[phil_will1]

"You go to your friends store and he rings up a $100 item for $25. You pay tax on the lesser amount. How is that easier to police?"

Two scenarios:
1. The store only takes in $25, in essence giving the customer a 75% discount. I think we can all agree that that just isn't going to happen on any significant basis. Businesses aren't going to forego 75% of their revenues to aid their customers in avoiding the sales tax.
2. The store takes in the entire $100, but only attributes $25 to the sale. Where did the other $75 come from? Manna from heaven? Gift income? How many businesses get 75% of their revenues from gifts? Think that might be a bit suspicious when they are audited?

Do you have any substantive concerns about the FairTax?

[gooleyman]

Do you have any substantive concerns about the FairTax?

-----
Absolutely. I have found that many times the name of an idea has little to do with the actual implementation of it. It is more or less just a way to sell it. There are always unintended consequences with any Government program. The pro people give all the good reasons for it and the con people give all the bad reasons against it.

My concern is the process of getting it passed into law. The Fair Tax web site says there will be a parallel path to get the National Sales Tax passed and to get the Income Tax repealed. Suppose we get one and not the other. Then we're stuck with both of them. Try getting rid of either one of them then. You will have been suckered.

During the debate over Social Security and savings accounts, the example of Chile (I think it was Chile) was put forward as an example of success with savings retirement accounts. Put forward a country as an example of sucess having switched over from IT to NST.