Posted by
Andrews on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 5:20:55 PM
I thought I had finally found a respectful, sensible representative of the FairTax supporters. I even went so far as to respond at great length in two full blog posts. I even responded point by point to his comments. Not to mention that in that reply I did not even mention that he had said nothing about my claims of a massive bureaucracy that would be required.
So, how does he respond?
I now understand why folks don't debate this with you.
You
have got to be a tax lobbyist, right? Or a paid staffer who has his
hand so deep in the 66,000 page honeyjar that going transparent would
mean his/her livelihood?
Tactic number two of the FairTaxers. Number one is "If you don't like the FairTax you love the current system", number two is "if you can't fight the argument, impugn his motives."
Well, I did say in my response that I decline to answer any more posts from yt_knight, and I mean to stand by that. However, I will make one small allowance and respond to two of his statements here.
First, I have nothing to do with the tax system, and, as I made clear, I am, not interested in preserving the current tax system, I just think jumping into a new system based on sketchy proof and wishful thinking is a bad idea as well.
Second, as you challenged me to propose a system for you to tear apart, I will go one better and give you two(though I already proposed both to you before you asked me to propose a tax system):
1. If we must have a national tax, then I propose a flat tax paid by everyone, with no exemptions, no deductions and no withholding. I have talked about this before. Check out my post "
If We Must..."
2. My ideal is a system we had for many, many years, wherein the states fund the federal government directly, deciding tax matters on their own. I mention some benefits
here, but the remaining discussion is spread over too many posts to link here.
Feel free to tear into either. I still contend that either would be preferable to the FairTax.