Gee, don't hold back... tell us how you REALLY Feel... :)

I own the book; I read it at least a decade or two ago and I recommend The Lesson Page of the book (at least) to anyone who I think doesn't understand The Basic Lesson. The rest of the book is a collection of examples to help folks who can't get the concept from the first pages.

I have another belief, too... anyone who thinks they can 'distribute wealth' (or income or money) in ANY way that will 'solve the problems of inequality' (of money, wealth or whatever) is a loon.

When the "Fair Tax" was first talked about, I found some of the original claims on the web and reviewed them in detail.

When I was done, I'd found enough errors and loopholes to drive a large truck through and concluded that, in "reality" if it were enacted, virtually ALL of the same problems we bitch about with regards to Current Tax Laws would inevitably find their ways into such a "Fair Tax" system, too.

The parts of it that are vague or poorly or inadequately defined would bring it down eventually.

Back around 1970 or so, I did some math on "what tax on ALL INCOME with NO Deductions for Anything, PLUS a 'poverty floor' below which nobody would pay any income tax" would be needed, and I discovered almost exactly what Trump mentioned recently....

7% with no floor or about 13% with a floor of about 3-4 times whatever the current "poverty level income" is... would either stop increasing US deficits OR, in the case of the higher number, reduce the debt over some decades to zero.

Of course, NOBODY suggests eliminating ALL 'deductions' or subsidies as such. Even if home mortgage interest deductions artificially inflate the True Value (prices) of private homes...

There are So Many oxen which would be gored if all deductions were removed that That Will Never Happen.

But Fair Tax ideas need more thinking and Trump is Nowhere Near "original" (nor are his advisers) on what he's announced.

Real Critical Thinking is needed to ATTACK this problem, let alone try to solve it, and Problems that have Taken Decades or Scores of Years to Develop Will NOT be solved in ANY President's Term... maybe in five or ten terms, but certainly not 4 or 8 years.... But that's what politicians offer and that's what the voters think they can get.

Massive Group Failure of Thought.

In the meantime, enjoy Life as much as you can for as long as you have.

blarman, your suggestion puzzles me... the part about financing the federal government via trade tariffs...

I tend to start with the assumption that taxes are what we agree to pay in order to get something we couldn't practically do as individuals.

A sort of... if I want it, what am I willing to pay for it.

The concept of trade tariffs implies to me that whatever they're going to 'pay for' would be funded by taxes (tariffs, charges, costs) levied on goods that cross (national?) borders. Yes?

Well, if that pays for nothing but basic 'government expenses' that might work, but what 'should' the source of 'pay for what you're getting' be for national defense, various infrastructure creation and maintenance, etc.?

Charging for 'services' closest to the consumer of them seems logical to me, but trade tariffs seem to just be moving the consumer further from the delivered product or service.

Not to mention the somewhat obvious risk of world-wide "tariff wars" between countries?

Thanks for raising the point!
+afdotcom.

Well, it is interesting, but, remembering his past
alleged actions regarding eminent domain, I do not
consider him a free-enterprise man, nor do I trust
him. And he couldn't get those things passed by
himself.

--What I would be for, is cutting the size of
government, and abolishing many departments.
Such as the EPA, National Endowment for the
Arts, Department of Education, Department of
Energy, etc. --If we could get the government
chopped down to its proper functions, we could
have something like a sales tax; nearly every-
one goes to the store; but make it voluntary.
Upon a store's being open a certain number of
days, the owner would be called upon to make
his arrangement with the local government, to
pay his Law Enforcement Fee. If he declined,
he would not be given the state's "protected"
sticker to put in the window. And if somebody
broke into the store while it was closed and
robbed it, the cops would refuse to come and
do anything about it. And if a robber broke in
and held the storekeeper up, and if the store-
keeper called, 911, the police would refuse to
come, because the store, and its address, would
be on record as having refused to make its ar-
rangements for paying for the law's protection.
(Same with a website and identity theft).--
(This would not apply to new stores which had
not been open the requisite number of days in
which to make the arrangements).--That, and
the contract premiums Ayn Rand mentioned,
plus lotteries, and court fees paid for civil mar-
riage ceremonies and such, could pay for the
legitimate operations of state and local govern-
ments. As to the Federal, it could be handled
by having a certain percentage of whatever was
in the states' coffers (perhaps 25%) go to the
Federal government, and so, when a citizen paid
for local law enforcement, he would know he was
also paying for national defense.--All this re-
placement of taxation is utopian, and not some-
thing to be attempted now or in the near future,
of course; I don't know that people (such as
myself) in that low-income class Trump men-
tioned should be priveledged over other people in
not having to finance the government at all. A
0% bracket, while others have to pay, does not
seem fair. A flat tax seems better.

