At this point, the debate is more about the idea of a national sales tax (NST) than the bill itself. The bill has an amazing amount of problems, not to mention the fact that after a closer look, I fail to see the upside of the bill. Even the argument of simplicity goes out the window when different types of goods are taxed differently to regulate them (which is a proposed use of the NST). Plus there's the fact that even an ideal 23% NST, one with no tax evasion whatsoever, would not make up for all the other taxes that the bill abolishes.

As for the shift in % income, Leo said it quite well. Someone has to make up that missing % of federal tax income, and under H.R.25 it ain't the rich.

Incidentally I did get my paper written, and written well. My thanks for everyone who chimed in. Now I get to do another one. Outsourcing, here we come!

So, you outsourced fact-finding on that paper?
;>

just kidding! It's okay to ask for input...

I'm for having the government make up that missing percentage. If we're going to get rid of the IRS, we might as well go ahead and get rid of some other agencies while we're on a roll.

I thought the point of going on about "The Land of Opportunity" is that policy is supposed to encourage social mobility, not hinder it.

How are people supposed to become successful if 23% of their income is going out the door in taxes? And at the same time they face big cuts in education and healthcare?

Ah, that's yesterdays myth, Kea. Thanks mostly to the GOP (and a few free-trade Democrats/Dixiecrats), there's been less real upward social mobility in the US than in Europe for decades. Since Reagan came in, only the Clinton years saw the ranks of those at the bottom shrink; while the percentage of kids born working or middle class who succeed in moving up has dropped steadily all the time (the obverse is also true; middle and working class kids moving down is an increasingly common American trend).