Replies

I'm having a really really really really really hard time believing that a politician, ANY politician, would do something that would IN REALITY reduce the amount of money they get from the taxpayer.

As Ron Paul says, there's no such thing as a tax cut UNLESS THERE'S A CORRESPONDING CUT IN SPENDING. It simply cannot be. If there's a tax cut and no corresponding drop in spending, they'll raise a zillion other current taxes in tiny increments to make up the difference.

would do something that would IN REALITY reduce the amount of money they get from the taxpayer.

I'm not so sure that is accurate. It would eliminate the loop holes for illegals (what 9 or so million of them) and it would open up a new source from tourism. Most of the rich people (leftists) avoid income taxes all together. Question is -- will the tax apply to purchases made from abroad? We are the largest exporter in the world of consumer goods. This could actually be a tax on the world.

There is a huge difference between a "Tax Cut" and a "Tax Rate Reduction". Tax Cut has become the generic term for tax rate reductions by the left for obvious reasons and the conservatives have never countered with the real term, tax rate reduction.

Reagan did NOT cut taxes, he reduced rates and tax revenue increased. A tax "cut" would have reduced revenues.

And the RATs in congress during the 80's promised to reduce spending $2 for every new $1 in tax revenue. They spending reductions NEVER happened and that is why we had such huge deficits in the 80's.

Actually, the NRST will increase the amount of money the federal government receives.

All tax proposals must be, by law, "revenue neutral," as scored by the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Tax Committee.

Well, CBO and JTC use "static" scoring; i.e., they do not take into account the behavior of taxpayers when faced with increasing or decreasing tax burdens. An increase in tax rates is scored as an increase in revenues and a decrease in tax rates is scored as a decrease in tax revenues.

The national experience is just the opposite: historically, an increase in tax rates actually results in a decrease in revenues and a decrease in tax rates actually results in an increase in tax revenues! (Supply side economics really does work!)

For whatever peverse political reasons, the CBO and the JTC have never gone to dynamic scoring of tax legislation, and as a result, their estimates of the fiscal effect of changes in the tax code are always wrong.

There is an effort underway to change the way the CBO and JTC score legislation, but for the moment, they are still scoring on a static behavior.

The NRST lowers the overall tax burden on individuals, and will cause, all other factors being equal, an increase in federal revenues. And we already know that the feds know how to spend the money!

The FairTax is revenue-neutral, meaning that it raises the same amount of $$ as the taxes it replaces. However, it does eliminate about $250 Bill in compliance costs annually, it puts illegal immigrants and foreign tourists on our tax rolls, and improves the price competiveness of US produced goods.

It would, however, make the taxes we all pay more visible, which should exert downward pressure on rates ... and therefore spending.