Replies

Let's clarify some of your incorrect and/or misleading statements in the post #209.

I'd point oput that "... living in a cave, hunting your own food, etc. ..." is in no wise tax evasion but quite legal and amounts to tax minimization, not evasion.

The statement about those now evading taxes is intended to apply to drug dealers, etc. and is not intended to mean they pay NO taxes presently since - as you point out - they pay SOME taxes when they buy things whose prices have been goosed by 30% due to taxation. That merely means any purchases of that sort pay only the portion of the tax that would apply to that 30% increase and they DO NOT pay taxes on the full purchase price of the thing involved as they would with the FairTax (which amount would be greater than that tax portion now paid) nor do they pay income taxes - a much greater evasion than the incremental tax accidentally paid when purchasing things presently.

The drug dealers (and others) evading taxes are evading INCOME taxes on their ill-gotten gains which ARE taxed with the FairTax as they purchase things at retail rather than just the relatively small amount paid on embedded taxes. With the levels of income many of these folk have, that income tax amount would be substantial (which bye the bye) is not counted in the evasion/non-compliance figures of the IRS.

Certainly FairTax advocates are not saying that the drug dealer is going to collect the sales tax and forward it to the state. That failure merely offers legal avenue to pursue him - but that's not the topic at hand.

As to the flea market situation, if it falls under the de minimus provisions of HR25 that's fine. If it goes beyond that point, then the seller would be violating the law to not collect and report taxes and provide the buyer with a receipt as required. Lest you think that such "open air" sales are not checked by sales tax bodies presently you must live in a state that is quite lax. They are in my state where "buyers" are sent around to make on-the-grounds checks and they can also penalize those sellers who do not have reseller's permits. The provisions and implementations vary from state to state.

All of the above clearly shows the gross misrepresentation in your statement:
"Transactions that go untaxed due to tax avoidance or tax evasion under the current system will also be untaxed for the same reason under the NRST."

My statement about the income tax before 1913 is correct enough since the 1895 Supreme Court "Pollock" decision struck down the last income tax of 1894. From that time on (until the infamous year of 1913) Congress generally believed the income tax to be unconstitutional. The 1913 IT (income tax) was a fairly "flat tax" as can be seen from the form and instructions for them - http://www.salestax.org/library/1913form1040.html

Prior to 1894 there was an IT with the first such law passed in 1861 (which was apparently was not too effective for a while). The first IT form for use by taxpayers was the IT of 1863 and here is what that form - and instructions - looked like:
http://www.salestax.org/library/1863form24.html

The 1861 IT law was allowed to expire in 1872, 9 years before the Supreme Court got into the game heavily in 1881 with "Springer".

The complete effect of repealing the 16th is not at all clear but it certainly would be a big help in making the IT a thing of the past for at least quite a long time. It might be that the Springer and/or Pollock decisions would have to be revisited .. especially the Pollock which I think you may be alluding to. In any event, that's not what this thread is about.

With the lapsing of PAYGO provisions it would still be extremely difficult to pass a bill through Congress that was NOT revenue neutral due to opposition from either (or both) sides of the political spectrum. Keep in mind, though, that the Tax Panel has been given the revenue neutral charge by the President presumably hinting at a veto if otherwise.

As gfor the vote to repeal the 16th, let's suppose that the FairTax bill becomes law. There is now a revenue-neutral tax law in operation. As people become familiar with it's many benefits to most it will be well-liked (compared to the IT, you naysayers notwithstanding), As sauch the 16th amendment will then be an anachronism serving no purpose and - much like repeal of Prohibition - will relatively easily be passed in Congress and ratified by the states.

Certainly the FairTax backers have no argument with the fact that the government sspends too much - and for many of the wrong things - but the FairTax is a tax bill, not a spending bill and must be seen in that light. It's more than a bit difficult where your statement about a "windfall" for the government and an expansion of their powers comes from since that is clearly not the case from the wording or intent of the bill ... in other words, a completely unsupported statement.

The income and FICA withholding are only a part of what is taxed and what people see and even if those were their complete tax burden there is really no way for them to do anything about it where with the FairTax - despite what you think - the populace can place pressure on their elected reps (and I doubt that would be to raise the tax). The other taxes you don't mention (estate, inheritance, etc.) are decidedly NOT on their check stubs but those are real taxes also - and done away with by the FairTax.

The assumption you make opf 2,000 changes in the first 5 years (as with the past 5 per your numbers) is quite funny in view of the utter simplicity of the FairTax as it now is written. There is nothing like the corpus of arcana that exists with the IT. By comparison the FairTax is an open book and changes would be MUCH more visible - and therefore those attempting them would be more accountable than at present. I believe it would be MUCH more difficult to make the sow's ear when starting with a silk purse that is apparent to all.

That certainly does not mean changes - or derailment won't be attempted (witness the attempts by you and other status quo lovers on these threads, for example) since some feel their entire being threatened they are so ingrained to living under government-control of their lifestyle via the tax code. Certainly the taxpayers will haave far more of an opportunity to resist and defeat such political mischief under the FairTax than the IT (or VAT or Flat tax). The K Street crown will thin out considerably or move to attempts to shape other legislation since the opportunity available under the FairTax will be greatly smaller.