"It isn't a zero sum game, since we are eliminating several hundred billion $$ in compliance costs."
"It is a zero sum game when it comes to revenue. If someone is paying less, someone else has to pay more to generate the same revenue."
You must have missed my post at 171.
It would seem from the above that you are conceding that there are substantial savings in compliance costs. If so, that is real progress! In the past, you have argued that compliance costs are a figment of FairTaxers' imaginations.
Congratulations, YN. There may be hope for you. Just remember, if you don't get help at www.fairtax.org, get help somewhere!
You must have missed my post at 171.
You must have missed my reply. Illegal immigrants would probably pay more, although you seem to think they would pay the same price and that the "embedded tax" they were previously paying would just be visible. Do you still believe that?
As I have demonstrated before, illegal activity is a wash. In the example of the drug dealer, the dealer would be paying taxes on the transaction but the buyer would not be paying taxes on his income, ie. a wash.
Foreign visitors and tourists (which there will be fewer of because of increased prices) will be offset by Americans traveling abroad.
As to those "those taking advantage of the many loopholes in the current system to lower their tax burden well below what the 'progressive' nature of the current system suggests is the objective" you'll have to give me an example because that could be anyone but I would bet the majority of them (in numbers) are middle class people like me.
So that leaves the middle class and retired people. It's not that difficult to understand. The upper class is paying less, the lower class is paying nothing, that leaves the middle class to get squeezed. And since a consumption tax is a tax on current wealth, those people who are retired and living on savings will get to pay taxes on their money,
again!