Replacing the IRS with a similar bureaucracy with the same mentality is not an "overriding plus". You're rearranging deck chairs for yet another version of collectivism-statism. But it wouldn't even get rid of the IRS, only add to it and most likely become a part of it.

The overriding plus to it is that it gets rid of the IRS. If it did nothing else that would be tremendous but it does much more. Secondly I've read most of the posts in this forum and the biggest neglected part of the Fair Tax is that you don't pay any income tax up to the poverty level for consumption. While I will agree that I don't like the government sending people money that is what makes it "Fair". The rebate really helps the lower earners much more than anyone else since they will get about $540 a month for a family of 4 pus no income tax is taken out if their paycheck or FICA. This is a big boost for the lower income earners. If they ever understand the Fair Tax it will be passed in a landslide. The corrupt media and politicians will lie, lie, lie until their last breath about it however.

There is only one way this tax will get implemented. What is that? Well, the Feds would just levy it ON TOP of the current tax structure. Meaning - you'd pay it in addition to what you pay into the current system. Why? Because the tax code is written to allow the government to manipulate your behavior. In the insurance business they call this "social engineering". It's a very important (to the controllers) facet to the tax code that most in the public apparently don't know or don't think about. The government wants you in debt, house-poor, etc. This tax would reduce control. Therefore, don't get your skivvies in a bind over it because it's not going to happen (unless it's just in addition to what we're already doing).

Many years ago I asked Congressman Vic Fazio about the possibilities of a flat tax that had been bantered about in DC. He said it would hurt the building industry because it would do away with the mortgage deduction. I was young and enthusiastic so I immediately responded, "If you tax me at the rate being discussed you can rest assured I'll go out and buy another house." He looked at me like I had three heads and then went on to the next question. True story...

I'm one of them, and I wouldn't mind. There will always be work for a good bookkeeper.

It’s okay for the government to FORCE (excuse me, ENCOURAGE) you to change your outlook by its preferential tax treatment of used items? We already have the choice between purchasing something new and purchasing something used, and their prices reflect the way we value new vs. used. The “fair tax” will force more people to buy used items, especially big-ticket ones, by making the equivalent new items unaffordable. But if the majority of people (or even a significant minority) adopt your preferred method of shopping, the sale of new items, and the tax revenues the government extracts from those sales, will plummet. And then, to make up that lost revenue, the “fair tax” will have to rise from 30% to 40%, or maybe even 50% and beyond, as the economy morphs into a bazaar in which everyone trades used items with each other. That will certainly change people outlook, but it’s hardly likely to make them feel more prosperous.

Thanks.

Second time I had to use him today. A-hem!
Haven't thought of Mr. Bill in a long time either.

Ho ho kiddies!! Long time since I've seen Mr Bill. Very nice.

There is NO comparison between ObamaDoesn'tCare and the MoreFairTax. You see what I did? I changed the names closer to the reality of what they are to make those of you so fixated on labels. So, obviously, you are comparing apples to oranges and really don't need to bring up ObamaDoesn'tCare again as it does not apply.

You don't understand the difference between choice to purchase something new as opposed to purchasing something used? For one thing you avoid the tax. SO WHERE'S THE FORCE???? Next you avoid depreciation. How about THAT in making people feeling more prosperous? I buy used ALL the time now, have for years, and save a BUNDLE and find things that are actual TREASURES, not new junk from China. It's only a matter of changing your outlook.

I get it. You don't want to see the benefit of it. FINE. I'm tired of this discussion with you going round and round rehashing the same concepts you can't seem to absorb. Have a lovely evening.

And lo it came to pass that what was left unnoticed despite the original nudge was alas found at last. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WO6_...

I addressed compliance costs in a previous post, but am delighted to repeat it again. The “fair tax” website calculates compliance costs at about $265 billion per year. I expect most of this amount will remain in place, as individuals and businesses will still have to perform the exact same calculations for their state and local income taxes. They will just have a few less forms to send in. And small businesses will have to spend time, money and emotional distress to cope with the more frequent audits that the “fair tax” website promises will be imposed on them. Add in all the other disadvantages of the fair tax, and the total package is not a worthwhile trade-off, in my opinion.

Actually there are 2 books written by Neal Boortz (who helped write the bills). "The Fair Tax Book" is a quick, easy read, and goes into excellent detail on questions like this. The follow up book "Fair Tax: The Truth" covers a bunch of questions and perceived problems as well. I would highly recommend reading these.

You propose to stop taxing income BY FORCE and begin taxing consumption BY FORCE. The same amount of money will be extracted from taxpayers either way. Why should people feel much more prosperous when, on average, they will pay the same amount of tax as before? People will be able to VOLUNTARILY decide whether to pay the “fair tax” to the government at their local Ford dealer or at their local Chevy dealer. So what? They are still being FORCED to pay the taxes to the federal government, and on average the same amount as before. And “fair tax” proponents are assuming a best possible case, that things will work out precisely in the way that they’re describing. There’s about as much chance of that happening as the chance that Obamacare will suddenly begin functioning in the way its proponents claimed it would.

Is there a website that lays out details like this? I wasn't able to find out this or many other important details on the fair tax website.

I agree with you entirely that the devil is in the details! Land sold would NOT be taxed under the Fair Tax. Only new consumer level goods and services. Land is not a good or service. The value of the land would not be taxed under the Fair Tax system. So if you buy a new "spec" home, there will be a value allocated to the land that is not subject to the tax. If you buy land and have a house built on it, then the calculation is easy.

