But the FairTax promises to fully fund SS into infinity, doesn't it?
Under the nrst, the idea of SS privatization will be infinitely more popular as a pol running for election says "Listen, I can lower your rate from 23 to 15% by privatizing SS". That should be obvious.
And his opponent can quote the president's tax panel
The Prebate-type program would cost approximately $600 billion in 2006 alone. This amount is equivalent to 23 percent of projected total federal government spending and 42 percent of projected total federal entitlement program spending, exceeding the size of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Some might think its hypocritical to support the privatization of one entitlement program while supporting the creation of another, and much larger entitlement program.
But the basic problem with Social Security that FairTaxers persist in overlooking is that the program is self funding. Those that pay into the system through payroll taxes are those (and their families) able to collect from the system. If everyone pays into the system through the sales tax, it will be perceived as unfair that everyone can't also collect (making the "FairTax" a misnomer). It is possible that the result will be to speed up the process of privatization, but it is also probable that SS will be expanded to include every legal resident of the US. Why not? We all buy stuff and pay the tax. The prebate has made us all dependant on, and psychologically entitled to a monthly check from government. Its not such a big step from a monthly prebate to the expectation of SS coverage.
FairTaxers really need to get their goals in focus.
You tell me. I didn't say anything about this.
I did, however, say that SS will be bankrupt under the income/payroll tax without any question. It cannot survive without changes. THat is obvious.
Secondly, if you object to taxpayers having negative tax rates, then you will object to the income tax. The nrst will have FAR fewer of those. Indeed it isn't clear that the number will be more than negligible.
Irrespective of reported income, people spend up to the poverty line.
Whether by spending savings, borrowed money, charity, illegally gotten gains or whatever, people will spend up to or beyond the poverty level.
Nowhere in there lucy will you find a negative tax rate. Why's that?