Where did the 23% figure come from? I think it is too high. Most folks do not pay that high a percentage in current tax code. I would not support this, I think 15% would do the job, I have seen this figure or something very close to it in arguments for the flat tax. A consumption tax includes everybody, and reciepts to government would most likly exceed those of just a flat tax on income that targets only registerd workers. The consumption or Fair Tax gets contributions from everybody, but 23% is too much, when added to the sales tax already levied by our localities. My own local 8% sales tax, when added to a 15% consumption tax, gets us to the 23% level. This also does not address the State Taxes.

I agree, 23% is too high. Right now, in northwest Arkansas, we have state, county, and city taxes that total up to 9%, 10% when you add the 1% food and beverage tax on prepared food. Another 23% is getting a little steep. Besides, I don't think I should have to pay consumption tax on necessities like food. Fripperies, like big screen televisions, dvd players and computers, yes, but not food.

I would like a list of the states that ratified the 16th amendment. There is evidence that the required 3/4 of the states never ratified the amendment. Just because Knox said it was so does not make it so. Just changing the tax format will not do anything for the second clause of the 16th. That clause voided Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 which required funds to be allocated among the states according to population. Voiding this made the bribeing of Nelson possible. By the way the Constitution lists bribery as an impeachable event. Republican leadership (still an oxymoron)are you listening?

Mr Reagan, I've been a fan of your work for years. I believe in the principles for which your father fought and I'm old enough to have witnessed him fighting for them.

Having said that, I have a few things I'd like to say about this bold suggestion. First, I like the basic idea of a POS tax as a replacement for all other federal taxes. The stimulus effect this would have on our economy would be staggering.

Second, when you propose this idea, I strongly urge you to drop the term "progressive" from your lexicon. It raised my hackles just now in reading this column, and is certain to do so with other Conservatives as the issue is debated. Meanwhile, it will imply to Liberals a system that is theirs, which means one they can corrupt as the current system has been. Even if the standard meaning of "progressive" in political and economic discussions is not what you meant, using the term still implies a flexible or graduated rate according to some undisclosed scale. That, as you can see, would run anathema to the very concept you are proposing.

Third, I agree with Mr McCrindle. 23% is far too high. In prior discussion with Flat-Tax proponents, they typically propose 17%, which is also too high. Think about this. Without all these hidden taxes, value-added taxes, inventory taxes, payroll taxes, social security taxes, corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, death taxes and other damnable taxes, this would generate unprecedented levels of investment capital plunging into our economy. Obviously that's a good thing, but the level of economic activity that would certainly follow would also be unprecedented. Taxing the Point-of-Sale (POS) transaction for all that activity would generate untold trillions of dollars. I do not believe it's possible to state too strongly how much growth this would spur, and therefore how much revenue this POS system would collect.

Therefore 10% should be more than sufficient. In fact, I would prefer 5%. After all, the very heart of the concept is getting fiscal accountability and responsibility into our government, to restrain spending. Why start out with a massive, unprecedented windfall, filling the government coffers with fabulous riches beyond their wildest dreams? That would be like turning the drunks loose upon the brewery. Far better to start them out with less than they think they need.

They will undoubtedly raise the level over time anyway. Why give them a head start?

I just thought of another point. Lowering the rate would completely do away with the need to "prebate" any money from the government back to the taxpayers.

Mr. Reagan, I agree with all of the above writers that 23% is too high. Also, the fairtax website says that federal spending will be left alone. I am not at all on board with that! How much of the federal spending is unconstitutional? We need to address uncontrolled spending and then worry about the fairtax.

Some people have said the 23% is too high. I feel it's right about where we are currently with income tax. In 2009 I took home 76% of my pay. The other 24% is what was witheheld by federal and state government for taxes. I haven't filed taxes yet so I don't know what my return will be. So the FairTax

with the Prebate is looking the same as income tax. But will help people see how much the government is spending, Instead of getting excited about a tax refund and thinking they got free money.

I briefly checked the FairTax.org site and as I understand it, it is 23% with the prebate checks to keep from hurting the poor, while still collecting enough to run the country.

This will also lower tax fraud because there won't be as many loopholes for people to game the system, and people won't be able to be paid under the table to claim less on their taxes.

Joseph

All who are thinking that 23% is too high have missed the point that currently all goods and services have imbedded taxes of between 20-30% that would go away when all that taxation ceases. That means that the price of goods and services will drop and when the fair tax is added back in it will bring the retail price back to about where it was!

But the fair tax won't affect exports, making them vey competitive and growing jobs here at home.

The very best place to start your education on the Fair Tax is to read the books by John Linder and Neal Boortz; The Fair Tax and Fair Tax, The Truth.

Something I forgot.........no need to worry about congress arbitrarily raising the fair tax rate to, say 30% because it would require a 2/3 majority and what politician would risk it. In reality, as the economy doubles in less than 10 years the excess revenue can easily be applied to the national debt and the rate of taxation can and should be reduced! No reason it can't go below 15% once pofligate spending is halted.