A flat tax on all income is the most fair. A large national sales tax (value-added as some refer to it) is unfair to many groups for whom it would represent MORE DOUBLE TAXATION -- as we are being screwed on SS payments now.
Take retired seniors, who have no job income, per se. They would continue to have to pay taxes, even without income. Given these people have paid into SS all their working lives, they should be free of a tax burden EXCEPT for a flat tax ON ADDED INCOME. They should not be double-taxed just to live on their own funds on which they have already been taxed.
My solution: A Flat Tax on Earned Income and NO TAX ON SS DOLLARS since they have already been taxed.
The fair tax is an interesting concept, but I too have my doubts with it. Double taxing, and what about charity contributions? The question comes to benefits vs. flaws. One benefit is that it would tax the black market.
You are obviously very confused/ignorant of the provisions and the effects of the FairTax.
I'll parrot what Neal Boortz said: We already have a flat tax. Problem is, it has been tinkered with, socialized, politicized and made into an abomination. Why would we start all over with a new flat tax which could easily come to the same fate? The only reform that is fair to everyone and prevents such devilment is the NRST. I see this thread is already talking about retaining charitable deductions under a flat tax. See? Already tinkering.
First, please let me point out that the FairTax is a National RETAIL Sales Tax, and not the same as a value added tax.
Secondly, you are correct in that after-tax income that has been saved will end up being taxed again when it is spent. Additionally, the IRS agents, and the many people involved in the tax industry will be looking for other work. (SOMEONE is going to feel some pain no matter which plan you go with - and others will have a marked benefit.)
However, the most important issue to me is how our current system effectively benefits other countries' industries at our own industries' expense.
The Federal government originally was to be funded largely by import tarrifs. This had the effect of making foreign nations "pay" for the priviledge of selling their goods in our markets. What we have is the exact opposite. We charge our own manufacturers corporate tax, payroll tax, et al, while Chinese and other manufacturers who are outside the jurisdiction of our tax system, produce their goods and sell them in our markets without sharing that tax burden.
This dynamic is effectively the same as if we put a tarrif on American Companies' products when they made them, whether they were to be sold domestically or exported elsewhere, while allowing other countries to trade here tarrif free.
Our current tax system is handicapping our own industries in terms of both competing with cheap imports, and competing globally with other nations. It is the opposite of protectionism. It is protecting EVERYONE ELSE at our own expense. We have been duped for a long time on this issue, and we need to make sure we fix it right.
The FairTax allows AMERICAN INDUSTRY to produce products without their costs being bloated with the current tax system. This will allow them to compete for shelf space here at home as well as abroad. Further, when foreign imports DO have shelf space here, they will have an equal share of the tax burden added to their price as domestic goods.
All the other arguments about which tax system is better seem trivial compared to the dynamic it will have on removing the unfair handicap that American industries have been burdened with for the last several decades... bringing many to their end.
What is you definition of "income" in your proposal?
First, the NRST is not a VAT. Second, by your logic, we should ditch any meaningful tax reform simply because it won't immediately benefit every single person in the U.S.
Good thinking. Why don't you work on your uneducated accusations some more?