are those who enjoy extremely affluent lifestyles with high levels of consumption. Those people have the option of decreasing their lifestyle if their primary goal is tax minimization. Most of them won't do that, since they have worked hard to accumulate wealth and they feel that have the right to enjoy it. They aren't that price sensitive and they will have the means to benefit more than anyone from a greatly expanded economy.
The FairTax's critics on FR may be different; they may indeed have no vested interest in the perpetuation of the current system. However, their cowardly tactics and their continual hiding behind anonymnity makes me very skeptical.
I just love the argument that the professional economists who have studied the FairTax and produced estimates of its economic impact are either incompetent, dishonest, or both. In addition, I hear that economists can't be trusted to predict the economy, anyway. Only the anonymous bloggers on FR who have no professional reputations at stake, no verifiable economic qualifications can forecast the economic impact of the FairTax.
Right.
"So, 'dysfunctional' is a mighty hard word to use...."
You have a right to your opinion, just as I have a right to mine. (however, please check out my tagline) From my perspective, when you had an independent magazine, such as Money doing an annual test of the tax system in which they typically had almost as many answers relative to the taxes due as they have returns submitted, and these are from professional preparers, "dysfunctional" doesn't seem too harsh at all. "Disgrace" is the term used to describe the IRC in the 1976 Presidential campaign and I don't consider that excessively harsh, either. The system is far worse today than it was in 1976 from the standpoint of its complexity and the enormous burden it places on our economy. When you can call the IRS for technical assistance and have a high probability of getting a wrong answer, and when you rely on that wrong answer in preparing your return, you can be held responsible (including punitive fines, penalties and interest) while the IRS assumes no responsibility whatsoever for providing an incorrect answer, "dysfunctional" seems pretty mild to me.
"....an unproven FairTax plan that is full of obvious holes to describe a system that has allowed our economy to perform as well as it does."
Your bias is pretty blatant in this passage. The "obvious holes" are certainly no more serious than the inefficiencies and inequities of the current system. However, since the economy has managed to survive and, in some ways to thrive, under the current system, those problems are irrelevant in your view of the tax world. You continue to forecast some kind of economic calamity under the FairTax in spite of the mountain of evidence to the contrary.
One other thing exposes your bias. I have read your profile and I respect the compassion that you exhibit toward those who suffer from addiction to alcohol. On the other hand, you have been surprisingly (and inconsistently) indifferent to those whose lives have been turned upside down by an out of control government agency called the IRS. You have casually dismissed the opinions of those posting to the President's Tax Commission, referring to them as "IRS haters". Well, I am an IRS hater also, and a proud one at that. They are the most un-American federal agency in existence today and the closest thing that we have in this country to state sponsored terrorism. The fact that the terrorism is done financially, rather than with bombs, is not IMHO a hugely significant distinguishing feature.
I have known several people who have been put through the ringer for years. Some of these people were ultimately exonerated of any wrongdoing and all back taxes, penalties and interest were erased. However, I am not aware of a single case in which the IRS agreed to reimburse them for substantial amounts of money spent defending themselves, or to issue a public apology as a good faith attempt to help them restore their reputations in their communities. Just try suing the IRS because they shut down your business without substantial proof of any wrongdoing. The fact that you haven't been subjected to that doesn't mean it does not happen, and the fact that you are indifferent to it suggests that either you don't have a soul or you do have a hidden agenda. Given the compassion and empathy that you have displayed in other circumstances, I believe I know which is the case.