[Cannoneer]

You are exactly right. We are attacking the carnivore at the wrong end. It would be better to severly limit the government’s ability to spend. No matter how much tax is collected, they are willing to spend whatever they wish. Thus the defecit. NO MORE GOVERNMENT RUN SOCIAL PROGRAMS, PLEASE!!!

[Man50D]

It would be better to severly limit the government’s ability to spend.


No tax code is or can be designed specifically to reduce spending. That is a separate issue. However The Fair Tax will reduce government spending to some extent once The Fair Tax abolishes the IRS and its 11 billion dollar price tag. It will keep spending in check. Government could only increase spending under The Fair Tax by increasing the Fair Tax rate. Doing so would result in a corresponding decrease in spending by consumers. Less spending by consumers will lessen the tax collected by the government and consequently force a reduction in spending. Congress can only maximize tax collection by keeping the tax rate and by association spending, within reasonable bounds. This concept was recognized by founding father and first Secretary Of The Treasury Alexander Hamilton. To quote:

"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. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them."