[lucysmom]

Your claim that taxpayers would buy things by bribing a merchant with, say, a 5% bribe holds little credence since the seller would under the law still be liable for the full 23% tax. Why should he risk his business for a measly 5% to help you (or anyone else for that matter) when the 23% is not paid for by the merchant but by the buyer - and the merchant has agreed in writing to collect the tax and is paid to do so. That would be theft of government funds.

That presupposes the sale is made by a retailer/merchant with more to lose than to gain.

Claiming there will be large scale black market activity is all you've done. No one has ever shown this to be a real consideration as most folks are fairly honest...

The fact that so many people immediately think increased black market activity when they hear the FairTax scheme rates indicates that it is a REAL CONSIDERATION. The fact that you recognize the potential is irrelevant.

...and, after all, their effective FairTax rate will be lower than the income tax rates they now pay. Due to that it's far more likely that any black market or any other sort of tax evasion is being done now since it is more profitable to the "doer".

What is the "doer"?

There you go again - the tax rate is so low, people will pay. Somewhere on this thread some FairTaxer has claimed that having to fork over the FairTax with every purchase will incite "the people" to rise up and force government into responsible reduced spending. Those two positions contradict eachother. If the rates are so low that people will pay rather than seek a tax evading alternative, they are also so low that there will be little interest in reigning in government spending.

To accomplish the FairTax manipulation, the tax has to be sufficiently high to motivate people to action. What FairTaxers can't control is the action people will take.

[pigdog]

"The fact that so many people immediately think increased black market activity when they hear the FairTax scheme rates indicates that it is a REAL CONSIDERATION. The fact that you recognize the potential is irrelevant."

It's not me that keeps regurgitating "black market" all the time (like its a furball) as though it were some serious consideration (or REAL CONSIDERATION as you put it). It certainly is not.

To sell legally the merchant must obtain a license to do so and this means the entity is subject to audit and must comply with the terms of the law or suffer the consequences. If he chooses to sell illegally, he's relatively easy pickings for the state tax folks.

Neither you nor anyone else has ever presented a serious study that defines any sort of "black market" activity as being anything but a minor amount financially (if that). And a seller intentionally violating the law will have many tools arrayed against him.

And there certainly aren't "so many" people thinking black market as you claim. The only ones I notice doing so are those like you who are trying to find any sort of tool to bash the FairTax with whether valid or not ... and not doing too well, I might add.

"Those two positions contradict eachother. "

The FairTax effective rate will be low for most people - lower that their income tax rate, but many of these taxpayers - and many of them will not have paid taxes before - will certainly notice the very obvious tax amount and some percentage of those will seek political action. There is no contradiction at all. Both things are true.