FairTax Loophole

Andrew,

On pages 13 and 14 of the FairTax Summary (link below) you can see that each individual can be counted in the prebate only once.

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/PlainEnglishSummary_TheFairTaxAc t2007.pdf

YK

Yes, the summary says that, the law itself does not. That was why I was reading the law, not the summary.

If they enact the summary, then you are right, but in the law there is nothing that prevents double counting.

I commend you for taking the time to read the full 133 page monstrosity of the FairTax. How long did it take you?

I understand that you don't subscribe to the "simplicity" argument but if you multiply your time reading the FairTax bill by about 500 and you might be able to read our current 66,000 page tax code.

On simplicity, I believe there should be as few moving parts as possible. This does not prohibit a Flat Tax from being a possible solution... It does prohibit our current tax from being an ongoing consideration though.

Peace,

YK

Again, simplicity is nice, but not essential.

Just one example:

The common law is simple. Burglary is the breaking and entering of the dwelling place of another during hours of darkness with the intent to commit a felony therein. (I aced crim law, got all 7 elements there.)

Anyway, the problem with simplicity is sometimes it is a forced fit. And we had people breaking into houses during daytime going free, or those breaking into businesses being charged with only misdemeanors.

So a number of other statutes were added. Housebreaking, statutory burglary, breaking and entering.

The system became much more complex, but also much better.

However, we went from a one sentence law to several sections of most state's criminal codes.

The system is more complex, but a better fit. having retained simplicity would have made the system worse, not better.

And so I stand by my statement that simplicity cannot be a consideration when deciding on a tax system. A complex system may be better than a simple one.

Recall that "The state takes everything" is the most simple tax system of all, yet not one either of us would endorse.

You are not really defending our bloated 66,000 pages of tax code are you?

Remember, we are trying to stay solution-independent in the objectives that come up with. Perhaps "concise" should replace "simple"?

I do stand by my "fewer moving parts" position. I believe that the more knobs, levers, dials, and switches that the government has the more they tend to muck things up.

I am not about to defend the current system, I simply argue that simple, or even concise is neither good nor bad.

It is as if you said "I want to get married and she must be named Rose". I would argue that naming is irrelevant in picking a mate, and I argue that simplicity is just as irrelevant in taxation.

The government can muck around whether simple or complex. Nothing is more simple than a gold coin, yet debasement, under weighting, all manner of trickery was carried out with that one simple item.

Simplicity gives no guarantees.