Your arguing down the wrong path.
The point I was attempting to make, sorry for the misunderstanding, was that the Fed’s would rather keep the system setup to “TAKE THEIR CUT” rather than give the people the power to have more control over when they pay by possibly watching their spending.
The circumstance was nothing more than a hypothetical. Pick the situation, doesn’t matter. They take their share, or you give them their share.
I think the fed’s will not allow that power to be turned over to the people. Call me nutty.
The FairTax has been called "the permission to live tax", why?
The income tax takes a share of what you have, the FairTax takes a share of what you need. Before you are permitted to eat - pay 30% to the government. Before you get medical care, pay 30% to the government. Before you get your prescription filled, pay 30% to the government. Want a roof over your head and heat in the winter, pay 30% to the government.Your child needs orthodontic work, pay 30% to the government. And if you pay for health insurance - why that's another 30% to the government
Another way to think of saving and investing is deferred consumption. You may scrimp and save, foregoing steak for tofu, and when the time comes to spend what you've saved, its 30% to the government (assuming that the FairTax rate is still 30%).