[undeniable logic]

Suppose I said to you "Undeniable Logic, I have a plan which will double the value of your investments over 24 months. That's the good news. The bad news is you will have to pay taxes on a small portion of that increase."

And your answer would be?

Those with substantial savings, which are appropriately invested, will be huge WINNERS, not losers, under the FairTax.

No question, under your scenario, those with substantial savings would be winners. But you are assuming that huge gains are guaranteed - they aren't. They may be 99% likely, but not guaranteed. The double taxation is guaranteed. So the real question is, for someone who has substantial savings (this is not me, I am a student), are you willing to risk the guaranteed double taxation for a likely event of substantial capital appreciation?

This is an excellent question, and one that should be asked to people like my father. If their answer is NO, even if it is illogical, it should be respected.

I do want to state for the record that I believe that under the NRST, the economy will surge, markets will go up, and almost everyone will be better off - I am just bringing up some of the reasonable concerns that I know many people have that should be addressed, and it may very well be the case that your argument, as modified by me, fairly addressed the issue. I don't know, because I am not one of those that has to decide, because I don't have any wealth yet.

[Remember_Salamis]

"No question, under your scenario, those with substantial savings would be winners. But you are assuming that huge gains are guaranteed - they aren't. They may be 99% likely, but not guaranteed. The double taxation is guaranteed. So the real question is, for someone who has substantial savings (this is not me, I am a student), are you willing to risk the guaranteed double taxation for a likely event of substantial capital appreciation?"

-- We already have double taxation. Period.