[Principled]

You may wish to consider that some people see how this will indeed encourage lower taxes and lower spending. Then again, you may not.

However, those of us who support the nrst do see how it will end up minimizing the tax/spend problem.

Generally, the problem of reducing spending is complicated by a system that makes it nearly impossible to do. Again, generally... separating the method of collection to a system that encourages lower spending and lower taxes FIRST [instead of making it virtually impossible] eliminates that problem.

We’re all for less spending/lower taxation. But we see the method of collection as preventing it.

[JustSurrounded]

Thank you for mentioning NRST. I really hadn't heard anything about it ... and went and did a little bit of research. Thinking about it, NRST appeals to me for a whole host of reasons. It certainly takes the special-interest factor out of taxation and makes it way more evenhanded.

I love the anonymity of it when you pay cash. Reading about the Fair Tax, it sounds like my spending will be tracked so I don't exceed a certain tax rate. I really, really hate that part of it.

These days I keep toying with the idea of something along the lines of NRST, only on a state level, instead. The federal government would only get money by fees levied on states in proportion to their number of electors. No doubt unworkable, but I think we have currently cut the states too much out of the equation.