"Anticipating that you will assert that he already collects taxes for the federal government when he forwards withholding for his employees - most likely he got into business with the full understanding that that condition was in place. The FairTax changes the rules and places a new burden on the retailer that wasn't initially agreed to. Further, he must agree to subject himself to increased scrutiny if he wishes to stay in business. "
It doesn't matter that he "got into business with any sort of full understanding" about income tax withholding or not since he had no choice ... he's still required to perform the function for the government of collecting and forwarding the taxes and he's not paid to do so. In addition, all businesses have to perform this function even a one man proprietorship. There is no option and he isn't reimbursed. In fact, anyone starting a new business is stuck with the same requirement - and the payment for the privilege of doing the tax collection.
In addition the FairTax may "change the rules" but hardly places a "new burden" on the retailer but in fact has very minimal reporting requirements - a two line report - for which the business is paid. And even then, it is only those businesses selling at retail that collect and forward the tax. Many, many other businesses are completely freed of any obligation to collect or report any sort of taxation since for many businesses there is none under the FairTax. The few who must do so under the law are well paid to do so and the "burden" is far less than it is at present - which applies presently to ALL businesses ... and it's an unfunded mandate as well - they aren't paid under the present system.
Your "point" makes little sense.
"The question is, does the retailer have the option of not signing up to be a tax collector for the federal government and still maintain his legal right to operate his business? The point is the freedom FairTaxers promise, and the voluntary nature of their tax. "
That's a foolish question since all you are really asking is "... does the retailer have the right to break the law ...?". I've suggested time and again that you read the bill, yet you do not apparently preferring ignorance.
If a retailer wishes to not collect and forward taxes, he can certainly do so PROVIDED that he arrange his business affairs to do so. Since you've not read the bill you have no idea what that means - so I'll tell you. It means that he must sell at retail to other than end consumers so that no tax is due. IOW he must rearrange his business to sell to other businesses etc. Now before you go off whining how "that ain't fair", let me stop you.
It certainly is fair, provides him the choice, and keeps him solidly within the law. It is an alternative of choice and it is his choice should he feel so strongly as you will pretend he does in your little hypothetical game. The alternative is to keep doing business as he is (assuming he sells now to end consumers) and follow the law - just as he has done at present under the income tax - IOW to collect the tax and be paid to do so (rather than bearing the expense of doing so). Why would he not make that choice? Certainly most rational merchants I know would so choose - and make more money in the bargain.
Are we now going into this little pretend game of yours claiming you were not saying there would be widespread evasion due to the FairTax??? I beg to differ. You clearly were saying that on more than one occasion. I think that now trying to shirk the responsibility of what you said is what many would consider to be "... indicative of a basically dishonest person ...", but I make no such charge. Instead I point out that you did make that claim and make it more than once. Just to be clear, do you now wish to claim you never took such a position???
Not that is is any of your business, but I haven't the slightest intention of buying a Plasma TV for any reason. I have no need or interest in one so your posed question is still hanging there as the nonsense it is.
In addition the FairTax may "change the rules" but hardly places a "new burden" on the retailer but in fact has very minimal reporting requirements - a two line report - for which the business is paid.
And increased scrutiny. According to you the IRS is the camels nose under the tent, intruding into the lives of American taxpayers to a degree that is oppressive; then you assert that the camel will increase his intrusion into the affairs of retail business forced to collect taxes for the federal government, but it ain't no big deal. I guess that means government intrusion is OK as long as it ain't YOU.
IOW he must rearrange his business to sell to other businesses etc. Now before you go off whining how "that ain't fair", let me stop you.
That'll work well for the mom and pop Seven-Eleven.
It certainly is fair, provides him the choice, and keeps him solidly within the law.
Its the same choice you have now to keep your income below taxable levels.
Certainly most rational merchants I know would so choose - and make more money in the bargain.
So why is the retailers association against the FairTax?
Are we now going into this little pretend game of yours claiming you were not saying there would be widespread evasion due to the FairTax???
To claim there will be a significant degree of evasion under the FairTax is not the same thing as your assertion that I stated "how dishonest everyone was". Talk about word games!
I think that now trying to shirk the responsibility of what you said is what many would consider to be "... indicative of a basically dishonest person ...", but I make no such charge.
Take responsibility for your own words, including the words make up and attribute to others. Model that behavior for us.
Not that is is any of your business, but I haven't the slightest intention of buying a Plasma TV for any reason.
OK, so would you be inclined to make any significant purchase (if you were inclined to make a significant purchase) before the FairTax went into effect, or wait and pay the added tax?