Your thought process (or merely your false argument style) confuses me.
You seem confused. A CRIMINAL underground exists to make $ by conducting illegal activities. In addition some LEGAL activities are conducted by TAX EVADERS.
How is that criminal underground not able to continue hiding their income under a flat tax?
You pick a car, which is highly regulated/registered. Most spending is NOT. Drug dealers will find a way to avoid paying 40-70% sales taxes (even on cars) mainly by using CASH in the Black Market, using businesses,and a host of new, creative methods.
I used a singular example; I could just have easily used food, gasoline, water etc etc. I am sure that you will find some warped distorted way to claim that all these items will be available in this massive underground economy that will suddenly occur due to sales taxes.
What you don't understand is that there will be LESS evasion with a 10% rate than thee is today. More important is the fact that today's tax collection are AFTER evasion, but the FT revenue targets (i.e., the same as today's) is AFTER evasion AND the FT incredibly "assumes" ZERO evasion AND ZERO voluntary spending reduction in reaction to the 40-70% sales tax rate (Perhaps on Planet FT, but not here).
This is, of course, a false assumption based on similar assumptions made by a Fair Tax proposal. Now please don’t get me wrong, I would take that over nothing. But I think your assertions and main issues with the Fair Tax are over the “Prebates” which I am not real excited about and think would need more analysis and re-working.
Ah, the "economic boom". Not only are you a grammar critic, but you are also a Prophet who can GUARANTEE future economic results - AWESOME!
Well if you engaged your brain for a minute and think; if we are no longer requiring citizens, companies and corporations to spend the $200 billion annually in compliance with a complex tax code that even experts like you cannot begin to comprehend, you would see that this releases a LOT of capital back into the economy.
What do you think happens when individuals take home pay jump by an average of 25%?
You make several naive/deceptive comments in 1 sentence. No Filing; you may well have to file an "Annual FT Summary" if the new IRS (STAA) is tasked with protecting the revenue - I would do that if I were in charge. NEW IRS (STAA) will be BIGGER and its audits would be MORE INTRUSIVE than today's audits. My Flat tax is NOT a mere tweak - it is massive radical surgery which neuters the IRS.
You make several naïve/deceptive comments; you MAY well have to file and annual FT summary?
The new IRS??? What NEW IRS would you be speaking of unless you are now ASSumming an awful lot about the Fair Tax.
Understandably, you fail to be specific in your claim that my math is wrong. Be specific and i will explain.
It is only because I have limited time and you posted an awful lot of ASSumptions and calculations.
I will take a long hard look at them; the thread will still be here, and respond. Like I said, your primary argument is something I agree with you on; I don’t like the Prebate concept and am looking at what could be a much better alternative.
I like the simplicity of not having forms to fill out and to me, this prebate may actually require forms.
My reference to Karl Marx is specifically targeted at the important principle of wealth redistribution- the FT INCREASES WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION. Your belief that the FT reduces the govt is naive - it is KOOL-AID induced euphoria.
I never made that claim; this is YOUR strawman. I indicated that combined with term limits, elimination of subsidies and closing five Executive Departments, it would go a LONG way in getting us back to Constitutional Government.
How could it be euphoria when there are so many critics of the FT like you who want to stay with the status quo? The flat tax will never get us there and will become the same abomination the current code became.
You ask people to read the FT pure sales-hype, propaganda - I offer to expose all of it.
Well let’s see some credible links from the experts you defer to and see how they stack up to my “propaganda.” I was a complete skeptic; I read the book; I love the ideas.
Go to fairtaxblog.com; right side, 2nd item - Fair Tax-Related Research. There you will find the 1995 Paper by the 2 UT economists that I referred to, as well as a number of (mostly) economics Papers, several of which I have reviewed and analyzed, finding outrageous flaws.
I breezed through it and what I found compelling is the desire of these geniuses to boil individuals and their decision making down to very complex formulas. While I was fascinated by all these formulas in school, what I learned in the real world is that they did a very poor job trying to predict the economy, and outcomes.
You see, you just cannot program the human mind into these fantastically clever formulations and run them through a computer with any reasonable predictability of real life outcomes.
So basically, they agree with my assessment and I argue that their data formulations are flawed because I believe the positive effects of the Fair Tax will also lift up ALL income groups, not just the middle class and the rich.
To conclude, fundamental reform of the current U.S. tax structure offers the possibility of significant macroeconomic gains, but not without true sacrifice by certain groups. Adjustments that attempt to prevent adverse distributional effects yield much more modest aggregate effects. This, at least, is the view from a model that captures many, but certainly not all, of the inefficiencies of the current system. Expanding the current model to incorporate inter-asset and inter-sectoral tax distortions as well as enforcement and compliance costs could well alter this view, but that task remains for future research.
