You are correct about the bill & I bow to your good research. I have never seen this up to now, & was basing my remarks on the Fair Tax Web site & the article posted. Please forgive me for believing what I read from the source, & for failing to find out about pending legislation which is different from the original proposal.
I should have known the pols would spice up a good tax proposal with oodles of sub-sub-paragraphs, with footnotes as far as the eye can see.
Well, enjoy this new system while you can - that is - until it becomes law.
I still like the National Sales Tax idea, but the rebate is a political pig.
Well, a hundred and twenty pages is an improvement over the 60,000 pages of the current tax code, so I'm not too unhappy with it yet. Of course, there are plenty of details not addressed which will undoubtedly add hundreds more pages.
Glad to hear you favor an NRST. I also do not like the 'Rebate/Prebate/FCA', but it is a political necessity. We have drifted too far into socialism to correct it all at once. Too many people think there should be no taxes on "necessities" -- which translates into people that spend all their income on "necessities" also paying no taxes. Socialism, pure and simple. As though there is some class of people that do not benefit from government and shouldn't have to pay for it.
If it helps any, think of the FCA as a tax refund in advance. Since it only refunds the taxes up to poverty-level, 95% of the money refunded is from people who will pay more than that amount in FairTax as they spend above poverty-level.
FairTax.org is generally good information, but I've been caught out several times by relying on their simplifications. They are not what anybody would call an "unbiased" source, and the final word is the text of the bill before Congress. Even within the text of the bill, you'll find some of us disagree on what the language means. A bill should be crystal clear in my opinion, and this one isn't there yet.