What I really like about the Fair Tax (over either a flat tax or especially the VAT) is that it’s an in-your-face tax that clearly exposes the real cost of government.

The present tax code (and corporate taxes and VAT taxes) are designed to hide the cost of government from the taxpayers. I’ve actually heard people exclaim, on April 15th, “I don’t have to pay any taxes this year!” This statement is patently absurd, but it’s a direct result of lawmakers’ continuing efforts, over the past ninety-seven years, to hide the true cost of government from the people.

I’ve heard others say “I love shopping in Europe: There’s no tax on ANYTHING!” That’s because (much like corporate taxes here) the VAT is built into the price of every single good or service you purchase. When we leave, we can file for a refund of the VAT we’ve paid on the goods we take home (though not the services we’ve received or goods we’ve used or consumed while there), but the people of Europe don’t have that option: They’re stuck having silently and obliviously paid an additional 17-25% of every Euro or Pound they’ve spent.

As for me, I want to feel the pinch every time my government reaches into my pocket, and I want my neighbors to feel it, too. I feel strongly that the cost of government should always be painful for each and every one of us, lest we, in the ignorance of our relative comfort, allow it to grow beyond all semblance of reason. (Oh … wait … too late.)

This is all unnecessary paper work that cost me money so the Government can trace our every move.

Hey Joe Biden, this is a BFD.

Who do you think they will be using them against?

Now I understand how you could still be so pleased with Obama, your heroes are made of small stuff indeed.

When you are ready to grow beyond the obscenely LOW high water mark Dummy has achieved with his efforts at political satire, assuming you ever are, may I suggest you move up to say, Michael Moore, who at least doesn’t live in his mother’s basement.

Also if we replaced our entire tax system with a sales tax we would lose the revenue on all exports unless a tariff was added. Although this would make our exports A LOT cheaper.

As far as the taxes being hidden you could say the same thing about the gas tax, for instance. If they start talking about raising the gas tax, everyone knows very well what that means at the pump. The only difference is it would apply to everything.

In fairness the same tax rate should be applied to corporations and investment income as well so that people who use the majority of their money to make more money would also have to pay and equal share.

The VAT has become a dirty word because in Europe (and maybe in the USA soon) it has been added to an income tax. The rates and spending need to go down in any situation.

When Dumm Dumm stops acting like a total fool and you learn to substantiate your arguments, we may end up learning something.

Right now, we’ll just have to settle for schooling you.

Ball’s in your court – course I expect you’ll pick it up and go home, or the equivalent, in your next lame retort.

Point is, I could make your inane posts for you and debate them myself, thus proving without a doubt that you are irrelevant.

A prerequisite for either is a repeal of the 16th Amendment an a ban on income taxation. Some have argued that a Flat Income tax is an essential step to bridge between our current gargantuan tax code and the Fair Tax, and while I dislike the idea of taxing income at all for the problems it creates that you mentioned, and more, it may well be a more achievable goal.

What IS a pipe dream is believing our current system can continue…

This video by Dan Mitchell does a great job of explaining what I’m referring to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhUOpNve1bY&feature=related

you can also see Fairtax.org, too.

a) cost more than promised
b) do harm not disclosed
c) bankrupt our country

When you add that on top of the fact that it was promoted as all peaches and honey, cobbled together with bribery behind closed doors, hated and feared by a majority of the country, AND is a clear violation of the 10th amendment, then YOU understand what we’re mad about.

Bet ya had fun slinging that ‘regressive’ slur, though.

BTW, if by Regressive, someone who supports reversing the damaging policies of 100 years of ‘Progressive’ legislation, then I’m all for it. Except, I know what you meant… you think those who believe in limited govt are into trodding all over the poor and stuff…. we can debate that another time, too much falsehood to correct in this short space.

Oh, but I’ll leave you with this thought… Progressive policies yield REGRESSIVE results and hurt the poor, the middle class, AND the ‘rich’. So you got that going for you.

I agree this is a pipe dream, but as the current tax code gets more and more complicated and more and more corrupt, the anger grows. At some point the anger will grow so strong that government will either reform or be replaced.

“13. If an owner of a business also provides services to it, does the owner count as an employee?

A. Generally, no. A sole proprietor, a partner in a partnership, a shareholder owning more than two percent of an S corporation, and any owner of more than five percent of other businesses are not considered employees for purposes of the credit. Thus, the wages or hours of these business owners and partners are not counted in determining either the number of FTEs or the amount of average annual wages, and premiums paid on their behalf are not counted in determining the amount of the credit.

14. Do family members of a business owner who work for the business count as employees?

A. Generally, no. A family member of any of the business owners or partners listed in Q/A-13, or a member of such a business owner’s or partner’s household, is not considered an employee for purposes of the credit. Thus, neither their wages nor their hours are counted in determining the number of FTEs or the amount of average annual wages, and premiums paid on their behalf are not counted in determining the amount of the credit. For this purpose, a family member is defined as a child (or descendant of a child); a sibling or step-sibling; a parent (or ancestor of a parent); a step-parent; a niece or nephew; an aunt or uncle; or a son-in-law, daughter- in-law, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law or sister-in-law.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=220839,00.html

Sounds like the French revolution to me