"I don't think you can state with any certainty that the stocks would do much better under FairTax. They could just as well get hammered."
I not only CAN state that with certainty, I HAVE done so. If you want to deny the obvious, that is your prerogative. I know of no serious study of the economic impact of taxing consumption that validates your concerns or those of sitetest's. None whatsoever. Zero.
Your denial of the benefits of moving from a coercive to a voluntary tax system in your previous post was quite revealing. Your reasoning is that that difference is inconsequential, since the proposal is revenue neutral. If, after all this time of examining the FairTax, you still don't grasp that fundamental difference, there probably isn't anything that I can say. What I am learning is that some people understand the abstract concept of freedom, and some don't.
Well I feel pretty Free right now. And I don't exactly see how paying the FedGov even more money than we do now, so they can in turn mail us back each our "allowance" every month is any more Free.
You saying it is more "Fair" and more "Free" doesn't make it so. I am still more concerned that those who are promoting it can't sell the plan based on its actual merits and instead find it necessary to embellish the benefits into fantasy land in order to draw backers.
The FairTax as it is sold is like one of those "Congratulations, you just won a 7 day cruise" faxes. The more you dig into the fine print the more realistic it sounds. You guys are still stuck on the misleading headline, and you want to talk about the free breakfast that comes with the cruise every day, rather than what the "free" cruise is gonna cost.
Because TANSTAAFL applies. (There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch) and a 25%+ increase in purchasing power for every American wage earner is like saying we'll give you your house payment for free every month. It can't happen, the money is coming from somewhere, either lower wages or higher prices.