"a)." that's exactly the point - it IS a wage tax (or more properly an income tax) and should not be forced upon taxpayers when there is a much better way available in the form of the FairTax.
"b)." That's a bunch of gibberish. Take a look at the flat tax bill in congress presently and tell us how many pages of tax code it eliminates - hint: none.
"c)." Show us a 10-year window of all of he flat tax-only countries that have thrived as you claim. Yeah - right!! Border adjustability in the US would drop exporters prices substantially and put us on a more equal footing with the VAT countries which have such adjustability.
"d)." It has always been cascading embedded tax costs, Nightie, and it's a damned shame you know nothing about them since they do exist and were a big reason that many of the VAT countries converted to VATs - to try to eliminate such costs and make their own products more competitive in other countries.
"e)." The illegal economy will always be there and no one pretends otherwise. At least with the FairTax, the money from it spent on taxable retail items will produce 23% in tax revenue ... which it does not do at present (or under a flat tax). That alone will probably be enough to allow the FairTax rate to be lowered early on after implementation.
"f)." Over and above the paperwork compliance requirements are all of the background recordkeeping and compilation required due to the arcane and ever-changing tax rules. All of this is an unnecessary waste of the human condition (but perhaps you don't understand that being a Squirrel and all).
"g)." The flat tax is LESS susceptible??? Balderdash. Look at the flat tax presently befopre congress and notice that is is laid on top of existing tax laws. A statement like that either proves your crass stupidity or your intentional attempts to mislead people - you may choose.
"h)." The statement was about attracting CAPITAL - not earnings, The last sentence in the immediately prior paragraph applies once again. If capital is attracted back the earnings will certainly follow that.
"i)." With a flat tax on top of the existing tax code, it is a certainty that the result would be the antithesis to a "booming" economy; i.e., a failing one.
"j)." You're right about one thing, at least - you DON'T think and when you attempt that foreign effort your mind gets all mushy as you have demonstrated here once again. I presume you have ample capacity but there's nothing of consequence therein (except mush).
"a)." that's exactly the point - it IS a wage tax (or more properly an income tax) and should not be forced upon taxpayers when there is a much better way available in the form of the FairTax.A wage tax is no more an income tax than a NRST. In fact, a wage tax would tax less income than a NRST.
"b)." That's a bunch of gibberish. Take a look at the flat tax bill in congress presently and tell us how many pages of tax code it eliminates - hint: none.Hint: you are a liar.
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is hereby repealed.
"c)." Show us a 10-year window of all of he flat tax-only countries that have thrived as you claim. Yeah - right!! Border adjustability in the US would drop exporters prices substantially and put us on a more equal footing with the VAT countries which have such adjustability.Show us a one year window of NRST-only countries that have thrived.
Country Estonia Georgia Greece Hong Kong Latvia Lithuania Romania Russia Serbia Slovakia Ukraine
source
"d)." It has always been cascading embedded tax costs, Nightie, and it's a damned shame you know nothing about them since they do exist and were a big reason that many of the VAT countries converted to VATs - to try to eliminate such costs and make their own products more competitive in other countries.They had business turnover taxes which is a cascading tax. Try and understand the difference.
"g)." The flat tax is LESS susceptible??? Balderdash. Look at the flat tax presently befopre congress and notice that is is laid on top of existing tax laws. A statement like that either proves your crass stupidity or your intentional attempts to mislead people - you may choose.Considering that there are at least two Flat Tax bills before congress that aren't "laid on top of existing tax laws," who's trying to mislead?
"i)." With a flat tax on top of the existing tax code, it is a certainty that the result would be the antithesis to a "booming" economy; i.e., a failing one.That's why I support replacing the current code with a Flat Tax.