Last I heard it had close to 70 co-sponsors, which is far more than any other tax reform proposal.Maybe you would like to explain what co-sponsorship of a bill means to the legislative process. [Hint: nothing.]
I have never stifled any real debate, but I don’t see how you can even have a constructive debate when one side refuses to even take a specific position and all they do is attack the other side.Please. Your first response when the Flat Tax is mentioned is always "which bill do you support." That's your attempt at stifling discussion about the idea of Flat Tax and make it more about the current bills in Congress - which is totally irrelevant at this stage in the game. The bill that is going to replace our current system hasn't been written.
Actually, it can be important to differentiate between flat taxes. One flat tax is an income tax on all income at a flat rate. The Hall-Rabushka flat tax is a consumption tax, with different properties. I've seen the two mixed on many threads, although from what I've read it seems that most people are talking about Hall-Rabushka when in support.
“Maybe you would like to explain what co-sponsorship of a bill means to the legislative process.”
Co-sponsorship of the bill means that there are some members of congress who see the merits of the proposed legislation and/or they believe that it is a net positive for them politically. It isn’t a perfect measure by any means, but it is a rough guage.
“(While you’re at it, maybe you could explain why more Republicans cosponsor the FairTax bill when they are out of power than when they are in.)”
The FairTax has been growing in support for some years now. That was taking place before Republicans lost control of both houses and it is continuing since that occurrence. I see very little cause and effect, as you are implying.
“Please. Your first response when the Flat Tax is mentioned is always ‘which bill do you support.’ That’s your attempt at stifling discussion about the idea of Flat Tax and make it more about the current bills in Congress...”
Let me see if I have this straight. The opponents have the right to examine every word of the FT bill and play “gotcha” games at every opportunity, but when we ask for specific bill language to examine, it is an attempt to stifle debate? I consider it an attempt to put the debate on a level playing field.
“....which is totally irrelevant at this stage in the game. The bill that is going to replace our current system hasn’t been written.”
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. However, you do not have the right to impose that opinion on me or other posters.