"If you already know this, what is the question for?"
Because the FT thinks it's allowed to use a formula no one else gets to use. If you go into your hometown store and buy a dollar item, you'll probably fork over, say, $1.07. They call that a 7% sales tax. If it costs $1.30, it's a 30% tax. The city with the 7% sales tax doesn't get to call it a 6.5% inclusive tax; why should the FTers get to call a 30% sales tax a 23% "inclusive" tax?
Oh, and the FT suggests states collect their "income" taxes at the retail level as well. So that 30% is more like 35%. And you didn't think that 7% sales tax was going to vanish, did you? So now it's 42%.
"Great question. Under the Fair Tax you would only pay once."
That doesn't answer my question, which, again, is this: the contention of the FTers is we already pay these taxes, embedded in the prices of the items we buy. But that's not true: we pay them in the prices AND at our work. Since the FT is revenue neutral, we'd have to pay our work taxes in the prices we pay at the retail level. If you're only paying "once", that bill is a whopper.
"Why would you want an iBook? I don't know how many "days" it would take. "
I don't think you understood the question. How much, at the checkout counter, would a $1000 item before the FT, cost AFTER the FT?
"If everyone kept their paycheck and did not spend a dime, we may have some problems."
Ya think? Consumer spending is 70% of the economy; you just put in a system that punishes consumer spending. You're also missing the point of that question as well: If, suddenly, consumers had their tax withholdings as spendable cash, yes, there would be buying. But without a commensurate rise in goods available, it's just more money chasing the same goods. That's the textbook definition of what causes inflation.
"Why would a small group of people be so vehemently opposed to changing the current system? Maybe they benefit from the current system and would not benefit from a new one."
Or maybe they recognize a promise of something for nothing when they see it.
"What is so great about the current system that makes this group of people try to slander and smear the idea of a fair tax?"
Who said anyone is slandering or smearing it? The FT imposes a 30% sales tax, but calls it a 23% tax. That's not a smear, that's pointing out the fact no other entity that tacks on 30% to the price of the item gets to call it 23%. Nor is it a smear to bring up the fact the FT charges intra-governmental taxes, something not done today. They also pretend prices will drop 20% overnight, yet claim the taxes they will still pay are currently embedded in those prices. It's not slander to point out those two points are contradictory. And it's certainly fair to bring up enforcement, something the FT sights avoid. With such a high premium on new transactions, lines will have to be drawn: will a new car cost the premium, but a used car won't? Huge fortunes could be won or lost. And since the incentives for a black market will skyrocket, the government will eventually require crosschecking. If every transaction becomes a taxable event, the IRS (or rather, the FTRS) will have to be empowered to investigate every transaction.
"I agree that we need to pay taxes, but the current system is too onerous and needs to be radically simplified."
I'll agree with you there. But every time they meet to "simplify" the code, they add another 5,000 pages.
