Ok I found another economists view on this. I will post the link (as I cannot edit the PDF to grab the graph), and yes it is from FairTax.org but they are referencing independent data.

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTax-Fundamentals_and_facts-070122.pdf

Even if I were to grant that the graph that FactCheck.org uses wasn't properly fact-checked (which I emphatically do not), the trends still hold true.  The extremely poor and very rich benefit at the cost of the middle class. 

And, hey, you trust your precious Americans for Fair Taxation, right? 

Notice the similarity in relative numbers, with [edit: two] exception[s]:  [the AFT graph shows less benefit to the poor in both "before" and "after", and] THE EFFECT THE FAIR TAX WILL HAVE ON VERY HIGH INCOME LEVELS IS HIDDEN.  They don't want you to see that the major benefits of the "FairTax" are to the very top earners. 

You can argue about how much more efficient the FairTax will supposedly be, but trying to deny that the rich are the primary beneficiaries is just pathetic. 

Also, I want sources on your allegations about the graph, and don't forget that the source has to specify that it is the data that [edit: that] graph draws on that is incorrect. 

 OK, that's all any rational person needed to know about the how honest your proposals are. Here's a wonderful claim based on nothing but your own experience, which probably doesn't involve more than 2 months outside of the US.

The US is nowhere near the top in Organ donation rate. For that, you'll have to look at Spain.

The US's foreign aid per capita, is under 20 cents per capita. Norway gives over a dollar.

Laws agains immigration are very popular. Even when it's legal immigration. Look at the movement to make sure DMVs become immigration offices, and immigrants can't get driver licenses longer than the length of their visa (when over 90% of visas are very short by design, and are lawfully renewed). Many other countries welcome immigrants, not unlike the US not 50 years ago.

So no, you are not right on taxes, and you aren't right on this one. Take off your red, white and blue glasses and go see how good chunks of NO are still a disaster area, while a lot of the money dedicated to relief is just pure profit for Bush's cronies.

Let's just say that when I tell you I "question" the impartiality of this expert I am going for understatement.

 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/01/data/weorept.aspx?sy=2006&ey=2008&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=512%2C941%2C914%2C446%2C612%2C666%2C614%2C668%2C311%2C672%2C213%2C946%2C911%2C137%2C193%2C962%2C122%2C674%2C912%2C676%2C313%2C548%2C419%2C556%2C513%2C678%2C316%2C181%2C913%2C682%2C124%2C684%2C339%2C273%2C638%2C921%2C514%2C948%2C218%2C686%2C963%2C688%2C616%2C518%2C223%2C728%2C516%2C558%2C918%2C138%2C748%2C196%2C618%2C278%2C522%2C692%2C622%2C694%2C156%2C142%2C624%2C449%2C626%2C564%2C628%2C283%2C228%2C853%2C924%2C288%2C233%2C293%2C632%2C566%2C636%2C964%2C634%2C182%2C238%2C453%2C662%2C968%2C960%2C922%2C423%2C714%2C935%2C862%2C128%2C716%2C611%2C456%2C321%2C722%2C243%2C965%2C248%2C718%2C469%2C724%2C253%2C576%2C642%2C936%2C643%2C961%2C939%2C813%2C644%2C199%2C819%2C184%2C172%2C524%2C132%2C361%2C646%2C362%2C648%2C364%2C915%2C732%2C134%2C366%2C652%2C734%2C174%2C144%2C328%2C146%2C258%2C463%2C656%2C528%2C654%2C923%2C336%2C738%2C263%2C578%2C268%2C537%2C532%2C742%2C944%2C866%2C176%2C369%2C534%2C744%2C536%2C186%2C429%2C925%2C178%2C746%2C436%2C926%2C136%2C466%2C343%2C112%2C158%2C111%2C439%2C298%2C916%2C927%2C664%2C846%2C826%2C299%2C542%2C582%2C443%2C474%2C917%2C754%2C544%2C698&s=NGDPD&grp=0&a=&pr.x=32&pr.y=4

So the 2007 GDP of the US is $13.77 Trillion and 22% of the embedded taxes alone = over $3 trillion in current taxes.

The FairTax : $13.77 trillion @ 23% = over $3 trillion in taxes raised.

Hrmm... Taxes will still be the same amount raised. There is no magic to it, just simple math.

