We need a very Flat Income Tax

 
 
 
In addition to analyzing the product that its purveyors are trying to sell to us, we should also take into account their marketing campaign - the way a product is sold, the integrity of its sales pitch, the amount of hype, incredible claims, etc., are all background music for the words of the sales jingle and should help us gain a sense of the quality (or the lack thereof) of the product.
 
In my experience and analysis, the FT marketing campaign consists of pure propaganda. They begin with "economic analyses" that have never been accounted for nor disclosed and about which they make superficially impressive sounding claims (e.g., "we spent $22MM in research" -  see my comments about that claim on the Introduction, Background & History subpage). AFFT® uses its old alleged "80 prominent economists" letter to claim great support - upon contacting some of them, the signers turned out to be mostly economics Ph.D. students and professors who may have listened to a brief FT sales spiel and most of whom had little or no understanding of the details of the FT.
 
Some people are in awe of economists (who are extremely bright) and believe that economists can predict economic results. A modest economist wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago in which he said essentially that economists can predict nothing because there are far too many unpredictable variables that will impact the final outcome. But, this does not stop the AFFT® from trying to convince the public that their economic claims are absolutely certain because "prominent economists said.....". There is an old saying "if you want 10 different economic opinions, ask 9 different economists". Economics papers commissioned and funded by those lobbying for specific legislation should be viewed with skepticism and challenged thoroughly.
 
AFFT® sends readers to their website to "learn more" while knowing that their target audience will not read any further than their "headline" superficial claims. I repeat my offer to rebut any claims made by the AFFT.
 
FT marketers do not tolerate and seek to stifle, any criticism of the FT. Besides avoiding "real" debates whenever possible, their websites never allow my or other critical comments to be posted. They want people to hear and read only their propaganda - see e.g., an e-mail from senior AFFT operative, Lori Klein, and also see 3 similar AFFT® REBUTTALS of my criticisms and my RESPONSES, on the Debates & Blog Talk Radio Shows subpage. 
 
AFFT® is marketing a product, i.e., Progressive-Socialist snake oil.  AFFT® proudly exposes its targeted appeal to Progressive-Socialists (see samples of that marketing campaign, in their own words).
 
 The AFFT campaign is heavily dependant upon emotional appeals to class warfare and to our natural unhappiness with the IRS - recently, AFFT® undertook a major campaign to promote the FT via massive support for the anti-IRS pro-FT movie, UNFAIR, including having local "Captains" hand out propaganda and answer questions at theaters across the country during the movie's 1 night showing (see, Peter J. Reilly's review of this pure propaganda movie in Forbes).
 
AFFT advertises that the FT "Abolish the IRS"  - it will not abolish IRS in any real sense. Instead, FT is a Trojan Horse that will facilitate a NEW Income Tax, in addition to the FT when Congress repeals its "Sunset Clause" and the 16th Amendment is not repealed, and the FT produces far less tax revenue than expected because its economists "assume" there would be ZERO evasion and avoidance (savings). See, The Myth that the FT "Abolishes the IRS". For additional support for this concern, please see A Primer on the Flat Tax and Fundamental Tax Reform, August 11, 2012, by Dan Mitchell, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute 
 
I find that the AFFT marketing tactics mirror a classic political propaganda campaign - spread many deceptions, and tell the same lies over and over again until a gullible public eventually accepts them as the truth. They regularly employ Saul Alinsky's tactics of ad hominem attacks, demonization/denigration of their opponents, accusing their opposition of doing precisely what they are doing, etc. Their "rebuttals" consists of nothing more than yet additional superficial deceptive propaganda. AFFT®'s propaganda breaks down under analyses and/or common sense logic. 
 
Recently, original FT House Sponsor John Linder authored an article on The Blaze in which he touted some of the same old propaganda deceptions. He did not respond to my critical comments with any substance. He could offer nothing more than an ad hominem attack calling me a "professional curmudgeon" - how sadly pathetic, but how very revealing. His deceptive article showed that he does not understand the bill he claims to have helped to write, nor does he understand how business and taxation work in the real world. The FT apple is rotten to the core.
 
An AFFT® Board member claims that AFFT® people are honest, decent, self-sacrificing, unpaid volunteers who are acting in good faith trying to improve the USA by finding a replacement for our awful current tax system (a goal on which we fully agree). Even assuming that was accurate, in my opinion, their good intentions are undermined by their tactics, as I have outlined them here. Even assuming arguendo that he is correct, in my opinion, does not change the fact that as well-meaning as they might possibly be, they have not devoted the proper professional time and analyses to the subject and have therefore come to the absolutely incorrect conclusion. I do not mean to insult them when I say they have drunk the Kool-Aid and are closed-minded.
 
I believe that AFFT® operatives (from the Board down to the District Directors in the States) have made a substantial "investment" in the FT which they must defend in order to avoid being embarrassed (i.e., they are in denial) - if they were to instead devote their energies to my Flat Tax, we could accomplish very beneficial results for our economy. Sadly, their minds (and those of many of the people they have "sold") are closed to the truths underlying the FT. As Mark Twain said,  "It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled". Therefore, I do not address my analyses and comments to them, but only to those people in the public whose minds are open to learning the truth. 
 
Recently, FT propagandists have been utilizing the Constitutional amendment process ("Con-Con, COS, Art. V, etc.) to push primarily for a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) which gratuitously offers verbiage about a consumption tax (likely the FT).   See, COS Would Undermine the Constitution. 
 
AFFT's latest lobbying announcement is truly AMAZING! They have the "chutzpah" to actually write the words, "By eliminating the need for a detailed education on all aspects of FAIRtax, we have made it 'easy to sell'.....” Translation: Don't bother to read the details now, just pass it and you can find out the details after it is enacted. This reminds me of Nancy Pelosi's famous quote about the Obamacare bill.  This latest sales pitch is consistent with the overall AFFT® approach of superficial marketing of this snake oil. Also, the announcement deceptively dances around by the fact that new House W&M Chair, Kevin Brady (a long-time FT Co-Sponsor) told the WSJ that the FT requires way too big a leap from where we are today and that he would focus instead on a flatter, simple Income Tax.