I'm a supporter of
FairTax. Basically, we'd remove the system of income tax and replace it with taxes when you use your money. At first that might seem pointless, but there's an absolutely great thing that it does.
The FairTax system allows people to keep every single dollar of the money they earn. This means that the amount of money you have available to spend on investments is the full amount of money you earned minus what you need to spend (plus the tax amount). Where as if you paid tax up-front, that extra money is completely inaccessible to you. With FairTax, you can use that money you would be paying to taxes on your spare income to invest, which increases the profitability of your investments. Then, eventually, when you spend that money you made, you pay full tax on it.
This increases the amount of money available for investment into the private and public sectors. People can use this extra money that they aren't paying taxes on because they don't need to spend it to buy government bonds which allows the government to use this money while providing the people with a benefit. When they eventually get this money back (plus the bond appreciation), they can spend it and pay full tax on it. They can also invest into the private sector and help companies that need that extra cash to operate exist. And at the end of the day, the government ends up getting every penny they would if a Flat Tax existed.
Totally different note, this is primarily in response to Headcrab Zombie. The FDA is an absolutely
egregious institution of government. It costs companies
so much money to go through the FDA approval process that it makes it nearly impossible to launch new drugs in America. I am completely for the abolishment of the FDA. And before you repeat your arguments to me about how people need medicine to be approved, I agree. For that, I say look to the EU. The European Union has no government-run drug administration. Instead, they've privatized the drug regulation system. Instead of going through the bloated, slow, and immensely rigorous process the FDA requires, the EU has companies that exist purely to approve products for sale. These companies make money off a percentage of sales the drugs make because they hold their approval emblem. What this has lead to is a cheaper process to have drugs approved for consumption in foreign markets.
Now the natural response to this is, "Wait, Trinick, isn't it better to have a more rigorous system that way we're sure the drugs the public takes are safe?" The short answer is no. Having such a rigorous system for drug approval means that Americans don't get access to new drugs while Europeans do. Almost every single new drug created by every company is approved in Europe faster than it is in America. The reason isn't that Europe allows unsafe drugs to be released to the public, it's that the FDA is
so bad at regulating drugs that it simply isn't cost effective to launch them in America. The normal route of progression for a successful, safe drug follows: Development (6 - 10 Years), European Approval (2 - 4 Years), European Profits (4 - 10 Years), American Approval (4 - 8 Years), Western Profits. This means that at best a successful drug will reach the American market 16 years after its initial discovery, and it could easily take 25 or more years, if it ever reaches FDA approval. Compare that to the EU where they gain access to this drug only 8-14 years after the drug is discovered.
Again, the natural response is that looser approval requirements will allow more unsafe drugs into the consumer market. Sure, that could happen. But really, it doesn't. European regulation agencies aren't in the business of putting their seal of approval on dangerous drugs. It discredits their name and opens them up to lethal lawsuits that would annihilate the agency. What ends up happening is that they filter through drugs in an efficient and quick way that, at the end of the day, opens up people in need of these drugs to be able to take them. Obviously this isn't the only line of defense either; doctors will not prescribe new and potentially unproven drugs unless they are the only option. I don't know about you, but I would rather someone with treatment resistant major depression have access to a new miracle drug that has done very well in clinical trials than restrict them access to this lifesaver and have them commit Self Delete. Or maybe it's something more serious: a patient with a rare treatment resistant terminal cancer that has exhausted all their options. They've tried Chemo, they've tried radiation therapy, they've tried eating Vitamin C and drinking blended grass, but they're not in remission. There's a drug recently approved in the EU to treat their condition, but it hasn't even begun the process in America yet. This patient dies because they do not have access to that drug, and that's a tragedy.
The FDA is great on paper. In reality, it stifles American drug innovation, strangulates drug companies that want to launch drugs in America, and prevents people who need these new drugs from accessing them. We're living during a medical boom that's creating thousands of new promising drugs, but Americans don't get to have any of it. Companies are forced to launch their products in other locales where the approval process is cheaper until profits turnaround and they can initiate the immensely expensive and long process of having their drugs approved for sale in America.
