There is no such thing as a fair tax. In all cases, it is theft.

Not fair at all. It shifts the entire tax burden to consumers, who are forced to pay for everything the federal government currently does. It’s progressive – the “poor” receive government protection and services for free, everyone else pays. It maintains the same level of overall taxation to fund today’s bloated level of federal spending, so it does nothing to reduce the heavy federal tax burden, it simply reallocates all of it to “consumers”. It does nothing to reduce the deficit or unfunded liabilities, meaning that the 23% “fair tax” rate will have to be constantly increased to service the national debt. From an Objectivist point of view, the “fair tax” does nothing to fundamentally advance the goal of having a government limited to the protection of individual rights, with payment for government services tied to the value the payer receives for those services.

I once looked into what taxes would be if the only financial requirements of the federal government were those tasks specifically allowed by the constitution. It would be $200 per year per person, those who have large families would pay more. An easier way to discover how much we pay in taxes was to find out how much money was in circulation (much easier to do 50 years ago, there was only M1) and divide it into the federal budget for the year (also easier to do then because there were fewer black budget deals). There are so many hidden federal taxes that if you simply take what tax bracket you are in you will be short of the 67% the federal government takes. Add state income taxes, sales taxes and now ACA taxes and you are soon at 85% of everything you make pays for some kind of taxation and you are living on 15% :(. If taxation is not voluntary it is theft and extortion. As soon as the government starts an unconstitutional bureau or governing agency stop paying taxes, they will be unable to make it function. That is the only vote that counts, money. The idea that there would be not roads, schools, or hospitals & etc. is preposterous, all of those things existed prior to the federal government getting involved. We would not all be standing around stupid waiting to die because of the lack of schools, hospitals and roads. At $200 per person this also assumed there was no way to make the government more responsible when it spends money for defense; i.e. $1000 toilet seats.

there is no "fair tax"....all taxation is theft...citizen contributions to govt should be voluntary...that quickly determines what govt is necessary...

While I'd rather see all non-essential taxes just go away, the Fair Tax would be an improvement on the income tax in two major ways.

(1) The government would no longer have an excuse to make you tell them all about your wealth, where you got it, and where it is stored.

(2) The marginal tax rate, and with it the disincentive on producing wealth, would be substantially less than now.

But there are even better alternatives. One would be a simple sales tax, with all food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and services exempt (thus amounting to a tax on discretionary spending). No need to annually refund everybody a "living allowance" under that scheme, the exemptions take care of that.

It's much like a "fair punch in the face".

From what I understand, the "Fair Tax" would be
like the Income Tax, except a flat percentage, in-
stead of being progressive like the present income
tax. Although that would at least take away some of the penalty for success, it would still be robbery.
I am against compulsory taxation per se.
It could be replaced (once the government were
cut down to its proper function) by something
like the present sales tax; (and, since nearly
everyone goes to the store, nearly everyone
would have a "stake in society" that some like
to talk about). How could it be voluntary? If a
store were open a certain number of days, and
the owner would not agree to pay his Law En-
forcement Fee, he would be put on notice that
if someone broke into the place and held a gun
on him, it would be no use to call 911, as the
address would be put into the computer as be-
ing a place whose owner had refused to support
the government and police. Also, thugs would
be able to tell which stores were not so protected, as they would not be given the sticker
(something like the present car-inspection stick-
er) to put in the window. (A recalcitrant store-
owner would still be allowed to use a gun for e-
mergency self-defense, but in the case of 3 or
4 thugs, this might not be practical). Also, if
he came to work and found that the store had
been trashed during the night, the police would
not help. So there would be a powerful incentive
to pay.--Also, we could still have lotteries and
court fees.
Still, we don't have a laissez-faire system
now. So, maybe the "Fair Tax" would be better
than the present income tax, for the time being.

The problem with the FairTax is the necessity to eliminate the 16th amendment to avoid income tax creeping back in. The amendment process is cumbersome, even if no one fought its abolition.

