[groanup]

And I have acknowleged that is a problem. I have also pointed out that even after tax savings, with the possible exception of municipal bonds, will benefit greatly if there is no income tax. These people will not have automatically a 20% loss of purchasing power. They may have a loss but far from a number that exactly matches the sales tax rate.

ARe you one of those who will lose some purchasing power in your retirement savings or one who will reap a financial windfall. If you have a lot of retirement savings it is likely you fall into one of those two categories. For that reason, it shouldn't be too great a leap for a one time adjustment between those two extremes. I'm sure it can be addressed in congress.

[lewislynn]

I'm sure it can be addressed in congress.

The debate is about what we know, not wishful thinking.

Surely the most researched tax bill to ever be presented in Congress has already addressed the points you bring up but choose to ignore them for a reason.

[lewislynn]

Kotlikoff April 2000:

So what does taxing consumption have to do with achieving a generationally equitable fiscal policy? Again, essentially everything. The reason is that the current elderly as well as the baby boomers, who will shortly retire, have one primary economic activity left to accomplish - consumption. And under a consumption tax, they will pay a lot more in future taxes than they would under the current tax system. Although the elderly as a group would share in the burden of a consumption tax, the poor elderly - those living exclusively on Social Security benefits - would not because their benefits are indexed to the consumer price level and are thus guaranteed in real terms.

That would apply to every generation including when you retire.