Replies

"The trend toward increasing complexity and spiralling compliance costs with any federal tax is inescapable."

I disagree. The primary source of complexity with our income tax system is in the area of deductions. Depreciation, holding periods, floors and ceilings on various types of deductions, the AMT, etc, etc, etc. Therefore removing the entire area of deductions is a MAJOR step toward simplification. Sales taxes are relatively simple. The biggest problem that we face today in that area is related to differences between different taxing jurisdictions and that situation would be improved because there are incentives for states to "harmonize" their taxes with the FairTax.

In addition, those of us who support the FairTax would vehemently fight attempts to complicate it. Did you notice the responses to the gentleman on this thread who was concerned about being taxed when he spent his savings? In addition to the fact that he is not in fact being disadvantaged by having the taxes that he pays become more visible, there is also the problem of complexity if we were to make an exception to win his support.

phil_will1 wrote:
The primary source of complexity with our income tax system is in the area of deductions. Depreciation, holding periods, floors and ceilings on various types of deductions, the AMT, etc, etc, etc. Therefore removing the entire area of deductions is a MAJOR step toward simplification.

That's because those are the areas where the lobbyists apply the most pressure, and those are the areas where the social engineers in the Congress make the most changes.

In a "fair tax" environment, those lobbyists and social engineers will move to other areas. They will adjust/complicate/improve the "refund" structure to make it more "fair" for "working families" and make "the rich" pay "their fair share of the burden." And they will change rates and/or implement other excise taxes and "refundable excise tax credits" to encourage sales of certain goods and services and to discourage the sales of other goods and services.

Until you can explain to me how you can get rid of the lobbyists and social engineers, you will have to explain exactly what you believe the lobbyists and social engineers will be doing and how you plan to stop or at least control them. I don't believe that they will just go away.

As I said, the fact that the "fair tax" proposal doesn't repeal and eliminate other federal excise taxes is a definite indication of where the social engineers and lobbyists will be focusing their energies in a "fair tax" environment.

phil_will1 wrote:
In addition, those of us who support the FairTax would vehemently fight attempts to complicate it.

Perhaps you would do well to prove your resolve by fighting for simplification of the current system and fighting any attempts to complicate the current system. If you can show me some success in that area, I will have a much better impression of your potential to accomplish that stability in a "fair tax". Without a real demonstration of a committment to simplification and stability, you won't convince me.

Many of the sponsors and supporters of this "fair tax" legislation also voted for most (if not all) of the needless complications in our current tax system. John Linder likes to point out how many thousands of changes have been made to the tax code since the 1986 Tax Simplification Act. But he doesn't like anyone to ask him exactly how many of those changes did he vote in favor of. The answer to that question is very important to this debate because a committment to stability is a very important part of this proposed change.

I'm not going to be impressed by a politician who trys to say, "Trust me, I won't screw this new system up as badly as I screwed up the old system."