[Your Nightmare]

According to the same analysis your preferred VAT tax would also have the same rates. See appendix A.

Actually, that rate assumes the same level of evasion. A VAT is harder to evade than a NRST so the rate could be a little lower. But it's probably moot because I wouldn't expect to see a VAT recommended by the Panel.

[pigdog]

What??? NO VAT reco??? Surely you jest. Better go before the Panel by special appointment and set them square, Nightie.

And nowhere have I seen any sort of lucid description of why the same level of evasion as at present is used when that is clearly not the case at all. That's merely another of the Panel Staff's boo-boos (or bias; or lack of knowledge).

Don't you think it's pretty likely that the Panel will reco the FairTax and a mod to existing IT to eliminate the AMT, fiddle with rates (boosting some) eliminating many deductions, exclusions, preferences, etc. (as much as they think they can get away with for "revenue neutrality")? The mods to the IT, though, have some tough rivers to cross with revenue neutrality, boosting foreign trade, ensuring "fairness", not to mention "simplicity". Of course, any such panoply of changes will confuse all us pore ol' everyday taxpayers (not to mention the tax return prep industry). Hope the Panel has thrown in some extra costs envisioned by those things.

I just wonder, though, how retaining any form of income tax will reduce prices since some IT components are embedded in prices and how they will catch any significant part of the BILLIONS in taxes from the underground economy that the FairTax captures (and the IT does not)?

Want to predict the Panel's 9/30 recos??

[rwrcpa1]

That's because a VAT is a sorry idea.