[Filo]

That is incorrect; the FairTax addresses each and every one of them.

No it doesn't. The FT is "revenue neutral" and funds each of those problems/issues just as they are today.

I find it interesting that someone who doesn’t understand how the FairTax impacts the various adverse economic trends that this country faces and doesn’t understand how getting rid of imbedded taxes in the production chain leads to greater visibility refers to the “glaring errors” in the current proposal and refers to it as “too broken”.

And I find it interesting that FTers lie through their teeth with such regularity.

The FT does nothing to address any of your issues besides compliance costs and even there it's not a complete solution.

The FT is no more transparent than current tax/budget methods.

The public now knows that Obama is proposing 1.8 trillion dollars in deficit for 2010. What have they done about that?

Nada.

[phil_will1]

“No it doesn’t. The FT is ‘revenue neutral’ and funds each of those problems/issues just as they are today.”

The FairTax is only revenue neutral if scored statically - which is what congress requires for consideration. You won’t find a single reputable economist who will agree that the economy is static, rather than dynamic.

Some have suggested as a goal doubling the size of the US economy within the first 15 years after the FairTax is enacted. If that goal is realized, then the revenue base for collecting SS & Medicare revenues would be doubled. If we stick to a payroll base for collecting these revenues, there is no way to double the base in 15 years because of the demographic bubble that we face today. Even if the economy isn’t doubled, it is still certain to grow at a much faster rate than will the labor force.

The FairTax is the only proposal that I am aware of which addresses the core issue with both of these programs, which is the demographic bubble and the unsustainable dependency of the system on payroll revenues. Without addressing that issue, the only way to address SS and Medicare’s insolvency is with enormous tax increases or benefit cuts, or a combination thereof.

That is just one example of how the FT addresses the adverse economic trends which I enumerated above. The fact that you, as well as most Americans, do not understand the relationship does not make it any less valid. This is one reason that we find that the more Americans understand the FT, the more strongly they support it.

I don’t have time to go into how the FT addresses the other adverse trends at the moment.