The size of government needs to be scaled back to the constitutionally authorized activities. As the Antifederalist papers authors predicted, the "general welfare" statement has been an open door to many unconstitutional elements that have created a bloated parasitic monstrosity.

Letting agencies die off by attrition would reduce the theft, and open the door to restoring the original sources of revenue, with specific fees and tariffs. That would lift the tax burden.

What about all the POOR tax attorneys, CPAs and H&R Block workers that would have to find a new way to scam us.

Hello JuliBMe,
It is far superior to what we have now and could be a stepping stone. One of my favorite features is that it gets the government busy bodies and bean-counters out of my business.
Some of us have posted interesting discussions on this subject over the last few years. Here is a link to my book review (The Fair Tax Book:...) on this site from a couple years ago. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Respectfully,
O.A.

The so-called fair tax is better than what we have now. But then, almost any tax scheme would be better than we have now. Actually, in my case the F%$#@#$% tax is not good for me as we are retired with SS and income waay below the poverty level, so we wind up paying zip. Which is one of the reasons the current system smells worse than 3 day old whitefish.
No taxation in a 350 million population nation at the current level of understanding by the citizenry is impossible. Any suggestions?

I've been a proponent for a very long time. At first I thought it was a terrible idea, but rather than condemn it on 'opposition talking points', I decided to use my skills to analyze the proposal.

What I learned is that the FairTax would, all other things being equal, increase the US GDP, by many billions of dollars, simply by reducing the compliance cost of taxpaying.

But all things are not equal! The FairTax would as published, create a far stronger economy. That would allow the US GDP to increase significantly more than the simple savings from lower compliance costs.

Additionally, the FairTax offers the one thing that the Left and the SJWs espouse, it is truly a 'fair' system that allows those who are more capable of carrying a tax burden pick up more of that load, while liberating those who for whatever reason are unable or unwilling to pay into the system avoid taxation altogether -- no implementation of the Income Tax can make that claim.

There are a few things wrong with the proposed version as published. It taxes services, such as professional fees (e.g. Doctor, Lawyer, Musician, etc.) These services should not be taxed anymore than non-pro services like babysitting, dog-walking, parking lot attendant, etc.) I would suggest a STRICT clause that restricts the tax to NEW GOODS for CONSUMPTION and nothing else.

Would adopting the FairTax cause some disruption to the US economy? Yes, in the short term, like ripping the band-aid off a healing wound. We've suffered the wound of the Income Tax for over a century. In less than 60 days under the FairTax, those 410+ fiscal quarters of pain would be on the way to being forgotten.

I did the math, it was an enormous spreadsheet where I analyzed basic commodities like bread & produce, and complex ones like automobiles & housing. In every case the effect of the FairTax would allow the economy to transition with a minimal disruption. The bookkeepers & accountants would be busy for what is essentially a thorough inventory and audit, leading up to the day of the changeover. Following that the businesses would be free to decide how to transition over the next year (if they need that much time before taking advantage of the panoply of other FairTax benefits).

Within a year the only complaint we'll hear will go something like this:

J.Taggart: "Before the FairTax I had all these coupons for 35% off my expense for supplies."

F.D'Anconia: "But have you noticed that the price of those same supplies has declined by 75% from last year?"

J.Taggart: "That's not the point. My coupons aren't worth anything anymore."

F.D'Anconia: "But, you didn't pay anything for those coupons, they cost you nothing. And now you're saving 75% instead of 35%."

The income tax accounts for a third of the moneys the fed takes in. Why not cut spending by a third and repeal the 16th amendment.

I am huge proponent of the Fair Tax, and let me explain why. First, this has nothing to do with government spending. That is an entirely separate issue that is a much bigger problem than how they collect tax. I personally believe the only money the federal government should be allowed to collect should be for defense and a federal court system, but I digress.

