On May 26, 7:58*pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"gfn" wrote in message

...









On May 25, 5:42 pm, RD Sandman wrote:
gfn wrote
:

Sure I do. *The "flat tax" has the government deriving its revenue
from the income tax.

Yep....at a flat rate for everybody.

As does the FairTax. *Best part is the consumer pays it only when they
buy something. *They decide when to pay it, not when the government
decides you owe it on payday.

It looks like they are trying to mix sales tax with the old luxury tax..

The FairTax is effectively a replacement of the compliance costs that
are already built in to every product and service you buy. *The luxury
tax would have been a tax on top of that.

The FairTax is related because it is a flat sales

tax that generates revenue from sales. *It replaces the income tax
as the method of funding government. *If you fully understand the
FairTax
you will see exactly where I am coming from.

Then to keep it from becoming regressive you must drop that sales tax
from certain items, like food, housing, public transportation,
gasoline, etc.. or you end up with the poor paying a much larger
percentage of their income on those taxes than the wealthy.

Nope, There are two reasons why it's not regressive. *First, people
pay no net FairTax at all up to the poverty level.

Which means that someone, somewhere needs to know your income.

*Every household

No, they just need to know how many people are in your household.
That determines the prebate, not one's income.

receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods
and services.

I looked at the prebate schedule. *Where in there does income come into
it for that poverty level?

It doesn't. *Nor does it need to. *It only needs to figure what the
cost of essential goods and services are for a family of X number of
people. *A family of four that makes $100,000 requires the same
essential goods and services as a family of four that makes $50,000.

False assumption.

Any number of variables factor in to what goods and services would be
essential and what it would cost for those goods and services.

All you are doing is picking an "average" which would reward some family by
paying them for non-essential goods and services and punishing others by
failing to reimburse them valid and legitimated costs for essential goods
and services.

IOW, overall most people wouldn't balance out, only the small minority right
at and around the "average".

It's an assumption that is made by the DHH. It applies to
everyobody. No winners or losers (as our current tax code does).