Replies

With a flat tax of any amount, we would still have IRS knowing our income.

With Fair Tax nobody would know your income.
(I like that)

Social Security will be funded with the NRST.
No payroll or any taxes taken out of your check.

Without getting into a long winded debate about it..

I oppose the NRST in any form because as soon as you make one (1) product untaxable.. for any reason, no matter how humane or well intentioned the floodgates are opened to apply higher tax rates to "unpopular" products as well.

In Australia the tampon lobby (yes, "Big Tampon" believe it or not) comprised mainly of feminist nutcases, says it's unfair to tax women’s hygiene products, because it's a tax burden that only women alone have to bear.. Their answer? Don't tax tampons..

And as soon as you do that, then you just get open the door to fool with other items, like ammunition, firearms, tobacco, suv's and everything else imaginable.

It would be possible to tax an "unpopular" product out of sight and would become an engine for social engineering.

That's why I prefer the flat tax. It's fair, it doesn't punish success and everyone understands it. If you change the rate, you punish both the rich and the poor equally. No more divide and conquer.

regards..

"With the Fair Tax, nobody would know your income."

Then I'm confused. How will the govt issue the "pre-bate checks", if they don't know your income?

Also, who is going to pay for the govt agency required to monitor and write the checks?

With a national sales tax, no one ever gets a shot at an idea of my income. If I don't want to purchase food in order to avoid the tax, I can just plant a garden. I acknowledge that there are problems with any tax system, but the sales tax comes the closest to being free of govt intrusion that I see.