Number range CHAPTER

**COVER SHEET**

**for**

**response to the request for comments #3 by the**

**Federal Tax Reform Panel**

**submitted by Joe E. Sheldon, retired individual**

**on June 5, 2005**

<jsheldon@socal.rr.com>

**Response to request for comments #3 by the Federal Tax Reform Panel**

**submitted by Joe E. Sheldon (retired Individual) on Jun. 5, 2005**

My greatest concern is that the Panel (and Congress and the President,
too, for that matter) will fail to realize that the National Anthem is
**NOT** :

"**Tiptoe Through The tax Code Tinkering Tango**" as an acquaintance of
mine used to say.

Tinkering with the tax code, no matter how well intentioned, will no
longer plug all the leaks in the boat but would require bailing so fast
that the boat would catch fire from the friction or sink (or perhaps
both).

I truly hope that is realized (and I think, perhaps, it is).

Attempting to retain ANY tax system based upon income taxation will no
longer function as has now been adequately proven after almost 100 years
of trying. It's time for a tax system in tune with the 21^st^ century
and international competition. It is time for the FairTax.

As the most thoroughly-researched economic/tax proposal ever brought
before Congress, the FairTax stands head and shoulders above any form of
income taxation (including any flat tax which after all is what the
present system started as) or any form of Value Added Taxation.

Any income-based taxation - flat or round - has the sort of warts we
have come to know (but not love) such as embedding taxes into the prices
we all pay; allowing for great political mischief with all of the
exemptions, deductions, and other special tax favors, treating those in
similar situations differently

**Response to request for comments #3 by the Federal Tax Reform Panel**

**Submission by Joe E. Sheldon, 6/5/05 (page 2 of 4)**

(and causing resentment thereby), and requiring a much-detested
enforcement arm - the IRS. It also encourages - almost mandates -
attempts by Congress to control the populace by altering the Tax Code.
Such attempts are bound to fail as misguided efforts in "Trying to Teach
the Elephant to Tap Dance" as the old saying goes and they invariably
redound to the detriment of the citizens and eventually the government
itself \... the current untenable AMT being a perfect example.

It is neither necessary nor desirable for the government to attempt to
control the lifestyles of its citizens by such means. The citizens are
fully capable of doing so themselves and the necessary tax revenue can
be raised without such nonsense. Laws for behavior should be separated
from tax laws which are, after all, for the purpose of raising the money
to run the government. Mixing the two does neither effort (nor the
citizens) justice - not to mention the country itself.

The FairTax is the only tax plan that I see before the Panel that meets
all of the criteria charged by the President. All of the others fail in
important aspects. It is time for a real change and not just tinkering
again. The people want real change which I think should now be
abundantly clear. Do not be forestalled by those who say "no one else
has done it that way" and other similar non-arguments. Remember no other
country had even had a Representative Republic before and THAT has
worked out very well. Slavishly copying failed tax plans from other
countries is not a recipe for reform.

In addition, the attempts at introducing the FUD Factor (Fear,
Uncertainty, and Doubt) used by those who would prefer the stratus quo
can surely be seen for what they are - emotion based attempts to

**Response to request for comments #3 by the Federal Tax Reform Panel**

**Submission by Joe E. Sheldon, 6/5/05 (page 3 of 4)**

derail a tax system that we so badly need. Claims that the FairTax
requires a huge boost in rate or

that evasion will be rampant are examples of the FUD Factor run amok.

Additionally, the FairTax offers another path to the President in his
desire to reform the Social Security/Medicare systems.

Perhaps the four overriding goals of a tax system were best expressed by
Adam Smith in his \"Wealth of Nations\" where he set out these four
canons -

\"I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support
of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their
respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they
respectively enjoy under the protection of the state . . . .

II\. The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain,
and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the
quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor,
and to every other person . . . .

III\. Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner, in
which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it .
. . .

IV\. Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and keep out
of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what
it brings into the public treasury of the state . . . .\"

The present income tax system fails on all four points; the FairTax
(HR25) meets all four admirably and in the spirit intended.

**Response to request for comments #3 by the Federal Tax Reform Panel**

**Submission by Joe E. Sheldon, 6/5/05 (page 4 of 4)**

Therefore I urge you \... NO, I implore you \... to recommend the
FairTax as the best alternative for a decent, simple, visible, and
modern tax system for this country.

Submitted by Joe E. Sheldon; <jsheldon@socal.rr.com>