You apparently do not realize that it is the same situation as at present where the Federal government taxes states by forcing them to pay employees more to compensate the employees for paying federal income tax (as well as state).
The two situations in effect result in the taxing of government - state or local - by the feds. Failing to do so in one case or the other unbalances the equation as I'm sure you know.
Giving a tax-free advantage to any government entity is a really, really, really poor idea. In fact, it's a non-starter. Apparently you really DON'T grasp the significance of that.
You actually might want to read the post before you reply with one of your stock BS answers.
You apparently do not realize that it is the same situation as at present where the Federal government taxes states by forcing them to pay employees more to compensate the employees for paying federal income tax (as well as state).Sorry, your example is crap. First, a tax on an individual is not a tax on the source. Second, the state employee would pay FairTax on their purchases. (According to your logic, the state government employee could be exempt from paying the FairTax and the state could pay them less.) In addition to the employee paying taxes when they spend their wages, the state pays the FairTax on the wages it pays the employee No other employer besides government has to do this. This is not the same situation as it is at present.
Giving a tax-free advantage to any government entity is a really, really, really poor idea. In fact, it's a non-starter. Apparently you really DON'T grasp the significance of that.That's irrelevant to my point. The point is that state and local taxes would have to be raised to pay this tax. People should know that under the FairTax they would be paying a very significant portion (much larger than today) of their federal