The President only gets to hire/fire his personal staff. Everyone else is elected, or a federal employee with union protections. He has a bully pulpit but not much else.

Trump's superficiality is catching up with him in the polls. They may or may not believe Trump will do what he says in his vague and bombastic terms, but mostly they are hoping that "someone" will "do something". A lot of people don't like the veteran politicians, but don't know what to be for.

The other side of that is who he would skewer with higher taxes. He's not revealing that beyond some vague demagoguery about "loopholes" that "The Rich don't deserve".

Not sure I agree entirely. My reason, Trump, not beholden to anyone except those who voted for him, doesn't impress me as someone who will be long for politics. He could be the perfect person to get in, shake things up and promote significant changes, simply because he can make infinitely more money elsewhere and harbors no desire to remain in public office. I can see Trump as "A rising tide lifts all boats" kind of guy. Particularly because Trump owns 200+ of those boats.

As for lawlessness, so far the entire MSM, the RNC, and the DNC has yet to show that Trump has done anything illegal in his business dealings (you know they damn well have tried). What in his very long and public history makes you think he's about to start working outside the law now?

You may be right, I just don't see him that way.

Exactly right! To trade one lawless executive for another simply because he claims to be from the other party does nothing but set a precedent that dropkicks us through the goalposts of communism, albeit a slightly milder version - at least until folks of the generations that have experienced Liberty have died off. A committed, tested Constitutionalist is the last best opportunity to begin the repair. There are only two of those in the mix and Trump ain`t one of them.

Indeed. It is clear to me that the ignorance of the masses is what the politicos take advantage of and that many of the politicos know very well what they are doing. They along with many cronies intentionally disregard the facts and indulge greed, as you have alluded. Some, of course, are as ignorant as the masses... Those of us that know of the ruse are apparently too few. If only Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, or some other book of equal standing was required reading for our youth in primary education... Of course, as long as there is benefit in the status quo to the elites and central control of education the battle must be waged elsewhere. Perhaps that is where we can be most effective. Continue to spread the word. As khalling says: "We have the world to win."

A very considered reply

" Ignorance of macro economics, and future implications" If only that was the problem....Ignorance can at least be overcome! Blatant disregard of facts and greed are more difficult.

We really need to find a way to de-fund the politicos vote buying machine!

If I didn't know better I might think he actually wants to get elected...

Hello evlwhtguy,
It is the basic postulate of economics that incentives matter. In this case as in so many human endeavors, incentives affect human decisions. It is this human nature many politicians have recognized and often obfuscated for the furtherance of their own ends at our expense. Buying votes and appealing to the greed and ignorance of a segment of a constituency has become an art form. Ignorance of macro economics, and future implications provide opportunity for short term gain and powerful inducements for politicos.
We must find a way to remove the palette and brush or forever find ourselves painted into a corner.
Respectfully,
O.A.

If Sanders won, I would think seriously about selling off everything and getting silver and gold and moving to either a remote USA place, or another country.

I may have told a lie about not voting for the lesser of two evils during this election.
Sanders scares the hell out of me.
I'll just have to see how it pans out.

True. But look at the alternatives. NONE of the candidates is a John Galt, and I think the country is doomed to follow Venezuela's end path before enough people will want to dump socialism. In the meantime, can we slow the process down a bit? I think so, and a Trump would do that. None of the others would in this race. The whole thing is very scary for a retired person like me, hoping to survive off my life savings

Painted with a broad brush. It's going to be interesting to read the details.

I'm no apologist for anyone, but he's just playing the game as he see's it.

This is one place the electoral college might be beneficial to the future of the United States. I wonder what the electoral map might look like for the poor or those making less than $25K? It's quite obvious how they will vote. If our system was based on a strictly popular vote what might the result look like? That would definitely be dangerous. I mean, who doesn't want free stuff and no taxes? Such a deal. I pray Trump's tactic doesn't work, it's just the wrong way for the country.

And no one has challenged the government's income based on his system. It might be great only if the government just had to reduce in size in order to achieve a balanced budget based on it's income. Today we've got to decide if we just want free stuff and no (or low) taxes, or if we want a smaller group of people controlling our freedom. Controlling our freedom, now is that even possible, freedom and control, can they co-exist?

Even if Trump were to be elected, he has zero chance of effecting any real change -- unless he is prepared [as he may be] to govern by imperial fiat, aka Executive Orders, rather than even pay lip service to the Constitution and Separation of Powers. The President signs bills into law; he doesn't initiate them, carry them, or vote to pass them. Remember the Governator in California? Schwarzenegger learned that big talk avails naught against an entrenched Legislature that opposes the governor's will.