Replies

As I said read the bill, There is nothing regressive about the NRST.

To illustrate the plan's progressive nature we can examine the tax burden that a family of four (with FCA for 4 persons) will have at various annual expenditure levels.

"The FairTax Act

Sorry, I don't live in or believe in Utopia. Nice try but totally irrelevant since the plan will never, ever see the light of day.

You are delusional if you think anything close to the proposal you are pushing would ever be passed or the politicians wouldn't start gutting it, changing it, tweaking it, etc. for every whiney special interest group that demands their purchases be at a lower tax rate or exempt.

Baby diapers. Baby food. All food except for prepared food...oops, the AARP will fight for an exemption for seniors at Luby's. Medicine. Cable (exempt in many states) or Internet connections (the whole moritorium argument has nothing to do with collecting sales taxes on goods sold, it's about a sales tax on internet connections).

Ready of 20$ on cars? HA! That won't fly regardless of how many other taxes aren't being paid. So they'll create a tiered system called "progressive" and charge higher rates for more expensive cars.

Then they'll demand a rebate based on income level so you'll still have to report your income level to get the rebate.

I wish I could be as confident as you, but I live in reality and I know from the sales tax codes in each state that there is NO WAY the Federal Congress won't get involved in changing the system you propose. NO WAY!

Let's get real and pracital. It's no different than the flat tax proposals. Sound great but will never see the light of day once the politicians tweak the levels and rules and play the class envy card.

A national sales tax also opens up more social engineering with higher taxes on "fatty foods" or "potato chips" or "soft drinks" and you know the liberals and socialists will fight for those inclusions.

"For the Children", I'm sure.