My next question...
How would you evade taxes if there is no income tax to evade???

Sales tax yes but the revenue department already tracks that so the infrastructure is already in place. It reduces government and the burden on the common worker. Plus you would get your WHOLE check. No with holding...

@Toby - I never paid attention, but you are right, there is only Federal Income, State Income, Local/City/County Income (I have none of those, thank goodness) and Social Security withheld from a person's paycheck.

Draugnar I think I missed something....
What withholding are you speaking of???
Unemployment???

That is a classic example why we should have a fair tax.
How many people actually know what their gross salary is?

Most salaried employees know their gross, but hourly people probably don't have a clue.

They often times know their bring home and don't even look at their gross. If they realized what the difference was they would be pissed if they knew they could be bringing home the whole thing. Hell salaried employees would be too. most people would get an instant 50% raise.

one third is half of two thirds.
if your withholding is about 30% then (FICA and medicare is roughly 12%)
Your withholding is about half of your take home (1/3 of your salary)
thus a 50% raise

TheGhostmaker:

Do you assume that government will always be "evil" as you describe? Should we not attempt to change its face from an adversary to a friend? The government is supposed to do for me what I cannot do for myself. Personally, I think I can choose to eat healthier. Not everyone is capable of that, because they have a disease called obesity. That's the biggest health problem facing us in our developed nations.

If government by consensus is evil, does that mean you are against democracy? What would you do instead?

You say you have inalienable rights. I agree. But the only reason we have those rights is because we all agree they exist, and beseech our governments to enforce their existence. In 1000 AD no one had any rights, unfortunately for them. We have our rights now because we, by consensus, have decided we should have them.

Not to mention the fact that choosing what you would like to eat is not an inalienable right anyway.

Mine equates to over 27%, but most salaried employees I know negotiated their salary (gross) so they do know what is coming out. I think it sucks that I pay more in taxes and social security (almost $1600 per month, over $9 per hour) than a typical minimum wage employee makes. And if my wife worked, it woul dbe even worse. I'm lucky she doesn't and I get the extra exemption.

I think you should be able to spend the money you earn however you choose. If you wanted to save it you could with no penalty. You shouldn't have to pay taxes just because you work. You shouldn't have to shelter your money then pay taxes and penalties if you need to use it for something. You shouldn't have to pay taxes on interest you have earned either.

I've always thought it unfair that I make a killing at the poker table (win a tournament) where I risked money that was already taxed and the feds take another chunk. But if I lose that money, they don't give me a tax break. And what's this taxing interest on money that was already taxed? Sales tax too? This si double dipping and should be a crime. The state already takes a percentage of everything I earn, yet they then tax anything I spend that money on. Totally unfair.

Exactly why a fair tax should be implemented.

I'm all for the fair tax, but instead of giving allowances which would have to be adjusted based on sudden price changes like the price of milk skyrocketing, to compensate, as well as be adjusted by region and time of year, declare certain foods "Fair Tax Free". The basics like milk, eggs, bread, and fresh produce should not be taxable. Extras like pop, sugary cereals, candy, and meats over a certain per pound price (just a few examples) would still be taxable. Also, consumable goods that are a necessity (laundry detergent, bleach, dish detergent, paper towels, TP, tissues, etc.) should also be "Fair Tax Free".

As soon as you start handing out rebates based on incomes it ceases to be "fair" and becomes just a complicated income tax that involves more government bureaucracy.

It is not based on income at all. It is based on family size.
The average family may spend $400 a month on Groceries. To compensate for the taxes on that food the family would get about $100 each month. So if you are frugal you may get over, but if you have steak every night you will not...

Reference for details on the FairTax, from those who propose it:
http://www.fairtax.org/

Just make certain foods "Fair Tax Free" and you handle it far better than the rebate system AND you eliminate the large bureaucracy for printing and distributing checks and adjusting based on the current economics by just having a significantly smaller one that greenlights or redlights potential "Fair Tax Free" goods. And the stores are already equiped to handle some goods as taxable and others as not.

Now, if government's role is recognised as simply to protect the most basic rights of the citizens, the scale of that evil is minimised. That is what I would do.

"Do you assume that government will always be "evil" as you describe? Should we not attempt to change its face from an adversary to a friend? The government is supposed to do for me what I cannot do for myself. Personally, I think I can choose to eat healthier. Not everyone is capable of that, because they have a disease called obesity. That's the biggest health problem facing us in our developed nations."

I never described government as evil. I described government by majority as evil. The government should be simply those in whom legal coercive force is concentrated. The use of coercive force to punish he who infringes my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is justified. The use of coercive force for any other reason, be it to pay a bureaucrat's salary or a neighbour's heart by-pass, or anything else, is wrong. I don't see a representative elected to power following the policy of removing the rights to the vast majority those powers, so in that respect, I do think that government will remain evil, but not because a moral government is logically impossible.

"You say you have inalienable rights. I agree. But the only reason we have those rights is because we all agree they exist, and beseech our governments to enforce their existence. In 1000 AD no one had any rights, unfortunately for them. We have our rights now because we, by consensus, have decided we should have them."

If the rights exists because of a consensus (or, rather a majority) being in favour of them, how can they be inalienable? Surely a change in majority opinion is all that you need to alter the rights? You cannot use the term inalienable unless you are to take an objective, absolutist morality as your position.