Replies

This proposal certainly sounds good, which by itself is suspicious.

My belief is that in practice such a "consumption" tax, say 23% as you cite, would simply be in addition to the present system. The IRS is not going away no matter what politicians promise, and no matter how much any politician believes he is being honest.

Sure, the income tax rate would be, say, 7% on incomes over a million dollars, to begin with. Promises, promises. Remember the 1913 beginnings and how long the promises not to tax the middle class lasted.

Even with Republican control of Congress and the Presidency the only tax relief has been a slowed rate of increase in taxes you, and I, pay.

To get votes, to be elected to office, requires paying off supporters and taxing opponents for the required funds. Ain't going to change. No upside limit to the process, either.

This proposal certainly sounds good, which by itself is suspicious.

That might be because it was not politicians who authored the legislation.

refer: FairTax History

My belief is that in practice such a "consumption" tax, say 23% as you cite, would simply be in addition to the present system. The IRS is not going away no matter what politicians promise, and no matter how much any politician believes he is being honest.

Specualtion does not mean much, as the langage of the legislation controls. Just where would the support to "simply" double the current come from?? If they could get away with it as you suggest, then federal taxes today, with respect to income available for expenditure, would be 50% right now, not the 20% they are.

refer Tax Freedom Day 2005 report PDF: Special Report No.134, April 2005

Total Effective Tax Rates by Level of Government Percent Net National Product(NNP)
Year	Federal	State	Total
1996	21.3%	10.4%	31.6%
1997	21.8%	10.3%	32.1%
1998	22.4%	10.4%	32.8%
1999⁰	22.5%	10.4%	32.9%
2000	23.1%	10.4%	33.5%
2001	22.2%	10.5%	32.7%
2002 ¹	19.6%	10.2%	29.8%
2003 ²	18.8%	10.1%	28.9%
2004³	18.4%	10.2%	28.6%
2005	19.0%	10.1%	29.1%
Notes: Leap day is omitted to make dates comparable over time. Since depreciation is not available to pay taxes, GDP is an overstatement of spendable income for the purpose of measuring tax burdens. Depreciation is netted out of NNP. "Overall, NNP provides the best statistical representation of the common notion of “spendable” resources. In 2004 NNP was $10,371.6 billion. Like GDP and PI, NNP is a component of the National Income Product Accounts (NIPA). These accounts are computed and compiled annually by the Commerce Depart-ment’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)." Tax Foundation Special Report No.134, April 2005 0 First year introduction of HR2525(Fair Tax legislation). 1 Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of 2001 2 The Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 3 Job Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 Sources: Office of Management and Budget; Internal Revenue Service; Congressional Research Service; National Bureau of Economic Research; Treasury Department; and Tax Foundation calculations.

To get votes, to be elected to office, requires paying off supporters and taxing opponents for the required funds. Ain't going to change.

The problem with the current income tax is that nearly half the electorate have no income tax liability and do not give a d' what the other half pay.

"It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?"
Walter Williams

and the numbers are growing:

Bush touts relief as tax day looms

Another 3.9 million Americans will have their income tax liability completely eliminated, officials said.

That's 3.9 million Americans more added to the spending constituency of 70% of the public clamoring for more from government, figuring someone else foots the bill.

No upside limit to the process, either.

Under the current system you are certainly correct.

The Honorable James DeMint (R-SC)
United States House of Representatives
APRIL 5, 2001

"There has been a shift in the relationship between individuals and government, he argues, such that fewer and fewer are paying taxes at the same time that more and more are receiving increasingly generous benefits. If it becomes the case that most voters do not bear a financial burden for this largess, then there will be little to restrain--and significant political incentives to encourage--the continued growth of government.

Under a consumption tax that everyone visibly participates in and has a stake in, the paradigm changes significantly:

Federalist #21:

"Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. "

"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess.
They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed - that is, an extension of the revenue."

Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:

"the oppression arising from taxation, is not from the amount but, from the mode -- a thorough acquaintance with the condition of the people, is necessary to a just distribution of taxes. The whole wisdom of the science of Government, with respect to taxation, consists in selecting the mode of collection which will best accommodate to the convenience of the people."

The FairTax bill (HR25/S25) eliminates the income tax, the IRS (and defunds it as well), requires that the income tax refords be destroyed, and calls for the repeal of the 16th amendment.

You should investigate the FairTax website.

And also: