The FairTax is keyed to a retail sales tax methodology.  Find the loopholes in that methodology (if you can), and you've found the loopholes in the FairTax.  It's really that simple.

Likewise, if you can find the workaround in ". . . Prohibit the restoration or enactment of other statewide taxes, or an increase in the sales tax rate, without a vote of the people; . . ." then you've discovered the avenues of attack for those who wish to undermine the FairTax.  Again, it's that simple.

And once you've done either, then let me know; because I have yet to discover any.  (And I can assure you that I've done my homework on this.)

If the MFTP were a statutory law, then looking for loopholes would be a discussion that I'd readily enter into at length.  Instead, MFTP proposes an amendment to the state constitution.  As we know, constitutional law is, by design, much more difficult to circumvent than statutory law.  This is why the MI FairTax is being proposed as a constitutional amendment.

I honestly believe that, as I've responded elsewhere in this thread, you are operating from the paradigm of the current system.  An income-and-revenue-based taxation system, by design, is loaded with loopholes.  It has to be, otherwise how could those in power reward those who've backed their ascension to power?  And that paradigm is wholly useless when discussing a taxation system that is dependent upon the expenditure side of the ledger.

Likewise, statutory law is dependent upon the Legislature for its security and stability.  Group enough legislators together, and you can enact or override anything.  Constitutional law in Michigan is different.  Amending the constitution requires either a 2/3 supermajority of both chambers of the legislature or a majority vote of the state's voters (sometimes both); and overriding the constitution is simply impossible (though I know of one SCOMI justice who's going to do her darnedest before we bounce her in 2016).

It isn't that I haven't answered the workaround question, or the tourism one, or the one about fixed incomes.  More correctly, I suspect it's that you are still viewing this problem from an income tax mindset.  I understand why that's so, because Americans have been well-conditioned over the past seven generations to accept as normal a tax system that punishes productivity and is loaded with loopholes so as to reward manipulation and cheating.

But I refuse to hold as acceptable adherence to an inappropriate mindset in the face of clear evidence that said mindset is wrong.  Seriously, you are making this far more complicated than it truly is.  The FairTax system is radically different than anything that we are currently used to (as in, diametrically different from the current paradigm).  I'm not saying that this thing doesn't have its flaws (there is a 1.6% non-compliance rate with the state sales tax, after all), it's just that I really haven't found any substantive ones.

I tend to hold my students to pretty high standards.  What this means is that I expect that their questions will reflect that they've done their homework.  This is why I go into a detailed dressing-down of "stevenstmason" every time that troll shoots off his mouth in response to one of my posts; his discourse clearly reflects an abject lack of study.  This is also why I'm usually very patient with you; in the norm, your questions reflect study, but some misunderstanding.

However, do not believe that you are immune from rebuke when you've got it coming.  It is my expectation that you by now have mastered at least the core points of the FairTax Initiative, and it disappoints me severely when you drop the ball in that regard.  Typically, I'm a very patient man, but even Jesus ripped the Apostles a new one when they needed it (Matthew 16:21-23 provides a perfect example of this).  As patient as I am, I do not have but the smallest fraction of the patience of my Lord and Savior.

Just in case I've not adequately covered it, the basics of the FairTax Initiative are these three points:

• No hidden taxation

• No repeat taxation

• No government control of the tax system

Now, to be fair, I was extraordinarily testy last night.  I had been busting my rump for an overwhelming majority of the day in an election-day get-out-the-vote effort for Dave Schaffer.  He's a candidate for Grand Rapids City Commissioner, First Ward.  (I'm happy to say that the effort was successful; Schaffer will be in a runoff against the incumbent, Jim Jendrasiak, in November.)  Add to that the other things that I was doing yesterday (including an hour in the weight room and chairing a board meeting at church), and I really wasn't in the mood to be disappointed when I logged on after getting home.