For the record, as a student of economics, I prefer the Hall-Rabushka Flat Tax. Calling other things a flat tax is placing an inaccurate label on things.
Yes, the flat tax captures education. As I observed, teachers, professors, school administrators would be subject to the flat tax. Constructions firms that build schools and their employees would be subject to a flat tax. Suppliers (paper, electricity, busses, school lunches) to school districts would pay a flat tax. A flat tax does not treat education any differently than any other sector of the economy.
That isn't an apples to apples comparison. The FairTax does not exempt teachers, professors, etc. from paying the sales tax on their consumption. It exempts students from paying a sales tax on their tuition.
Sometimes I wonder how serious you are regarding this discussion. There are two ways to tax consumption. The producer can pay it (flat tax) or the consumer can pay it (sales tax). It doesn't matter which way the law says, the effect is the same. If you don't tax education through a sales tax, it is the same exact thing as exempting teachers, administrators, school suppliers etc. from the flat tax.
"I prefer the Hall-Rabushka Flat Tax"
What is the bill number?
"Calling other things a flat tax is placing an inaccurate label on things."
So neither the Burgess bill in the house nor the Shelby bill in the senate is truly a flat tax. That is interesting. Try telling that to Mr. Burgess or Senator Shelby ... LOL Now you can see why I find the statement: "I support a flat tax" so meaningless.
"As I observed, teachers, professors, school administrators would be subject to the flat tax."
I repeat: teachers, professors, school administrators would be subject to the FairTax.
"Constructions firms that build schools and their employees would be subject to a flat tax. Suppliers (paper, electricity, busses, school lunches) to school districts would pay a flat tax."
So the cost of the tax system would be imbedded into educational costs and passed along to the end of the supply chain. This is certainly a difference between (this version of a) flat and fair tax. The FairTax is only levied at the final end point of the sales cycle and that treatment is consistent across industry segments. As previously explained, education is not considered a consummable item.
"Sometimes I wonder how serious you are regarding this discussion."
You are entitled to your opinion. :-)
"There are two ways to tax consumption. The producer can pay it (flat tax) or the consumer can pay it (sales tax). It doesn't matter which way the law says, the effect is the same."
Conceptually that may be true, but there are two problems with trying to modify an income tax so that it is no longer a tax on income:
1. compliance costs are much, much higher, and
2. because of the imbedding process at each stage of the production chain, taxpayers don't see their true tax burden and US produced goods are less competitive than they should be in a global economy. With globalization sweeping the planet, that is a biggie.
In addition, we have not even talked about payroll taxes. I don't know about Hall-Rubishka, but the other flat tax proposals don't touch SS and Medicare taxes. If we stick with a payroll model to collect those taxes, the demographics are a killer. If we convert to a broader based tax on the entire economy and succeed in doubling the size of the economy over the next 15 years, then we double the base from which to collect these taxes. There is no way that happens if we stick with a payroll tax system.
"If you don't tax education through a sales tax, it is the same exact thing as exempting teachers, administrators, school suppliers etc. from the flat tax."
Once again, your analogy is flawed. It is the STUDENTS who are given the "tax break" (if you want to call it that) under the FairTax, not the teachers, etc. This isn't nearly as difficult as you are making it.