Classic Robert Gauntlet Tournament: The current tax system should be replaced by the fair tax.

A simpler tax code The FT is simpler as well as more transparent and fair than the current tax system. We're talking about a 135 page tax code to replace much of the current tax code, which is ridiculously long and with a lot of special interest influence. Corporations spend billions of dollars just to comply with this code, and they pass the entire cost of this onto the consumer, shareholder and employee. Instead of disguising and hiding taxes, the FT puts them right in your face, so you know how much you're paying. " When considering the impact that FT will have on the economy, wages, inflation and prices the magnitude of that burden is shown to be far more than PRO's made it seem." Actually I've shown those arguments to be false. 22% of imbedded taxes replaced by 23% taxes, will not cause a significant jump in prices. Inflation will continue at normal levels. Incomes won't rise, but they won't be taxed, so people will have access to more money. Just about every study that comes out shows the economy improving with the FT. It probably has something to do with bringing more money home and becoming the biggest tax haven in the world and this drawing in huge businesses. http://www.fairtax.org... "Moreover, in positing that FT is simpler, PRO fails to account for the transition costs that necessarily follow from the status quo to the FT's implementation as much as he ignores the logistical problems of collection." I'm sure transition costs will be offset by the billions of dollars it takes just to figure out how to comply with the current tax system. Some estimates being at 230 billion dollars and up. The fair tax reduces compliance costs by 90% which will more then overcome the transitional costs. http://www.fairtax.org... I'm not sure There is very many logistical problems to be concerned with. 80% of all retail sales go through big box stores such as Wal-Mart. These stores already have systems in place to collect taxes. http://www.fairtax.org... "massive evasion is inevitable with [FT] because all revenue would be collected at just one point in the entire economic system... final sales." I don't understand the point massive evasion is inevitable regardless of the tax system. It's probably a lot easier to lie about your income on a w2 than it is to buy a pack of bubblegum at Wal-Mart (big box store where 80% of sales take place) without paying the tax on it. There is this other myth my opponent keeps referring to that is obviously false. It's the statement that the FT in order to claim revenue neutrality assumes 100% of income is spent. In the previous round he changed it from that to 100% compliance. I've pointed out the absurdity of this statement before. My opponent cites a book that proves this statement by citing the President's Advisory Panel on tax reform. The problem is The President's Advisory on Tax Reform researched their own version of the FT with added in exemptions and other things not part of the bill being passed through legislation. So, really my arguments are being attacked by criticism for a national sales tax plan that in no way resembles the FT. http://www.fairtax.org... It's most certainly revenue neutral, and that fact isn't based on some fantasy that the government would be able to gain 100% compliance. More Fairness No Loopholes My opponent asserts that the FT could be abused by politicians to reward special interest groups or punish political enemies. So what he's essentially saying is that because a tax code word revert back to being used for political manipulation, that we should just accept an unfair tax code. I don't buy that. We should replace the unfair tax code with a fair one and then when that one's unfair, we should replace it. To me that's like saying "don't wash your clothes because they're just going to get dirty again". We should wash our clothes every time they get dirty and we should fix our tax code every time it breaks. Revenue neutral Skipping the points I've already addressed prior to this round. My opponent argues that your stereotypical Republican and Democrat wouldn't gain anything from a revenue neutral FT. They won't be able to reduce taxes and punish the super rich. I won't argue my opponent there. I think taking power away from politicians to use the tax code for their political agenda is a good thing. My opponent argues once again that the FT's revenue neutrality rests on the assumption that people spend 100% of their income. This is simply no true. I don't know what to say. It's as simple as just plainly being false. http://www.fairtax.org... Look at all the scholarly studies showing the FT to be revenue neutral. You won't see a 100% of income spent assumption and based on the fact that numbers for average savings amount investments etc. are always included, shows that no 100% income spent assumption is used. There is an assumption that a FT at the final sale would discourage people from buying. The FT would actually be included in the price and collected at the point of sale. The 22% imbedded taxes get taken out and the 23% gets added in. The price is added into the product. So when you see a dollar loaf of bread. The 23% tax is already included in it. 23% Tax Burden Let's get this out of the way. When comparing the FT to a sales tax the 30% number is used, but the 23% number is used when comparing it to an income tax. The reason is to show that if you spent all your income 23% would go towards taxes. It's not trickery or sleight of hand it's just different descriptors used to establish a fair comparison rate depending on what it's being compared to. If any of my opponents following arguments sound familiar it's because it's not the first time he made them and he's decided to repeat them instead of address my criticism. " But even still, the impact to young adults who are in the process of establishing themselves is staggering, in that it unfairly penalizes "those who may need to borrow and consume heavily... by buying their first cars, first homes and all the furnishings that go with them, and possibly pay for the costs of child rearing as well." There is 2 issues with this argument. The first is that the 22% of imbedded taxes taken out and replaced with 23% taxes, doesn't show a significantly more of a burden to young adults just getting started. Another thing left out of this argument is the fact that most people just starting out would be buying used cars, homes etc. The FT has virtually no affect on these people. " Likewise, implementing FT would effectively leverage an insidious form of double taxation on those who saved their income at a time when income was taxed." They would have already payed the imbedded taxes in products which are being replaced by an almost equivalent amount of FT. The double taxation is a wash. If you account for the fact that they won't have to pay capital gains on investments than it's probably a win. Corporations My opponents arguments against the influx of businesses we'd have as a result of the FT are invalid. I've already shown that being the biggest corporate tax haven in the world would heavily encourage businesses to come here. There is nothing really to defend because my evidence was dismissed without a rebuttal. My argument still stands. Corporations will flock here and the economy will grow. Banking My opponent claims that, the rich would go overseas to buy luxury products. This is simply not the case. Seeing as how prices would remain the same on products the rich will have just as much incentive as they always have had to take their business elsewhere. Prebate/Welfare My opponent is concerned about a cost of living not being attract chef to the prebate. This poverty level spending rebate is better than what we have now. Right now a poor person paying 0% in income tax is still paying the 22% on everything else. In the FT system this person wouldn't pay that imbedded tax either up to poverty level spending. Asking for the prebate to take into account the difference in cost of living from area to area isn't reasonable. For one it's better than what we have now so pointing out that it could be better doesn't help con's case, but other than that the cost and abuse of adjusting the prebate to match each varying cost of living isn't necessary. Cost of living can vary from one neighborhood to the next and calculating all these different variables just isn't going to happen for any tax system. "I didn't say that 100% of income is taxed under FT, I said that FT is revenue neutral only if 100% of income "is consumed" meaning 100% is spent on taxable goods and services. As I've said before, that's just not the case. " I think you knew what I meant. 100% of income isn't assumed to be spent on taxable goods and services. This is just a complete fabrication. Every study you'll look at (some I've included) shows that it's assumed that less than 100% of income will be spent on taxable goods and services. http://www.fairtax.org... Conclusion Thank you YYW for participating in this debate with me. Thanks to all the judges who volunteered to jugs this debate.