[Mind-numbed Robot]

As I understand, what he said was that retirees are paying embedded taxes now, period, no matter if it is pre or post tax income. They are now paying the taxes which will be replaced by the NRST. The taxes they pay with the NRST simply replace the embedded taxes. It is an even swap, no gain, no loss.

The few retirees I have seen complain about "double taxation" won't be happy unless they get all their income taxes refunded before they support the NRST. They simply don't understand that they are being "double taxed" now, under the present system. Nothing changes along that line with the NRST.

[upchuck]

Thanks for your answer. But when you wrote, "The taxes they pay with the NRST" you hit the nail on the head.

The gvt has promised me that when I take money out of my Roth I won't have to pay "income tax" on it. The gvt is willing to do this as I already paid "income tax" on the money I used to buy the Roth. And gvt uses the term "income tax" because that's the way we're taxed now. So to parallel the Fair Tax system, when "income tax" is replaced by "NRST" the gvt should promise, when you take money out of your Roth IRA, you won't have to pay NRST on it when you spend it.

Otherwise, where is the advantage to the Roth IRA under the NRST?

For the record, I am very much in favor of the NRST. But I'm not willing to blindly follow Neal Boortz, et al in promoting it.

IMHO, there are "sticking points" with the NRST that need to be addressed. This business with the Roth IRA is one of them.

Another sticking point, IMHO, is municipal bonds. Munis have been used for years to finance this country's infrastructure. With no tax advantage, why will people buy these bonds?