I see the problem.

You believe that corporations pay taxes with money that comes from some source other than private individuals. The reality is that regardless if the individual pays or the corporation passes it through in the price of goods or services, it all comes from the consumers.

This is one of the reasons companies will be able to lower their sales prices so that once the Fair Tax is added, the difference will be small.

Read through the plan at the website I provided above, or better yet, buy the book. Once you spend some time getting all the details, I think you’ll find the FTP is the best way to revise the tax code, stimulate the economy and bring manufacturing back to the U.S.

See, one of the first points I made was that as a revenue-neutral program, someone is necessarily going to get hosed, and considering that part of the plan is abolishing corporate income tax, a lot of someones are going to have to pick up the slack. This plan also heavily subsidizes running over the border to buy cheap stuff, and god help you if you're trying to compete with someone 100 miles away who doesn't have to put a 30% markup on everything, so American loses, Canadian / Mexican wins.

You’re kind of “glass half empty” kind of guy, aren’t you?

As far as double taxing of any savings when the program is instituted, you’re right. It’s one of those unavoidable things, but luckily, most Americans have no savings.

Yes, imports would be 23% more expensive, less whatever the retailer used to figure in for their income taxes and employer contribution to social security. But, isn’t this what we’re trying to do – encourage domestic production, reduce the cost benefit of low-wage country competition and open a revenue stream from foreign companies that are making billions in the U.S. without paying any taxes?

There is no one more free market oriented than I, so trust me when I say that this plan encourages foreign investment and competition. Every U.S. citizen will be better off with the Fair Tax Plan as opposed to the current income tax.

I also note the immediate reduction in the value of any savings you have, which would get double-taxed. I'm not sure this really qualifies as 'equal' or 'fair'. Wishful thinking, maybe.

I asked a friend once in Seattle what it would have been like, a) if New York City (apex of liberalism, the city bankrupted itself as a result) had been like classic Hong Kong instead; and the b) what if the entire long-Democratic-and-liberal Northeast Corridor were like classic Hong Kong instead.

That means more, not less, energy use (as is true with higher, respectable speeds for high-speed rail).

Of course, more energy use (growing orders of magnitude) is historically associated with progress. You can't get something for nothing.

“Things that would be inconceivable to minds locked in the depravation mode are achievable by having unlimited power.”

Yep — the depraved believe we in the USA (especially) and the rest of the West should deprive ourselves.

Florida does not have any income tax – their main source of revenue is the sales tax – and they haven’t destroyed the tourist industry.

Free trade thrives with this type of system. It places all producers on a level playing field by making the governmental cost equal between domestic and foreign suppliers.

Over 80% of retail sales are done through (in one form or another) major corporations. These are the easiest to monitor. Even the smallest of retail outlets would have a hard time avoiding taxes because the calculation is a simple percentage of gross sales, as opposed to a complex conflagration of costs, deductions, carry overs, etc.

Simple, transparent, equal, fair. It doesn’t get any better.

You’ve asked a logical question.

“…….then necessarily there are going to be winners, who pay less in taxes, and losers, who pay more.”

Naturally, you’re thinking it is the rich who will be the winners and poor who will lose. With the FTP, that’s not the case. Everyone (here) wins.

The large amount of new money comes from sources who never paid taxes to the treasury before. One source is the 26 million tourists who come to the U.S. every year. They haven’t paid any taxes here previously (except for some state of local sales taxes), now they will pay 23% more for products and services. Illegal aliens, regardless of income sources, will pay the same, but without the benefit of being a U.S. citizen, they will not receive the prebate.

All illegal activities that generate money will eventually have to spend it, resulting in a vast income stream to the government.

One of the largest new sources is Chinese, Japanese, European, Indian and other corporations who have never paid any U.S. tax. Every time a foreign product is sold, the U.S. government gets it’s 23%. Think of all the sales at WalMart, Toyota, BMW, etc. and how much this tax on their products will bring in.

No, we don’t need a magic wand to find new money, just a system that makes the U.S. the most desirable place to do business instead of envy/punish-the-rich based system.

I think people overlook the extent that a fair tax protects the lower wage-earners. As jwest notes people get a check back to offset their taxes.

The one group that would pay a lot more are the wealthy that currently claim no or little income. Since they are often high consumers they will be paying much more than they do now.

If you are saying that using the stimulus money in a focused program to build 600 new reactors would increase taxes, I disagree.

The stimulus of offering free unlimited power would boost the economy to such a level that taxes could probably be reduced.

