Replies

Certainly, if he can maintain his competitive position and keep all his old PIT, then he is welcome to it.

Exactly. And when he does, aggregate prices MUST be higher than you predict.

And you never answered the question: Isn't he entitled to mainting his purchasing power as well?

You seem to be implying that the tax burden SHOULD be shifted more heavily on small business owners; that they SHOULD suffer losses in personal purchasing power. What's "Fair" about that?

And you never answered the question: Isn't he entitled to mainting his purchasing power as well?

On a microeconomic level, if the FairTax is truly revenue neutral, across the board real prices (purchasing power) can not change. If overall take home goes up, overall prices go up the same amount.

This applies even if businesses save compliance money because, to save money, somebody must lose their job - reducing overall take home.

The whole premise goes bad when you realize the vast majority of americans are not going to accept or believe that today the sky may be blue, but from this day forward it will be green, but because "they" (whomever they are) say it's so. If it was all as easy as the FT bunch say it is "just because"... we would have flying cars and unlimited fusion power by now. A certain Austrian fellow convinced a population in severe economic trouble that it was "so-and-so's" fault, and created a far bigger problem in the long run. (think world war)

Nobody, but nobody would disagree that the current system is deeply flawed, but why throw out the whole house along with the baby and the bathwater? A Fair, Flat Tax is the answer. Some will crow "we tried that", as we tried democracy and failed, and came up with a constitutional republic, and made it better. We've made bad ideas good, we've torn the union apart and put it back together even better. "Everybody" was "for" prohibition.. we know how all that worked out.

Fix the code, flatten the tax, use what others have succeeded at, and make it better.

[And when he does, aggregate prices MUST be higher than you predict. ]

Not in a free market. There will always be a competitor that will lead prices lower, forcing him to follow, until they both end up with the same purchasing power as they had before.

[And you never answered the question: Isn't he entitled to maintain his purchasing power as well? ]

My example answered this question. He didn't retain all of his PIT, and yet his purchasing power WAS maintained. To retain the full PIT would have given him a windfall in purchasing power.