As promised I read about the fair tax and watched a video on the "prebate"

No. I do not favor this plan. The fact the government issues checks every month erasing peoples tax burden is entirely progressive. And a 30% tax is purely ridiculous.
http://fairtax.org/videos/what-is-the...

No. The Fair tax is hardly fair to the nations producers.

if you had a flat tax 10% with no exemptions or deductions the rich would still pay more than the lower income people.

The only fair way is to place the amount of tax burden on the individual in such a way that he/she can control it.

I'll go through the link when I have a little more time. Maybe in about an hour..thanks

From the FAQ on their website:
"Is there any provision in the FAIRtax bill to prevent both an income tax and a sales tax?
The short answer is that there is no provision in the FairTax bill (HR 25) that would prevent having a national sales tax and the income tax."
http://fairtax.org/faq

It is progressive. They say so right on their website. Check out the first one-minute video here:
https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax...

The progressive feature is implemented by a "prebate" which is essentially a zero tax bracket. Check out this explanation from their FAQ:
"Is the FAIRtax progressive? Do the rich pay more and the poor pay less as a percentage of their spending?
Absolutely. The poor actually pay less than zero-percent retail sales tax on their spending. Much like with the earned income tax credit of today, the prebate may give them more money than they actually spend on retail taxes. Especially if they are frugal and buy mostly used products. On the other hand, the wealthy approach a maximum of 23-percent retail sales tax on their spending."
http://fairtax.org/faq

Thanks JuliBMe,
A lot of work to do. The tax code is simply to complex.
Term limits are easy and no lobbying after serving.

I don't think the FairTax is tinkering. I think elimination of the IRS and the 16th amendment is built into it. As far as any increases go, I'm not sure how it is handled in the actual legislation but it seems to me, it shouldn't be left to Congress unless we have imposed term limits on them first. If it's left up to a vote of the people, then I would trust those votes more.

Any tinkering with taxes has had a increase built into it in my experience .Minn. had a temporary sales tax of 4% in 1967 it was a temporary increase in 1984 to 6% temporary because it was temporarily increased in 1991 to 6.5% where it is currently.
I like the idea of taxing imports and sales to US by foreign owned co.s not protectionism but an incentive to get US manufacturing again.

I agree with forbidding any other tax being implemented again! We the People are the ones who have to ensure the feds only employ themselves to what's in the Constitution and nothing else. The payroll deduction allowed them to run amuck in my opinion.

Its better than a tax on production, but its worse than reining in the feds to only constitutional expenditures.
It would mean the IRS is dead and a lot of accountants and tax lawyers would have to learn to be productive. Any such law would have to include a constitutional amendment clearly stating that income tax is unconstitutional and can never be implemented again.

The owners of businesses, any business of any size, their shareholders all pay the consumption tax like everyone else. The percentage is the same no matter who you are and the only difference is its based on what each person consumes. No one has to consume more than he/she chooses.

Where is this progressive?

Actually, that's one of the things I like about it. It shifts the tax burden to EVERYBODY (even illegals) because we are all consumers at some level. It also gives us the freedom to decide when and how much we want to pay. It puts the amount of tax you pay to the federal government right there on your receipts. Making people actually see how much they pay the government. One of the biggest problems with payroll tax is that no one actually sees what they are paying. It's deducted, so people don't pay attention to what the government costs. I think the psychology of actually seeing that amount would make people change how they vote and, yes, I think the tax would end up coming down as we force the government to spend less. It would take time, but I think that is what would happen eventually.

Not fair at all. It shifts the entire tax burden to consumers, who are forced to pay for everything the federal government currently does. It’s progressive – the “poor” receive government protection and services for free, everyone else pays. It maintains the same level of overall taxation to fund today’s bloated level of federal spending, so it does nothing to reduce the heavy federal tax burden, it simply reallocates all of it to “consumers”. It does nothing to reduce the deficit or unfunded liabilities, meaning that the 23% “fair tax” rate will have to be constantly increased to service the national debt. From an Objectivist point of view, the “fair tax” does nothing to fundamentally advance the goal of having a government limited to the protection of individual rights, with payment for government services tied to the value the payer receives for those services.