It is only impossible because it is not in the politicians best interest. The post office is a government entity that does not recieve any money from the federal government. The users pay for the services they use.
And how do you suggest to pay for the military, police, CIA, NASA, the government, diplomats etc? What is my or your "fair" share of the war on terror? Are they equal, should they be based on income, wealth or who among us bought a more expensive TV?
First NASA, CIA, and diplomats are unneccessary and if you disagree try and explain their purpose that helps EVERYONE and therefore should be funded by everyone. Obviously you believe in the war on terror. I believe the war on terror is a result of our governments actions in the past. So if the governmnet stopped meddling where it doesn't belong the problem would cease to exist and NO ONE would be paying for it. Costa rica doesn't have a military. They haven't been invaded yet. If it works for them why wouldn't it work for us? police is a local issue which should be paid locally based on where you live.
I really don't want to sidetrack the thread and turn it into a political debate. The fair tax proposal does not address any of these issues anyway, it does not eliminate government waste or unnecessary government programs, does not decrease government revenue or reduce budget deficit, does not make the taxation any fairer that it is right now and does not relieve americans of their tax burden shifting it from one segment of the population to another instead.
d..... I'm not saying the "Fair Tax" has all the answers, but you seem completely oblivious as to the facts as they relate to the "Fair Tax" and/or a fair tax. You need to do a lot of research before posting any more comments. I respectfully submit to you that you are woefully uninformed on this issue.
No offence but you're yet to post an informative comment in this thread. Personally attacking opponents of the fair tax proposal and repeating "it's not perfect but a step in the right direction" without substantiating your own claims and without refuting a single objection is just not good enough. Whether I am informed on this issue or not as you implied I don't see the proposal as "fair", I don't see the proposal as beneficial to american citizens who will on average keep paying the same amount of taxes and I did my best to explain why. Frankly I also fail to see how 30% price hike of goods and services can possibly stimulate consumer driven american economy. Of course Neil Boortz promised that it would not happen, that my lawyer and my plumber would start charging 30% less, that price of goods would also go down 30% which is somehow supposed to include prices of imported goods manufactured overseas and unable to take advantage of the consumption tax. I guess I would have to take Neil's word for it.
d..... One of the main points you are misunderstanding about the "Fair Tax" is that it is not meant to reduce the amount of tax you pay. It's meant to be a more efficient way and fair way to impose the taxes on the people. If you haven't read "The FairTax Book", this might help you better understand some of the reasons why this sort of proposal is very much more logical than what we are currently encumbered with. Whenever this discussion comes up, it is simply amazing to me that any normal and thinking person, (which you are) could possibly and/or seemingly be supportive of the current system. There is a better way. I believe this economy would explode with prosperity if something similar to the Fair Tax could be implemented.
BSAM, I was originally a proponent of the fairtax thinking like you that it would be better to tax consumption rather than taxing saving & investment. I do not believe in replacing one broken system with another equally broken system. A consumption tax only system might work but not with a 30% rate. That's absurd! Before this could be reasonably instituted the size of government would have to be pared down greatly to allow some rate around 10% to be sufficient. The fairtax legislation suggests scrapping the current income tax and immediately replacing it with the consumption tax. This idea doesn't take into consideration the massive economic distortions that the current system forces upon society. There would definitely be some severe unanticipated consequences of such a large change in the rules. In addition I believe politicians would bring this point up and use it to phase in a consumption tax while they phase out the income tax. Only the income tax would never be phased out and then we would be stuck with even larger government and getting taxed coming & going. After all the original income tax was "supposed" to be temporary to pay for WW1.
HR25 is not perfect, no law has ever been passed that is perfect as no one can define what is perfect, and no one can define what a "fair tax" is. The NST aka "fair tax" is poison to some and candy to others and whether it is a better more efficient means to collect taxes remains to be seen as it has failed in over 20 countries that already have tried it. So, HR25 is the game and it to me taxes fire, police, trash pickup, and all the other services provided by state and local governments, except education. IMO, that is a patient on a gurney heading to the morgue. If the NST is so great, why did the Presidents Reform Panel shoot it down and why in the 20+ countries it was tried in, all but one scrapped it and reverted to VAT? IMO, it may be a great idea in theory but fails in practice. And if it fails, VAT is waiting in the wings. So to me the NST is VATs precursor and I don't like VAT. Also, I'm no fan of the IRS but does anyone really think the FED Govt will fire all of them and let the states do the work? Rather they will all be around with maybe a new name but the same mission: Get as much as possible from taxpayers. If there is no IRS the states get stuck with doing the collecting and dirty work. Can and will the states do the "dirty work" like enforcing trips to Mexico to buy goods to avoid the tax? Who enforces the rush to take advantage of the loopholes, like the HUGE one that says businesses do not pay the tax? Seems easy to me that you set up a biz, have some activity and use the biz name to buy personal goods. Who stops you and your plumber from a deal where he does the work, hands you a low ball invoice that you pay the tax on, and you pay him the real amount due under the table. And again back to the big medical bill: do you really think a system that taxes people 30-50% on a huge hospital bill with no guarantee insurance will pay the tax will get anywhere? DS