Should we have a fair tax, to replace the income tax, and the tyrannical IRS? If so why, if not why?

With our luck in this country they will load the fair tax on us and increase all the other taxes to boot. Politicians have never seen a tax they didn't like.

No.

1. Consumption taxes shift the tax burden down the income scale. The poor and middle class would be clobbered by a 30% sales tax, while the wealthy would get a huge break. Wealthy people are wealthy because they tend to hang on to what they have, not spend it all. the Paris Hiltons might blow through wads of cash, but the Sam Waltons and Warren Buffetts don't.

2. The IRS would not go away. In fact, the number of revenue agents would have to be increased substantially to counter the massive increase in black marketing that would result. Maybe their name would change, but the mission would remain the same. Audits would now include inspection of everything in your home looking for untaxed sex toys and underwear. Do you REALLY want Big Brother to have such sweeping powers?? If you think that the IRS is "tyrannical" right now, you ain't seen NOTHIN' yet, Brother!

3. The claim that US corporations would pass on tax savings to consumers is outright fairy tale wishes from people who have no knowledge of how corporate business operates. Many corporations don't turn enough profit to generate much tax liability (think GM and Chrysler over the past 7 or 8 years) so there are no savings to be had. The auto industry also has to make significant capital investments in tooling for new models each year and all of that capital investment would be TAXABLE. Their tax bills, and therefore their costs, would RISE, not shrink.

4. Those corporations that did save taxes would pay the savings to shareholders in the form of dividends, just as they do today. Their dividend payouts would rise; their prices would not shrink.

I've studied the so-called "Fair Tax" extensively. It's a shameless cash-grab by the uber-wealthy at the expense of you and every other modest-income taxpayer. If you're an "average" middle class taxpayer, you pay much less than 15% in total income taxes as a function of your gross income. That would rise to a full 30% under the "Fair Tax" since most of every dollar that you spend now would be on taxable goods and services.

Ask yourself this: "Do I have an extra $6,000 in cash lying around for a new $20,000 car?" (Since it does not add to the value of the car, you probably won't get a bank to finance it.) How about $60,000 in CASH on a new $200,000 home? Any idea what that will do to the construction and auto industries? Yep, RIP!

Consumption taxes are the WORST of all possible taxes. They don't account for the taxpayers ability or inability to pay the tax. A graduated income tax on the other hand focuses almost entirely on the taxpayer's ability to pay and therefore is the TRUE "fair tax" when compared to all other possible taxes.

Now time for a hard-core reality check. The "Fair Tax, " (HR25) is brought up on the first day of every Congressional session. It's referred to the Ways and Means Committee (as is ALL legislation in the House) where it quietly dies 2 years later when the session ends. If it were ever sent to the floor of the House for debate (or worse, a vote) it would die almost instantly. Only the most extremist right-wingers would even consider voting for it as it would be political death. It's SOLE purpose is politics. Its proponents go back to their constituents and whine, "I'm trying to fix it, but nobody will listen!"

Ever notice that any politician who makes "abolishing" the IRS as a major policy platform issue is almost instantly relegated to the lunatic fringe and quickly falls off of the radar for any major political office? Ron Paul? Mike Huckabee? Neither of them are going anywhere on the national political scene.

There are many flaws within the fair tax. However, the most glaring flaw is that repealing the 16th amendment will have ZERO effect on the ability of Congress to levy an income tax on wages. The simple fact is that the fair tax proponents do not fully comprehend income tax history and the real effect of the 16th amendment.

"Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from ‘professions, trades, employments, or vocations,’ (158 U.S. 637), its validity was recognized; indeed it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past."

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

that is the worst Tax plan I have ever seen in my life. how you "honestly" say that plan it fair - it's ridculous

you don't think it is fair for higher income people to pay a higher % of tax on their income over certain levels - I don't think people making over $250,000 a yr are even paying enough tax right now?

you think someone making $10,000 a yr should pay 23% tax and a person making $200,000 a yr paying 23% tax? - seems to me the person making $10,000 a yr is a lot more devastated by that "fair tax than the higher income person?

who do you think is paying the "fairer" portion of tax? the family living on $7700 after the "fair tax" or the family with $154,000 left over - wouldn't it be fairer if the low income family paid ZERO tax (plus a $2000 tax credit) and the high income family paid 30%? the govt would be $10,000 richer and that extra tax would hardly put a dent in the rich family's standard of living

every few of any of these recent tax cuts from either administration have really helped people who make under $40,000 a yr - which is probably 40% or more of the country

Oh, right, let's get rid of the IRS.

Then with the "fair tax" we get the same number of people cheating (the "prebate" that gives a taxpayer with dependents larger check than one who is single will cause people to claim dependents they don't have), you will need to reinvent an organization to verify the same claims/disputes as the IRS does now.

This is on top of the fact that congress (not the IRS) has created an entitlement system that people are used to. If you get rid of EIC, what will you replace it with?

The fair tax does not help anybody but the rich.

IRS doesn't make the laws, Congress does

Hell to the no! See ^^^ for plenty of reasons!