Look, even SUPPOSING that there is a 22% "hidden tax" ON TOP OF the income tax etc., in that case how can you expect to replace it all with a 23% flat sales tax and come out with the government making the same amount of money?

22% tax + big income tax =/= 23% tax

Except if by magic.

 I would suggest that I see in full 8-bit Nintendo glory, not just a red, white, and blue tinted lens. 

If you don't accept that answer then I see the full range of technicolor provided to me by life.

Did I not ask that nobody go down that trail? You are suggesting that the problems of NO are now the fault of the Bush Adminitration.... I suggest you don't bring this up again as it isn't true.

 Now the top bolded part.

Americans give more to charity than any other country. We gave over 295 billion in 2006. (source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm) 

Americans gave $260 billion away in charity last year -- that's about $900 per person.  (source: http://www.casefoundation.org/spotlight/giveback/usa)

If you look at those tell me that America isn't the most generous country in the world. 

Yeah, and Brownie was doin' a heckuva job.

Uhm you do realise that a lot of the people we are talking about have job titles of "investor" right? I don't know many people who are willing to take over another investors stake at half the profits considering they would still be responisble for the same amount of risk. Which really this is what this boils down to. Investors are what keep economies from stagnating, put up money for new business, and new products, or ideas.

I don't think you really understand what the 20% of Americans do with their wealth that makes them so wealthy or you would have gotten this point to start with. If a meaningful percentage of that 20% decides to head for greener pastures then this country is in serious trouble. The simple fact is that if 90% of this countries wealth picks up and leaves there aren't going to be jobs for many of us. But to be clear I don't think all of them are actually going to leave.

I'm simply making the point that we need them a lot more than they need us and they are actually willing to pay more than the average person. Thats part of the disconnect here. Anyone who doesn't recognize that the rich need to pay more for the system to work is deluding themselves, so lets be clear on that. I disagree that they should have to pay more but basic economics dictates that they have to..they absolutely must. What isn't so clear cut however is the amount they should be paying.

Here is my problem with the anti-FairTax position:

It seems the major idea behind the opposition is picking at the details, and I actually think this is a good thing if the intentions are fair-minded. A tax system needs to be picked apart and rebuilt time and again before it is ready to be instated. But what I don't get is that just about everyone (let me know if you don't) thinks that the current system is awful.

So, to me it seems that we should be looking for a new system, we should be tearing apart the FairTax and pointing out its problems, and we should then fix those problems and put it back together in a way that will work.

The key a lot of people are missing(imo) is to realise that not every market sector is going to benefit from a new system. A tax system is going to favor some market sectors over others and there is no way around that. A change in tax systems is going to require some people to find new jobs..again, no way around it. But neither of those things by themselves should be a detterant to not implementing a better system. Both of those things are going to cause short-term issues as the market rebalances itself in its new environment...but after that its life as usual.

Really I don't want to argue about the nitty gritty details, its enough for me to leave it up to the experts so long as everyone can agree that what we have now is simply atrocious. Hopefully they can come up with something a lot simpler than what we have now.

To everyone in the thread: Are you happy with the current system or do you think we need a new system (even if that new system isn't the fair tax)?

Final Fan, and others.

What does any of this have to do with Bush?? I thought we were talking about the tax code.

and Final Fan,

The 22% isn't a tax that is paid to the government, it is a cost incured by businesses to prepare their tax statements. Think of the army of accountants, and the man hours needed for lets say Best Buy to prepare their taxes, and if they are audited, that expense goes even higher.

The arguement here is that if Corporations don't have to prepare their taxes, then they can cut out those additional costs, which are estimated to be at 22%.

So, with this plan, companies can cut costs by about 22%, and that won't effect the governments tax income. Then, the cost goes up 23% for consumer taxes. Therefore the cost to consumers stays the same, and the government income stays the same. Where the savings comes in is in the form of all the saved man hours needed to prepare overly complicated tax statements.

Don't you see how that is a good thing, it basically would give more money to everyone, because it gets rid of wasted effort in preparing taxes.

Also, Huckabee said he didn't know how old the world is because the days in the Bible during creation could have been of any length of time. It was 7 "God" days, which could be a billion years a piece for all he knows. So, get your facts right before you go blasting someone and their beliefs.