Of your first complaint, for every product bought for business purposes would have to be accounted for. If things are being bought tax-free but not being re-sold, something's fishy and they're subject to audit. What's more, the most likely enforcement system would have EVERYBODY pay the tax at the counter, with businesses able to recieve a check for "taxes paid" that month.
On your sec0ond complaint, the size of government, the FairTax actually restricts the size of government. goods and servicces purchased by government entities WOULD be taxed. This would encourage outsourcing and privatization of government busineeses. Purchases made by the Post Office or Amtrak wouldn't be taxed if they were spun off and privatized, as an example. And it would work at all government levels too. What is a state going to do when purchases made by a public school are taxed while purchases made by a private school are not? And remember, tuition isn't taxed either. So what would be the most economic course of action in this case? Give everyone a voucher. There are thousands of examples, at all levels.
Regarding excise taxes, the FairTAx IS an excise tax, only applied to domestic and imports. Even if we spent only spent $500B, which we would spend if we only spent on programs specifically outlined in Article I, section VIII, we would need almost a 100% tarriff on all imported goods. That is literally impossible.
Regarding the 16th-- It's repeal WOULD NOT prohibit an income tax. It's repeal would only make an UNAPPORTIONED Income tax unconstitutional.
Regarding the 13th, that regards slavery, and I thikn it's enforced fairly well (sarcasm). I think you may be referring to the 10th amendment, which states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
The only problem with that is FDR's court packing scandal stretched the commerce clause so bad that virtually anything is within the domain of the Feds.
Have you owned a business? Tax avoidance is an art, if a business can write off any of their spending as expenses, I see potential for a lot of abuse (what's to stop me from having a home business and writing off my consumption taxes for practically all consumer goods and then just entertaining a few 'customers' inside once a year? Not to mention the 'company' vehicles, etc. I think lower income folks would really get the shaft from this because they wouldn't have the sense, or the accountant, to take advantage of what strikes me as a monster loophole). Which requires oversight, which brings back the need for a monster IRS, which goes back to one of the key justifications for the Fair Tax as opposed to current systems.
On your second complaint, the size of government, the FairTax actually restricts the size of government. goods and servicces purchased by government entities WOULD be taxed.
What's that do to stem wealth transfers? That's the aspect of government I have the most trouble with, and it's the biggest, most expensive aspect
This would encourage outsourcing and privatization of government busineeses.
I prefer the strict elimination of most of the powers government has assumed. My experience with outsourcing and privatization have enlightened me to the fact incentives cannot be properly formed outside of the marketplace, and corruption is rampant. Being the buddy of a friend of the Speaker of the House, etc. is more imporatnt than being able to get the job done. In private markets the viability and efficiency of operations are constantly tested against the profit motive. The market wipes from the earth what people don't want done by not funding it adequately. Government knows no such brake, and the outsourcing/privatizing I've seen conducted by government sources amounts to a check handed to a politically connected entity, with no real metric for measuring how efficacious it is, while providing it with a veneer of market processes (when it's not really subject to the profit motive - the taxes are coming in to fund it regardless).
Purchases made by the Post Office or Amtrak wouldn't be taxed if they were spun off and privatized, as an example. And it would work at all government levels too.
But those are government monopolies that operate irrespective of profitability. A better solution is to just end the monopoly on letters and routes and sell off whatever the government can to actual private entitities responsive to consumer control.
What is a state going to do when purchases made by a public school are taxed while purchases made by a private school are not?
Same as above.
Regarding excise taxes, the FairTAx IS an excise tax, only applied to domestic and imports. Even if we spent only spent $500B, which we would spend if we only spent on programs specifically outlined in Article I, section VIII, we would need almost a 100% tarriff on all imported goods. That is literally impossible.
Excise tax doesn't imply just tariffs on imports. Your phone taxes are excise taxes. Excise taxes are specific to goods and services. This would serve as a brake on government confiscation better than a tax applied to everything (which the Congress would just gradually ratchet the rate of up over time like they did with income taxes). Excise taxes provide the individual his own lever on government by giving him the opportunity to do without, or explore substitutes. Just as Voice over IP threatens government taxes on phones by making phones obsolete, it would permit a continual reassessment of tax collection. We needn't repeal the tax on buggy whips if society moves away from them. Then we get to decide if we want to vote for or against the politician who has plans to institute a tax on steering wheels or not...
Regarding the 16th-- It's repeal WOULD NOT prohibit an income tax. It's repeal would only make an UNAPPORTIONED Income tax unconstitutional.
I don't have a problem with equal, direct taxes, as the U.S. Constitution originally allowed (before the 16th amendment allowed such taxes to be unequal, paving the way for progressive income taxes). The U.S. has a shade over 200 million adults. That puts government tax collection at about $10,000 per adult (not counting the ~400 billion of decifit spending). Let's do it, make it equal, and see everyone howling for relief!
Regarding the 13th, that regards slavery, and I thikn it's enforced fairly well (sarcasm). I think you may be referring to the 10th amendment
I meant the 13th. I consider the $1+ Trillion of direct wealth transfers conducted via the federal government as nothing less than involuntary servitude. It's certainly beyond the scope of Article I, Section VIII, so let's enforce the 10th and achieve respect for both amendments.
The only problem with that is FDR's court packing scandal stretched the commerce clause so bad that virtually anything is within the domain of the Feds.
Agreed. I recall during the Supreme Court's review of the federal statute restricting guns within a certain distance of schools a justice asked for the Constitutional justification. The president's attorney cited, in a convoluted manner, the commerce clause. The justice asked, given the tangential potential of any activity, if the constitution forbade the federal from doing anything. The lawyer couldn't answer. They percieve no limit to their power, so we have to take away the purse.
Here's another method, that can at least get us closer to where we want (I also don't like the checks issued under the Fair Tax, our 'progressive' friends will abuse that as a welfare and redistribution spigot). Let's quit having tax withholding (instituted in 1943 as an 'emergency wartime measure') and instead of placing taxes on the polar opposite end of the calendar, make all taxes due in full on the first Monday in November, before people head to the polls on Tuesday...