Only one problem with the article. This quote here:
The levy received little attention during the 2005 tax reform debate under President George W. Bush because experts warned it raised less revenue than the current system and would force drastic cuts in the size of the federal government.
First, the Fair Tax is designed to be revenue neutral. It won’t force drastic cuts in the size of the federal government. It does make such things easier to implement, and makes increasing the size harder, but these are side effects.
Second, the “experts” that issued these warnings about the Fair Tax did no such thing. They warned about issues with a tax plan that’s similar, yet not identical, to the fair tax. Why does this matter? Because, every issue that they brought up, isn’t an issue with the actual Fair Tax Plan.
One common criticism that they brought up is that the 23% number was way too low, that it would be more like 40% once exclusions were added for food, etc. But the Fair Tax deliberately does not have these exclusions. That’s what makes it fair. It covers every B2C transaction that occurs in the United States, no matter what the product is, no matter who the ‘B’ is and no matter who the ‘C’ is. There are no exceptions. Period.
It is likely given the enormous growth of government that we’ve witnessed the last 4 years, that the 23% number is, in fact, now too low.
However, if you really want to get out of this recession, and get the economy moving again, giving us internet boom type of growth rates or even larger, then the Fair Tax is the way to go. As I’ve said before.
P.S. I know my page loads slow. The problem appears to be zoomclouds. I’m looking into changing my cloud.