My reply to ch-ch-changes argument...  Let's get to the heart of the matter.

How interesting… When I look back at my entries I describe in detail what change will benefit our nation and the people of our lands. How you could Andrew miss the message? 

I describe how our current tax system chases job, businesses, capital, and prosperity away from our lands and that the FairTax can reverse this devastating trend. 

Andrew and I both know that any taxation on the productivity side gets passed along in the pricing of goods and services. The FairTax simply removes taxes from the productivity side (at every step of R&D, raw materials extract, production, distribution, marketing, sales, administration, tax compliance, etc.) and adds a 23-cents-on-the-dollar tax back at the consumption side of new goods and all business-to-customer services via a national retail sales tax. 

I describe how making this change immediately makes the United States a tax-haven which would attract capital investment and opportunity back to our lands and provide more jobs and more prosperity. 

I describe how making this change invites those who live among us who evade and avoid income taxes now (about 30% of our population) to contribute and pay their fair share which would stop breaking the backs of middle and upper-middle classes who are paying more than their fair share. 

Yet, Andrew describes my responses as Obamaesque… change for change sake... Is that really fair? 

I wonder what kind of detail Andrew is looking for?  Hmm.  How about the equivalent of an Environmental Impact Report?  Would he read it?  He won't read the FairTax books (heck, he knows enough about the FairTax to get by with just the second book - "FairTax the Truth- Answering the Critics"... 200 pages... a weekend read).  I can see that he blogs a ton and getting clarification from a well-thought-out and well-presented source might be more of a commitment than he is ready for but, heck, the back and forth between Andrew and I might have been much reduced...  It may be a lost cause.

If I recall correctly, Andrew is in software development which is my profession as well.  I wonder if Andrew has ever written a software application and then found a need to make adjustments either right before implimenting the solution or shortly afterward?  It is not uncommon...  In fact, one Solution Framework that is widely used recommends solving the heart of the matter in primary interations (envision, plan, develop, stabilize, deploy) and then work out further details in subsequent iterations (rinse, lather, repeat)...  The heart of the matter...  What is the heart of the matter for someone like Andrew?  Perhaps I should ask...

Andrew, you have a wonderful ability to communication in written form and it is clear that you enjoy doing it.  Let's team up and come up with a vision for what a system of taxation should accomplish.  I will start with the following vision statement. I really hope you will help complete it/refine it.

To me, a system of taxation should: 

1. 1.      be simple – so that we all understand it (not just tax attorneys)
2. 2.      fund our government at the same level of current funding
3. 3.      promote economic growth – not retard it
4. 4.      promote U.S. competitiveness internationally – not impede it
5. 5.      invite capital investment and jobs to our lands – not chase them away.
6. 6.      accelerate capital formation necessary for real wages to steadily increase – not slow it
7. 7.      increase productivity not lower it
8. 8.      respect privacy and civil rights of U.S. citizens - not intrude upon it
9. 9.      make the true cost of government transparent – not hide it
10. 10. accelerate upward social mobility – not impede it
11. 11. lower the cost of employment – not raise it
12. 12. create jobs and maximize employment – not destroy jobs and create unemployment
13. 13. treat everyone equitably – not have a disproportionately adverse affect on the poor
14. 14. encourage capital formation and entrepreneurship – not discourage it
15. 15. level the playing field between large enterprise and small business – not foster continued dominance of large enterprise over small business
16. 16. remove tax planning as a burden to all entities – not impose unacceptably high tax planning
17. 17. be easy to administer – not difficult
18. 18. address Social Security and Medicare funding problems going forward – not ignore them

How is this for a start? As you state, let’s not just have change for change sake… that would be Obamaesque which, to me, is unacceptable.

I look forward to yours (and/or others') comments.

Best,

YK