"he" IRS... Oh never mind... ;)

We're already paying the taxes. That, obviously, won't change. So, the question becomes, "is it better to tax income or purchases?".

When you stop taxing income BY FORCE, people will keep more of their money. Then people will feel much more prosperous....you can't QUANTIFY that can you? No, you can't. Then people will be able to VOLUNTARILY decide where to make their purchases and pay that tax that was FORCED from them before. Believe me, people still will spend. They have to. They will still need their food and clothing and, after a period of adjustment, they will maybe be more discriminating, but they will buy other goods, too. Everybody likes stuff! We are very much a consumer society. And, if we end up being less so, and start saving more, that's all to the good.

Where is the problem? You keep seeing one that does NOT exist.

Our medical system was NOT that flawed when over 80% of the population was quite happy with their medical insurance as it was. Obamacare was shoved down our throats for the reason that the Marxist Left want complete control of our bodies and our lives. No other reason.

There's also a difference between the sales pitches of democrats and the sales pitches of any other person in the world. It's a given that if an elected democrat is speaking, they are telling you lies....so the Obamacare boondoggle was KNOWN by the alternative media and EVERY person who consumed it. Prior to it's implementation, the THINKING people of this country REVOLTED. Remember the Tea Party? It began with Obama's "shovel ready jobs" 1 trillion dollar theft of the treasury and intensified when Obamacare was being shoved down our throats.

So, where's all the angst over HR25/S 155, the FairTax? If the main stream media, or even the more informative alternative media would discuss it, which they DO NOT, it would be really interesting to see how the discussion would go, wouldn't it?

Again, you have nothing to say about the lack of compliance costs incurred by EVERYONE if the FairTax was implemented?

I would see it as a value-add on the property tax as the most-reasonable approach, and the most reliable source of revenue - annual value-based tax, rather than on the purchase (which would be once every 20 years - or after this, people would never buy or sell a house and it would become generational ownership like is common in Europe).

That's where plans like this dramatically break down. Its absurd to tax a house in New York or California, in my neighborhood, literally, the tax would be $250,000 on an average 4 bedroom / 2 bath home, vs maybe $25,000 in Ohio.

I don't see it as a doable scheme on real estate, there are vast differences by locale. Someone making $100k a year doesn't have to chip in $250,000 on taxes in a single year.

I would expect it as well. I'm saying that the sophisticated (and high cost) of hiring Fidelity or whoever to do it, and only selling those employees their "preferred" investment products (in other words the ones with enough commission to choke a horse and abysmal returns compared to the market) would go away - you could see simply managed accounts where the employee could pick anything from bonds, to index funds, to simply picking the ones on the entire market with the best returns. Not the -5% on the low end, to 9% at the absolute best that you see offered to employees.

Actually, UI is probably on the table in reality, the states manage the program, but the money is from the feds (or at least 90% is). The premium itself might not go away, but it would be dramatically reduced.

Tariffs as well, presumably, and on the production side, it doesn't cost $50,000 in parts to build a $50,000 car, it's probably $10,000 in parts and some labor, plant, robots, etc. Sure the cost of sale is there and taxed, but its not dramatically so.

i see it like this I suppose, some people are savers, some are spenders. If you have zero in cash and a big credit card bill, its obvious. I tend to save a lot of what I earn and don't really have many bills, and I tend to lease the vehicles - so in my case, I would have a 30% tax on the car lease monthly or whatever ($90 on $300 or whatever), money I save is never taxed, and earnings on savings & investment I would also assume are never taxed since it is a consumption-based thing. If someone wants to buy a yacht, so be it, pay the tax. It would definitely encourage the right activities for long term economic growth - saving and investing, versus spending. Spending might be a short-term boost, but when 65% of Americans can't come up with $400 to fix a power window motor on their car (probably a Mercedes knowing people around here), then what is their retirement going to look like? That $1089 social security check isn't going to cover their lifestyle. At some point, they can't work, do we as a society inherit that stuff?

Right now, I pay 43% (state & federal) on EVERYTHING I make after the standard deductions / mortgage interest, etc., but I've been in my house for 20 years, so that MI deduction is dwindling. I also pay an enormous property tax bill, etc. This is California, they never met a tax they didn't really like. But on a Fair Tax, I'm a bit more in control, if I choose to spend money, it is tacked on and it will ultimately influence the price of the product because other competitors might be able to do something cheaper. It will certainly chase production efficiency, but without business income taxes & such, that might make our businesses more profitable (to be here instead of somewhere else).

I'm not a lover of the idea, I'm open to seeing the details. It's scary to young people I'm sure, but they are always broke anyway. At some point, you have to be an owner of your assets and start transitioning to lowering your income, but spending less. Right now, I (and all others like me) can never get under that taxing our retirement income thing. When you have everything, don't need a new car every 5 years or whatever, you can control what this costs.

I know the employer share is 50%. What I don't know is whether that would go away under the "fair tax", as I don't see it addressed on their website. Sorry if I was unclear.

Unemployment insurance, as I understand it, is a state-level tax that would not go away under the "fair tax". At least I don't see it addressed on their website.

The matching and automatic savings features of 401-K plans are an important part of their attractiveness to employees, and I would expect that something similar would be offered by employers even if the tax deferral features were eliminated.

The "fair tax", as I understand it, applies to all purchases of new items for personal use, including homes. If rent is taxed (which I understand it would be), landlords would take a big hit the value of their investments for the reasons you cited above. And if homes and rents are excluded from the "fair tax", the rate would have to rise considerably from the projected 30% in order to make up for that lost revenue source.