More pitfalls in the so-called FairTax

A compatriotess asked her email list for comments on a letter to the editor she was preparing yesterday. She is very, very intelligent and conservative, but her letter -- a critique -- of the FairTax notion -- seemed to pull some punches. For instance, she was came across as being as favorable toward (ugh!) Mitt Romney as Ron Paul, and cited the case of some country where the scheme has been enacted but not before first abolishing the income tax that the so-called FairTax is supposed to replace. I think the country was France -- it ended up with both the income tax scourge and the FairTax plague!

She did provide some good new facts, though. You my dear readers will now have the best of both worlds -- her piece (black and white) with my radical rewriting and challenges (colors) :

In 1999, a tax reform bill named "The FairTax Act" was introduced by then-Rep. John Linder of Georgia. It has been introduced in every session of Congress since. The name of the bill implies that Americans will be taxed on a fair or equitable manner. But is this true?

The United States federal government currently spends taxpayer money on many things with which taxpayers disagree. If "FairTax" (aka "Fair Tax") is passed, will we still be forced against our will to fund that which we find morally reprehensible? Is that "fair"?

The "FairTax" bill never addresses the constitutionality of spending, nor does it reduce by even a penny the size of government spending (as the authors of "The FairTax Book" admitted). It is a tax shift. As a taxpayer advocate, I favor reducing taxes for ALL, not shifting some from one group to another. Could you give brief details on that? News to me! If I turn to my neighbor and say, "I think you should pay more tax than I do," then I do not love that person as I love myself. And that violates one of the two great commandments.

The "FairTax" legislation would not only pave the way for greater intrusion into our personal lives by tracking all of our spending but also would put all all people in all households on government entitlements through "pre-bate" checks. If "FairTax" succeeds in getting rid of the IRS, then an "IRS 2" must be implemented to handle the pre-bate checks.

In accordance with the plain words of the Constitution, and to quote a great living statesman named Ron Paul, the income tax needs to be abolished and replaced with nothing. Some say the "FairTax" would work if the income tax were abolished, but I seriously doubt the U.S. federal government of the twenty-first century could be trusted with such a task.

Among its many problems, I find these about the "FairTax" extremely objectionable:

- Revenue neutrality (requiring no reduction in federal spending or that spending be constitutional);

- Progressive nature (allowing increases over time);

- Entitlement mentality expansion (providing monthly government "prebate" checks to all households); and

- Tax swap nature (focusing on class warfare).

Furthermore, any attempt to implement a similar program on the state level will also be a recipe for trouble.

If elected officials want to do something great for this country, I recommend that they work to:

* Eliminate the Federal Reserve (whose monetary policy has destroyed about 96% of the dollar's purchasing power since 1913);

* Return our country's monetary system to sound money, eliminating fiat currency;

* Require the elimination of the income tax, period; and

* Require that all spending first pass the constitutionality test (which will eliminate a large percentage of government outlays).

Cut this if it doesn't agree with the Paul plan: For more information, I refer readers to Dr. Laurence M. Vance's writings on "Fair Tax" on www.mises.org and other sources.

I enjoy this kind of challenge and would be glad to proofread short items for you. (Longer texts? Let's talk.) But be warned, you may be more radical than you ever knew!

/\/.\/\/.