Comment: "cutting" isnt their goal

(See in situ)


"cutting" isnt their goal

The 23% that is quoted by folks like Gary Johnson isn't a "limit" or a "target" or anything of that nature. the number 23% was chosen because that is what it would have to be today in order to eliminate all of the taxing that it would replace. Dollar for dollar, America is currently taxed at that rate (on average). And they still would be. If they spent more, they'd just raise it to a higher number, just like, at the end of this year, they will probably change the existing taxes to be a higher number.

The stated goals of the fair tax are to eliminate having the government using the tax code to reward their well connected political friends and contributors, and eliminate the ridiculously complex tax code to something simple enough to explain to a child ... you pay an extra 23% on everything.

The "benefit" of the fair tax is that it is blind, no matter who you are (citizen, tourist, undocumented tourist ...) you pay the tax when you buy stuff. And, as an added benefit, it doesn't require everyone to tell Uncle Sam everything about their personal finances or risk being hunted down by the IRS for an honest mistake. It eliminates the "Guilty until proven innocent" scheme that IS the IRS today.

That's not to say that they wont print more money too, you have to fix the currency back to the Gold Standard to address that, which is a whole different topic, independent of the "fair" tax.

The only reason I can think of that the fair tax would "cut" revenue is that, since everyone is paying it more or less equally, it will be easier to get a majority who is interested in lowering the tax rate, which, in today's political climate ... going over the "fictitious cliff" cutting spending doesn't seem to be a high priority for a huge percentage of sleeping Americans.