If you are saying that instituting the Fair Tax Plan (FTP) would put an additional tax burden on workers, I would disagree. Under the FTP, a worker gets his full pay, with no deductions taken out, plus (most likely) the employer’s share of the old social security payment (about an additional 7%). On top of that, every U.S. citizen would receive a “prebate” check each month, which is equal to the tax on spending at double the poverty line.

Items would not necessarily cost any more due to the savings by companies on their taxes and that of their suppliers.

Hundreds of billions would be collect by the taxes paid by non-citizens on their purchase of items in the U.S. The underground economy would be eliminated because regardless of how money is made, at some point it will be spent. Even if someone cheats on a portion of their spending with a crooked merchant, the majority of their spending will still be taxed elsewhere.

Lighting and especially heating the roads is exactly the type of thinking that is needed to promote a true stimulus plan like this.

Things that would be inconceivable to minds locked in the depravation mode are achievable by having unlimited power. The same amount of money already pegged to be spent on foolish projects could be focused on something like this that everyone can draw hope from.

Many are obscessed with reduction and conservation, though, not only because so many are naive or unrealistic about what conservation can or should be expected to achieve, but because (since the 1960s and advent of radicalism and self-loathing) many want “social controls” and seek a deliberate lowering of our standard of living.

What you say is related to an example as easy to grasp as street lighting. Inductive lighting is now available and more in the news these days is the burgeoning use of LEDs, including LED street lighting. These use much less energy than conventional or “old-fashioned” lighting. A great cost (energy) savings can be achieved as a result, but the childish and naive fail to see what we _can_ do, or worse, reject and resent what can do as a result. We can not merely save costs by replacing what quality and level of illumination we have now, but we needn't limit ourselves to those levels, but instead now change from roads lit at a number of point sources by linear or “area” lighting over roadways, putting much more light on them than ever conceived before as practical or even achieveable. We can light roadways fully, to a much higher level than before, and can now light roadways and other places that didn't make practical or economic sense before. We'd be using more energy and more lighting, but (as with health care, for example, something the typical lefty conservationists want _more_ rather than less of) more is a good, not a bad or wrong, thing.

Imagine your (J. West's) scenario applied here. With so much “social” power at hand, we could fully light our Interstate highways at night. Imagine what that would do for safety improvement and reduced stress levels driving at night. Imagine something else related to roads. With effectively unlimited power, in the Snowbelt and other affected places we could embed resistance heating in roadways and keep roadways free of snow and ice in winter by melting it. Not that we'll ever do it, but this is another suitable illustration.

If your question was more general about increasing manufacturing in the U.S. than simply taxes, the best way is energy.

Obama’s natural tendency to nationalize something missed the boat when it came to energy. He could use his stimulus money to build 600 identical nuclear plants, pre-approved in design and ready to go. These would supply basically free power in a business/social trade off.

If the manufacturing sector was supplied with free power, it could compete successfully throughout the world regardless of the higher wages here. Everything from steel mills to machining, paper making, glass, etc. has its highest costs centered around energy.

Conversely, free power could be supplied to homes for free (or nearly free) heating and cooling.

These two examples are just for those who are “vision” challenged.

The true beauty of this plan is that it opens a new era. Instead of concentrating on reduction and conservation, think about a new age of free, unlimited energy. Think about the new businesses that would be created, the suffering that would be eliminated and possibilities it creates.

The Fair Tax Plan eliminates all corporate income taxes. Not only does that reduce the cost of manufacturing, but it also reduces the cost of items brought in from other U.S. based suppliers.

When these products are sold overseas, the U.S. manufactured goods would have a price advantage due to absence of these taxes.

Also, instead of trying to shift money to offshore subsidiaries, all businesses would bring their capital to the U.S., thus providing a greatly increased pool of capital for investment.

* I expected the tax havens to be attacked some years from now, when the retirement-program deficits begin to harm government finances and eventually the governments become desperate as well as angry. Obama was early, appealing to losers here with the tax-haven-bashing, but also may have done this to deflect criticism of his Treasury and other people involved in the financial industry and its problems here.

As New York, Maryland and California are now learning, once people believe the taxes they are paying exceed what they feel is necessary and patriotic, methods are devised to circumvent the process to the loss of the treasury. Many people and corporations keep as much capital offshore because of the onerous taxes already imposed.

The Fair Tax Plan (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer) would bring in more money than the current income tax, instantly make the U.S. the best place to locate a manufacturing or financial services company, eliminate the illegal immigration problem and give people an incentive to save. The only thing it doesn’t do is provide a mechanism to punish success and hard work.