If you can put aside the propaganda job for a time and discuss the same things we just discussed with some with a little more first hand knowledge of history, you might see things differently.
I posted no propaganda in my 141 post. What part of the following do you think is propaganda and/or do you disagree with?
"During World War II the personal income tax rose to a peak of 94 percent, and the corporate income tax to 40 percent. For the first time in United States history (and thereafter) middle income citizens became subject to the levies of the IRS, not just the wealthy. But a tax rebellion ensued as the consequence. The IRS resolved this impasse by blackmail; any taxpayer who would give permission for withholding 1943 income tax was forgiven paying 1942 income taxes.
"This level of taxation was perhaps understandable given the state of total mobilization for a national emergency. But why should tax rates have been left at wartime personal level until 1963, and on corporations until 1981 during peacetime? The war had continued – against American taxpayers". REVOLTING TAXATION
Should I assume that you didn't like the history lesson (in post 141) and above and that you chose to call it propaganda as a futile attempt to escape the reality of it?
You posted nothing that focused on the subject we were discussing - How a massive increase in black market activity would affect your tax scheme. Are you going to tell us all that the "fair tax" scheme is not going to cause an increase in such activity? Are you going to tell us that such increase would not be detremental to functional plans for the "fair tax" scheme and require some sort of compensation measures?