Replies

You already do, and the government always has the chance to add new taxes later. You argument seems to be that unless the government and politicans, and what they do every day can be eliminated for all of the future, I can't support anything.

First of all, you aren’t going to browbeat me with the “you already do” nonsense. I realize that my income is taxed and taxed again, but that is holistically different from the double-taxation I am talking about.

As an example, if I have $100,000 dollars in (already taxed) savings before the fair tax is implemented I can spend that on $100,000 of products. Once the Fair Tax is in place it will be worth, at best, $85,000 because a 23%/30% tax will have been added to the cost of everything sold without the prices coming down by that amount.

Who is going to reimburse me for that $15,000, or whatever the number ends up being, when all is said and done?

Impossible. The 16th can be repealed. But a ban on a future income tax is impossible. All it would take is a constitutional amendment and bam, its back.

Yes and no. If the Amendment that implements the Fair Tax is worded in such a way that it becomes void if any other tax is implemented then there is, at least, some transparency in the effort.

Either way, a pre- or simultaneous repeal is mandatory.

The NRST and a VAT are two wholly seperate and entirely different things. Worse than apples and oranges in comparrison.

I wasn’t making a comparison other than to show that having multiple abusive taxes in place is not out of the question.

I don’t trust our government enough to think they wouldn’t do this in a heartbeat if they could. All I want to do is make it as close to impossible as possible.

Already the case because of embedded taxes. So at the end of the day, there is no difference. One is replaced with the other.

Bullshit. The Fair Tax rate is far greater than the embedded tax rate. You need only look at the tax components being “eliminated” to figure this out.

Is the Fair Tax so inherently weak that its proponents must lie to generate support?