"Every member of the panel yesterday said they had issues with a NRST and compliance..." That isn't true;OK. I have since stated that may not be. Actually, I am going to do something that very few FairTaxers have ever done - admit I was wrong. I will concede that "Every member of the panel yesterday said they had issues with a NRST and compliance" was not an accurate statement.
Senator Mack, in fact, argued in our favor on the compliance issue, if memory serves.No your memory has failed you. He was addressing that fact that no other nation has a NRST and merely stated that the US may be unique because we have state sales taxes.
More to the point, however, is that compliance is exactly where you would expect them to focus if they were convinced of the economic merits of the proposal.LOL. Where's AG talking about spin?
The next hearing BTW has been announced. Its subject will be the implications of the federal government no longer requiring personal tax returns, I believe. Hmmmmm .... I wonder why they would be considering that. If I were a flat taxer, I would NOT view that as an encouraging area of investigation.Uh, a flat tax could be easily implemented without requiring personal tax returns.
Of course, I am sure that they will have panelists testifying that the federal government cannot possibly function without requiring such blatant disregard for our personal liberties. I can "almost guarantee" that YN will spin that as the death knell for the FairTax.What makes you think that? I have focused my comments on the opinions of the panel.
LOL!! Life is good (if you are a liberty loving FairTaxer)LOL!! We'll talk in July! [I can hardly wait for the spin!]
"Uh, a flat tax could be easily implemented without requiring personal tax returns."
Sure, a flat tax can be made into anything you want it to be, right?
You want a consumption tax? Flat tax can do that.
You want a tax that doesn't tax prior savings? A flat tax can do that.
You want a tax that doesn't require personal tax returns? A flat tax can do that.
Whatever you want in a tax reform proposal, the flat tax can do ..... as long as you don't require that the specific proposal be committed to writing and the trade-offs determined in advance, the flat tax can be absolutely anything you want. Never mind that getting a "concept" passed into law is impossible.
"What makes you think that? I have focused my comments on the opinions of the panel."
What makes you think you know the opinions of the panel? Because they are asking legitimate questions? I am pretty certain that two members of the commission like our proposal a lot. The others, I have no idea about. Senator Breough has some reservations, but that is ok. Almost everyone has reservations when they first hear about the FairTax. In general, I have found that the more those new to the concept know, the better they like the proposal. Perhaps this panel will be different.
We shall see. I don't claim to know what the panel is thinking, other than some positive signs from two of the members. I doubt that the individual members themselves know what their final report will conclude. For you to insinuate that you do is sort of silly IMHO.
"I have focused my comments on the opinions of the panel."
Since you know what the individual panel members opinions are, would you share with us their impressions of Panel VI on Wednesday - the Flat Tax portion? I heard that those panelists slammed the whole notion of progressivity. This was in spite of the President's Executive Order which said
"share the burdens and benefits of the Federal tax structure in an appropriately progressive manner while recognizing the importance of homeownership and charity in American society"
From what I heard, it was a major political blunder. It validated the impression that this was the proposal of the far right wing of the republican party and would never enjoy mainstream support. What was the impression that left with the commission members, YN?