Replies

One of the beauties of the FairTax is applying the tax to everything, no exceptions, and using the Family Consumption Allowance to eliminate the regressive nature of an uncompensated sales tax.

The liberals can fight to raise the "poverty" level if they want, of fiddle with the rate and budget deficit/surplus. Any attempt to allow exemptions of different rates for some products and/or services must be met with vigorous opposition. Every tax system can, and will, be corrupted by politicians if we don't hold their feet to the fire.

You are paying hidden taxes today for everything you buy.

The FairTax is the only proposal that:

Untaxes US exports and brings Jobs back to the US.
Eliminates hidden taxes in retail prices. This is the most regressive tax.
Eliminates paycheck withholding, including FICA. This is the second most regressive tax.
Eliminates deductions. This is the third most regressive tax. (Two people donate $1000 to charity. The 30% bracket donor who itemizes only pays $700 after taxes. The 15% bracket donor who itemizes pays $850 after taxes. The poor widow, who does not get to itemize, pays the full $1000.)

If we need earned income credit, it is a welfare plan and should be administered as such. It is not a part of collecting revenue. If we want to encourage home ownership, we should offer grants or rebates as a welfare program. It is not a part of collecting revenue.

The NRST is an inherently regressive form of taxation that is truly despotic.

Long term, it would result in a two-tiered socio-economic stratification of our society.

It is not disimilar to a 21st Century eco-feudal system where the corporate aristocracy invest and expand their property holdings completely tax-free, while the serfs are overburdened with the excessive taxation on consumption and persuaded that it's supposedly "fair" because the consumption taxes are redistributed through the formal social welfare system.

Great goals but too utopian to happen or pass.

Get rid of excise taxes? Good luck. So many cities, counties, and states have their hands in those pockets it wouldn't make much of a price difference to just remove the federal ones.

And all the left has to say is "the Fair Tax Act eliminated Social Security" and it's a loser. Doesn't have to be true. I agree in a perfect world it would force us to treat FICA taxes not as a "trust fund" but just a promised expenditure to current beneficiaries and paid for by general funds. The debate then could shift to whether or not the program is worthy for the cost. But then that should be debated already regardless of the tax argument and no one will touch the issue.

And your explanation of the idea (One of the beauties of the FairTax is applying the tax to everything, no exceptions, and using the Family Consumption Allowance to eliminate the regressive nature of an uncompensated sales tax) and it's benefits sounds very similar to the Consumption tax version based on income less personal deductions (consumption allowance under the other plan) less savings and investment and taxed at a flat rate.

The Consumption tax has no opportunity to tax everything, no exceptions (which would never pass any Congress until we are fighting the Klingons) because it's a one time tax on a yearly calculation.

And how is your Family Consumption Allowance going to be calculated? Oh, it would have to be by income and number in the family. The exact same thing under the Consumption tax and the basis for our income tax. And you think Congress won't fight over those tables? You are right, forget the earned income tax credit, we'll get a "Lower Income Family Allowance Credit". And if they can't get the sales tax rates to be "progressive", they'll use those Allowance tables to move brackets of income to determine who gets what to offset, not eliminate, the regressive nature.

They'll destroy regressivness by putting back in our current redistribution system. Low income people will have Allowances larger then their incomes (sort of like Milton Friedman's negative income tax - but that system was designed to replace all welfare, not add to it)and that will be paid for by lower allowances, if any, on upper income households. Income redistribution.

They all sound good if you could have 100% purity of purpose. Our original income tax system started out that way too. And those that bring up how we had 140 years taxes mostly from tarrifs and did okay ignore our far different global economy. Besides, World War II could never have been paid for without an income tax. At the time, I think trade was not going well with some countries! lol