Maureen <mamamaur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You need to do some reading on confirmation bias. I fail to see how > gathering data only from opponents would be less emotional.
Because before any studies are conducted, and therefore observations made and conclusions drawn, one must decide where and when to look, and what to look for. It's clear to me that "Fair Tax" proponents have decided they're looking for revolutionary change and working backwards from there. For example, "Taxing sales under the fair Fair Tax - what rate works?" Clearly anyone embarking on that study has what they're looking for and so they're likely to find it. Unfortunately in this case, when you consider the human factors already listed the only possible outcome is evolutionary change. In other words, barring some extraordinary black-swan event there's not going to be a Fair Tax no matter how many studies are done. Thus in making my choice of what to look for (which is step one!), I choose to look for evolutionary change of the existing tax code. Which, by implication means I would be wasting my time to read anything further on Fair Tax and so would you. I'm certainly not a fan of the current code, but since I believe it's not going anywhere I might as well get used to it. But I'm open-minded! If I ever see anything to suggest that the Fair Tax is remotely probable (which is different from technically possible) I might decide to look elsewhere ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:339830 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
