In response to CAV’s most recent comments…

The ‘Fair Tax’ is no step in the right direction. It is like a band-aid on a cancerous lesion:

Sure, this system would still sacrifice individual property and productivity for the sake of a collective. Yes, it would still exist as a system of force, funding a federal budget that’s 80-90% illegitimate. It would still be immoral, and it is indeed a band-aid.

But, it would likely demolish perhaps the most intrusive and out-of-scope instrument of destruction and force at GovCo’s disposal. To ever arrive at the moral, just system that you and I both envision, a major philosophical and structural revolution would have to occur. This movement could be the beginning tug in an effort to yank the rug from under the table… which I think is what really will have to happen to facilitate change.

I do think this would be a step in the right direction for four reasons.

One, many businesses would be relieved of the accounting and administrative burden of our current withholding system, enabling them to focus more time and energy on being innovative and productive. The effects of this relief on small businesses alone could be enormous.

The lesion needs to be observed by someone who knows what he’s looking at, and removed before it worsens — not hidden from view for the convenience of those who don’t want to look more closely.

Second, taxation on a consumption basis would highlight, not hide the amount of wealth being forced from individuals. Withholdings facilitate an inconspicuous way to sweep the amount confiscated under the rug. If every consumer has to face the reality of where a large portion of their money goes on a daily basis instead of once a year, I do think more people will start to ask questions.

Third, we the victims would have a greater ability not to sanction our destroyer. In our current system we have very little choice but to sanction it. We have to work to survive and within our current laws then taxes must be “withheld.” Outside of risking the wrath of an IRS audit, there’s very little avenue for escape. We either have to work, and pay what we’re told; or not work, and perish.

A consumption tax returns power back to individuals… albeit minimal. I have to work to survive, but I don’t have to consume at my current rate to exist. My family could live on much less than we presently do. Under the FairTax we could consume less and still produce at our current rate. We could easily cut our monthly burn rate by 60%. That’s 60% more control (less taxation) than we have now without dropping our productivity at all. Currently, the only way you can pay less into the system, other than complicated legal wrangling, is to produce less. The FairTax would dissolve this dichotomy. One could consume less and maintain one’s productivity. Yes, the economy would inevitably suffer from the reduction in consumption, but the beast and its moochers would starve before the productive. Although it wouldn’t go down without a fight, this empowerment could serve as a means to starve the beast.

Finally, although it’s definitely not “fair,” as implied by its title, it would at least make it a possibility to spread the tax burden more evenly (again, without reducing production). Currently, the tax burden is grossly skewed towards the top 5% of income earners. There would still be sloth’s who pay nothing at all, but the big chunk wouldn’t necessarily fall only on the shoulders of the most productive as it does now.

I think this is one case where a movement whose philosophical roots are either not well articulated, inconsistent or even non-existent could serve as a means to a larger end - one with legitimate moral tenants. In other words, I think this could lead us to the same desirable goal… just with less objectively pure premises. It wouldn’t be the complete 180 that we should take, but it would be a very prominent shift towards that end.

In response to CAV @ Gus Van Horn who recently commented on the FairTax…

As one who once fell for a different primary season tax gimmick, I agree with Shlaes. This idea [The FairTax Plan] is a gimmick. It is an attempt to evade the fundamental problems posed by the nature of the welfare state as a mechanism for the redistribution of wealth. (The problem of enforcement, which proponents soft-pedal, is just one way this problem rears its ugly head.)

I don’t see the FairTax bill as a gimmick. Neither the bill, nor its proponents contend that the scope of our welfare state will be reduced.

That’s really not its declared purpose. The purpose is to eliminate the burden of the IRS and its overhead from individual and corporate accounting. Wouldn’t this would be the largest reduction in the overreaching scope of Government in the history of our nation?

Additionally, this could initiate monumental cleansing of our political system solely by its devastating affects on lobbyists.

The system will still be progressive, complex and immoral, but arguably more just. No longer will passivity be rewarded while achievement is punished (to the extent that it currently is). No longer will the presence and magnitude of individual contributions be virtually hidden by way of “withholdings.”

Sure, the consumption tax rate can and would still be increased, but in a tremendously more visible manner to everyone who consumes – not in a progressively tiered assault on the most productive individuals. And sure, enforcement would still be complex, but its victim base is much more narrowly focused (retailers), and its guidelines greatly simplified.

We should passionately defend and advocate reason, rights, laissez-faire Capitalism, self-reliance, low taxes and the proper role of Government on principle, but this movement (albeit pragmatic) presents a strategy for dismantling a giant governmental tumor.

The FairTax wouldn’t eliminate all the rats and roaches, but it would open windows and clear the air, making their hideouts more conspicuous.

How could this not be a step in the right direction?

I will actually vote for Ron Paul. This man is saying things that no other politician has the philosophical basis, nerve, or intellectual honesty to even hint at on a national stage.

Paul gets it. He realizes that we shouldn’t have digressed in to a country where politicians tell us what we can and cannot put in our bodies, how much we should be able to keep of the money we earn, how much business owners should pay their employees, or that we should have to ask permission to exercise our right to protect our own lives. He consistently cites individual rights, freedom and the founding documents of our once great nation. He conveys no altruistic mandates, no “rights” which are really privileges, nor any compulsory sacrifice of individuals to other individuals or the state.

Honestly, he’s consistent enough across the board on reducing the size and scope of government that I would gladly overlook his questionable stance on abortion for the monumental shift in the right direction his ideals would bring. Admittedly, this is an easier trade off for a male.

He may not be perfect, but he’s so much more free-market minded and individualistic that I wouldn’t think twice about giving him my vote.

There are no others that I’d even get off the couch for.

Pulling the lever for someone who’s stances I agree with ~98% of is something I can do in good conscience. The rest of the field (pathetic, pandering weasels that they are) may have stances that I agree with ~5% of (mostly not in principle, just in end-result.)

Great video from a Google Candidate series.

Other great videos here with another intellectually honest individual, John Stossel.

These ridiculous debates… what do they actually think they are tricking people into seeing or believing? None of these charlatans actually say anything with meaning. They dance around with words trying to say as little as possible.

The clumsy ninjas of deliberate vagueness.

The entire game has evolved into a contest to see who can make the voters hate them the least. Each of them posturing to say what they think voters need. Each equally afraid to indicate any semblance of reducing GovCo. handouts to the mass of entitlement monkeys this country has become.

We’ve regressed to the point where the former bastion of individual liberty and economic prosperity, America, determines who’s at the helm by a facaduous pageant of corruption.

As long as we’re stuck in this socialist plurality of vote buyers referred to as the “two-party system”, I refuse to play their sick little game. On one side you’ve got slick-talking, collectivist panderers whose continual ignorance and trampling of the constitution has lost even its comic appeal. On the other, you’ve those who blatantly regard as rights, what are really plunderously cultivated assaults on other individuals. Which side is which? One side sees no problem with forking out tax dollars to companies, the other gives freely to individuals. Neither is supported constitutionally. Both sides nitpick the other about “reforms” for this entitlement program, or “revisions” to this encroachment on property rights - arguing about the color of shingles for a house that should never have been built. There isn’t a single candidate on either side who’s not a mixed economy advocate.

Other than the ‘R’ and the ‘D’ beside their names they’re virtually indistinguishable. ‘Socialism Lite’ and ‘Socialism Low-Carb’… either way, we lose.