And would it work?
I’m not going to state my opinion in this post (although I’ve stated it elsewhere, earlier); rather, I’m going to put up two links for your review and come back to this topic later.
First is the 2005 President’s Advisory Panel on Tax Reform documents. It occasionally lapses into typically obscurantist bureaucratese from time to time, but I especially commend to your attention to page 14 (actual page of the pdf document) and following, wherein the panel reveals its bias up front, pages 55 (as numbered by the report) and following–a discussion of flat tax proposals, including the panel’s own model of a flat consumption tax (not the FairTax bill’s model). Following on through the report (it is in three pdf files for the report and another for the appendices), make sure to take note of the characteristics of the panel’s models, and do refer to the appendices for clarification of the panel’s sources.
Then, go here and read. The differences between the model of a consumption tax put forth by the 2005 President’s Advisory Panel on Tax Reform and the FairTax I leave for the discerning reader to see for himself.
(Yeh, I could have used the awkward and linguistically useless “himself/herself” but I don’t bend that way. If non-PC language offends you, tough. :-))
We’ll continue after homework’s done. (Or not, if the task isn’t one that appeals to anyone. C’est la vie.)
*sigh* TF points out in comments that, among other things, one of the resources I link to is quite lengthy, and just reading the first few pages got his blood boiling (my characterization of his comments–and I have to admit the document tended to boil my blood a bit, too). Trrue, it’s over 270 pages of material that is highly-laden with political bushwah, spiced with bureaucratese, but perhaps I can ameliorate the burden by pointing to this 36-page summary of the FairTax, at least. (Warning: pdf file) I don’t feel the bill’s actual language is really much of a barrier, but it is much longer and the summary is, in my estimate, a fair summary of the bill itself. There. Lightened the reading load, class, and all the other materials are there for your perusal if you wish as well.
My good deed for the day is done. 😉
Having read the opening line under the heading, Executive Summary, it’s easy to understand why our government is so far off the tracks as to be considered a runaway train.
“We have lost sight of the fact that the fundamental purpose of our tax system is to raise revenues to fund government.”
That should have read, “We have lost sight of the fact that the fundamental purpose of our tax system is to raise revenues to fund legitimate government interests”; quite a bit different than funding government.
Ah, but a list of legitimate government interests would have to be established and the culling process would eliminate most entitlement spending projects, to include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Prescription drug subsidies, farm subsidies, government buy outs of car manufacturers banks and mortgage industries and the list goes on and on and on.
What would be legitimate government interests which needs tax funding? Military expenses would have to be at the top of the list, to defend against all threats. The continual maintenance of military hardware along with substantial Army, Navy, Marine, Air Force and Coast Guard ranks would constitute the bulk of military expenses. Our communications infrastructure would be on the list, to include the deployment of satellite systems for both civilian use such as cell phones and GPS; but not to exclude world wide intelligence gathering. Other major expenditures would be for interstate highway systems and civilian air traffic control.
Bureaucracies which need to be fully reorganized within the limits set by our constitution would be the EPA and FCC. These agencies have far exceeded any governing powers to the point of becoming enemies of our Republican form of government. The same would hold true for most of the “lettered” agencies. The DOE, is that the Department of Energy or Education, never could remember; just do away with them entirely. While we’re at it; that health and human resources thing goes out with the trash too, no reason to have elements of our government which are clearly unconstitutional.
If any of the bureaucracies encroaches upon an individual’s right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness ( property rights) then these are to be done away with or severely altered until they no longer usurp such rights. What do you call a million bureaucrats at the bottom of the ocean? A good start! While on the subject, unemployment benefits were never intended to replace retirement accounts; starvation and living under the stars without shelter is a strong inducement for altering improper life style choices.
Just think what I could do if I read the rest of the crap!
WHat can I say, TF? When you’re right, you’re right.
BTW, this is one of the times when you’re right. 🙂