Replies

"Oppose the Fair Tax if you like, but don’t lie about it."

Fair Tax will be 23% the first year. Then . . .

25% the next year

27% the year after

30% the next

an up and up, and up and up . . . .

'cause no matter what tax system is in place, government cannot be trusted.

The neat thing about the Fair Tax re: your concerns is that it offers an easy reference point for politicians:

“If elected, I think we can get by on only 22%, not 23% taxation.”

“My opponent says he will spend 22%. We can run the gov’t on 20%!”

I think it will bid the cost of government down. Add to that the fact that ending the lobbyist hold on Washington (the tax code is their tool) will break up the current system.

Also add the fact that a single percentage representing taxation will allow services not Constitutionally authorized to be sent back to the States: “HHS and education costs 5% of the 23% we tax. Beginning next year, we will reduce the tax to gov’t by 1% and the expense of HHS/Ed by 20% (1% of their total 5%) with the expectation that the States will begin to pick up both the tax and expense burden of this service. We will reduce 20% a year (1% of the 23% pool of total fed taxes) for five years. At the end of five years, gov’t taxation will be 17% at the federal level and the fedgov will provide none of these services. We expect some of that to be offset by they States as the pick up the total cost and service of HHS/Ed. Of course, the States are free to determine for themselves the costs and services they wish to provide.”

This is a mechanism to begin to shift domestic affairs back to the States. Whether used or not, it’s clearly a better deal for States than a lobbyist backed and protected tax code that shifts power to Washington.

The bottom line is that the Fair Tax shifts power away from Washington. For me, that is its biggest draw.

John Leland 1789 wrote: "...'cause no matter what tax system is in place, government cannot be trusted..."

I share your concern. The FT is still a centralized tax scheme (a nice, still, big-fat target) that is ripe for modification after enactment and I bet it wouldn't be two years before lobbyists/congress started messing with it. Either raising the rate or messing with the pre-bate or adding modifications that wind up straying from the original intent. Who knows what sort of weird crap they can think up for a fat campaign contribution?

There is a market driven approach that I've heard of that insulates us from Washington: The federal govt no longer taxes individuals or business; the fed-govt taxes each state for a percentage of each state's GDP. How each state collects the revenue to pay that federal bill is left up to each state. People & Business would migrate to states with the most attractive tax-scheme and away from the most unattractive states. This would raise the GDP of the preferred states. With the ubiquity of computerization, business conducted between tax jurisdictions could be managed (just as it is today with differing sales taxes, tariffs, etc). Lobbyists would have 50 different targets to deal with, instead of just the single federal "Jabba The Hut" monstrosity. Plus it moves the "taxers" closer to the people and (hopefully) more readily accountable to the "taxed".

The FT is interesting, but I haven't yet heard how it is "meddle" proof by lobbyists, progressives, etc. And 23% is a sticker-shock figure. The Home-Depot 2x4 example is one thing; but when I think of buying a car -- Dang! Even if I bought used, I'd think the seller would try to recoup as much of that 23% as he could. So, I'd feel a lot better about the FT if the rate was permanently capped, or better yet, lowered to 10% and the Govt were forced to reduce spending (with no sacred cows) to live within it's means.

Ultimately, anything that gets the IRS off our backs will be welcomed. If we eventually vote the FT, so be it. I just hope it is heavily armored against the meddling of congress if/when it is enacted.