Assuming we are still going to be forced to pay tax, the Fair Tax would allow individuals to pay tax when they want to pay tax. You only pay it when you purchase a NEW item or service. A person could actually choose to not pay ANY federal tax by living off of the fruits of their land and buying only pre-owned merchandise. In this aspect it is somewhat a voluntary tax system. Businesses do not pay tax on any of the wholesale items they purchase. It is only taxed at the consumer level, so even business owners could not have to pay any federal tax if they so choose.

Being self employed, the biggest issue with income tax is knowing I have to pay tax whether I have the money to do it or not. The Fair Tax eliminates that. It makes budgeting, saving, and planning extraordinarily easier. I am all for it.

I like the concept of "radical" tax reform whereas we can get away from the Socialistic "Progressive" (or should I say "Regressive" tax?). The only problem that I see is that it is much more difficult to get your brain around rather than a simple "Flat" tax with no loopholes. Net, Net, bottom line, we must enact one of those two approaches. The Tax code we have now is an abomination!

Me dino says he IRS amounts to unconstitutional big government tyranny.
"FairTax" is like a cute name for a crappy product. Call a consumption tax what it is.
Like Zenphany wrote, there is no such thing as a fair tax. I prefer it over the IRS, though.

As taxes go, it is great. It is well explained at https://fairtax.org/index When one taxes production, one gets less of it. Wealth is only created by production, which, to me, means anything which encourages production is good. The argument it shifts the tax burden to consumers is ill founded as explained on the website. Then add abolish the IRS and there is a winner. Abolishing taxes will not be done, certainly not in our lifetimes, so we need to work toward a better system than an income tax and abolish the 16th amendment.

Its better than a tax on production, but its worse than reining in the feds to only constitutional expenditures.
It would mean the IRS is dead and a lot of accountants and tax lawyers would have to learn to be productive. Any such law would have to include a constitutional amendment clearly stating that income tax is unconstitutional and can never be implemented again.

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...

The FairTax on rents has been discussed widely. Here's a good illustration of what that would look like....

http://bobbiesfairtaxblog.blogspot.co...

I think we'd do better with a flat tax, personally, and even better than that by a repeal of the 16th Amendment entirely. Can you imagine how business would take off if they didn't have 30%-45% confiscated every quarter to feed the beast of government? Can you imagine what would happen if there wasn't enough money to pay for all the government oversight and rules we have heaped upon us and which cost our economy $1.6 Trillion per year?

It may be confusing to some that 23% and 30% keeps gets arguing about. Here's an explanation:

http://pafairtax.org/resrcs/inclusive...

It's the same amount of dollars, the difference are the words, "inclusive" and "exclusive".

A fair tax will replace personal income tax. You will take home your entire paycheck. A fair tax makes it unnecessary for the government to have knowledge and control over your personal business. A fair tax will abolish the IRS.
A fair tax will make imported goods cost more than goods manufactured here in the US. This is because the cost of income tax for the employees and the companies is simply added to the cost of the products. This cost will be eliminated resulting in a reduction of 25-30% in the cost of US manufactured goods. Meanwhile imported goods will be more expensive because a 35% tariff will be added to their cost.
A fair tax will be great for our economy.
Also A Galt's Gulch-like community can exist where neighbors reduce their use of money by self-sufficiency and bartering.

If anyone thinks that we can go from our current system of taxation to zero they are not thinking rationally. I agree with the premiss that we should have no taxes but that and pat on the back will get you nowhere. The Fair Tax can work to our advantage if we promote the hidden tax which is now hidden and bring it out into the open. On each retail receipt there will be an accounting of the taxes. When people see the tax and we yell loud enough seeing this tax maybe just maybe we can start whittling away at the tax monster. The good thing would be that K Street's influence would be lessened and power would be taken from our civil servants. No longer would a congressman be able to become rich by doing a few favors here and there. It is not a bad start.