[Principled]

But, I see no good reason for taxing government for hiring a janitor simply to provide a market for for companies doing that work as contractors, particularly if it ends up costing me more.

I'm not convinced it will cost you more.

THere's this unresolved issue - yes we all agree than retail prices can come down 9% as a result of:
-eliminated ER fica
-eliminated income taxes
-eliminated compliance costs

But much remains to be discovered. The amount of compliance cost used is low - but the biggest cost to us is the cost of drag on the economy. That is what the anti crowd refuses to even recognize the existence of.

To this point, the only way to have a discussion is to stipulate to 9% coming off retail prices when the nrst is passed.

At that amount, purchasing power to individuals grows. But the amount that I believe will come off prices after 12 months is twice the 9% figure .

If you prefer government over private industry for everything, you're in the wrong country.

[lucysmom]

I'm not convinced it will cost you more.

Here's what you wrote: Without the rule, gov't could hire for much less than it can contract work out.

If contracting work out costs government more, and government pays with tax money then it either costs me more, or services are reduced.

If you prefer government over private industry for everything, you're in the wrong country.

Hyperbole does not enhance the credibility of your argument.

If a corporation that manufactures widgets hires 5 janitors as regular employees to clean its offices, is the corporation required to pay the FairTax for those employees?