Replies

If you are saying that this elimination of a deduction is offset elsewhere, considering the whole package,

This is precisely what I'm saying. Boortz did not consider a potential decrease in the tax rates. Reagan eliminated many deductions, but did not raise taxes. For Boortz to claim that reducing deductions necessarily results in a tax increase is simply inaccurate.

then you should take that into consideration with the NRST also.

*I* would take that into consideration. But since Boortz (inaccurately) claimed a decrease in deductions was the same as a tax increase without considering other changes to the tax code, Boortz must also argue (inaccurately) that the total elimination of deductions under the NRST is a larger tax increase than what the commission suggested. Boortz does not make this arguement, and, in fact, suggests that the NRST would result in a tax cut.

Again, I state my position. Boortz's arguments are inaccurate because he did not consider the recommendations as a whole. Even if we disregard that Boortz's claims were inaccurate, the remainder of his logic is incoherent because the commission merely wanted to reduce the deductions while the NRST would eliminate them altoghether.

You're the one making little sense, not Boortz. Eliminating the deductions is decreasing them (to zero).

In fact the FairTax IS a decrease in the tax rate for many. You're the one not taking things into account because you're blinded by your opposition to the FairTax.

Moreover the FairTax has many other benefits to the US economy that the Tax Panel did not consider at all - nor did they evaluate what the evasion really is under the income tax. Had they done that they would have realized what a loser they have on the things they recommended compared to the FairTax.

I believe the American taxpayer understands things better that you and the tax panel put together.

Boortz's arguments are inaccurate because he did not consider the recommendations as a whole. Even if we disregard that Boortz's claims were inaccurate, the remainder of his logic is incoherent because the commission merely wanted to reduce the deductions while the NRST would eliminate them altoghether.

OK. However, I don't attribute that to malice on his part. None of us yet know the entire recommendation so we should all wait and see.

In addition, what the commission recommends is not likely to be what gets to the President's desk. We will have plenty of time to continue this discussion.