[baybabe]

No those two words don't confuse me at all but you use them out of context with the FairTax since the part of it you quote has to do with specified procedural/legal actions called out in the bill itself. Your use of the words is more properly applied to those under the income tax who use many different stratagems NOT spelled out by law to try to duck their tax obligations - and the income tax laws/regs have many possible such spots. And you seem unable to read and understand the clear language of the bill. If you were able to do so it would dawn upon you that the “taxpayer” the bill refers to is the seller of the taxable thing who must forward the tax reports and funds to the sales tax administration of the particular state.

It is not the consumer who has no such obligation and therefore is under no danger of any “... garnish wages or salary and file liens to collect amounts due under this subtitle ...”. The taxpayer mentioned is not the consumer and seem to not realize that.

It is certainly possible for a business (the small businessman in particular) to have “wages and salary” from his business selling to consumers but in that event it is the funds from the business what should have been paid in tax that are in question. If you’d study the bill more carefully I think you’d see this.

As for the tax contribution from the underground economy, there have been a number of detailed numerical examples on that matter and they show that under the present income tax system the actual amount that comes from those in the underground economy in the form of additions to the income tax is pathetically small rather than the 23% tax inclusive amount of the FairTax. This means that not only does the tax contribution from that segment increase greatly, but the number of taxpayers paying any significant tax amounts (23%) also greatly increases. This happens to be the case whether you like it or not.

[lucysmom]

It is certainly possible for a business (the small businessman in particular) to have “wages and salary” from his business selling to consumers but in that event it is the funds from the business what should have been paid in tax that are in question. If you’d study the bill more carefully I think you’d see this.

Okay, then we may assume that a small businessman who does not pay himself a salary or wage is exempt?

How do you explain the part of the bill that says school books and clothes may not be seized?

The taxpayer mentioned is not the consumer and seem to not realize that.

Really, so then the end user does not incure the tax liability, and business pays the FairTax after all.