This is where your argument falls apart. The amount of money for someone who is at or below the poverty level would not decrease because they would receive the standard stipend to cover all sales tax they would owe. Everyone would receive the same amount, so you would only owe tax if you spent tax than the stipend covered.
Additionally there is nothing in the current Fair Tax plan that tracks what anyone buys. If the proposal excluded medicine and food from taxation, that exclusion would happen at the cash register, just as it does now in states that don't charge sales tax on food. No tax is proposed on housing. On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > Once you get significantly below 50k the problems start. By our definitions > this person does not have enough money to live, and we are going to reduce > that by a further 10%. The usual refutations of this are that this person > isn't buying new products anyway and that necessities like food and housing > won't be taxed. Y-e-e-s-s....Also there is apparently going to be some sort > of tracking of who bought what to make sure these people don't pay too much. > Say what? This is not a small-government proposal. Everyone gets their own > minder checking the total of their purchases? Cause... this is not going to > be a case of oh yeah the poor, we will have social programs for them. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:340158 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
