[nmh]

As a conservative, I can only envy them for that. It has been proven that the national sales taz approach punishes very low income the most.

[xrp]

It has been proven that the national sales taz approach punishes very low income the most.

Huh...how is that? You're taxed on the non-essentials that you buy and the very low income people don't buy a lot of non-essentials.

[Principled]

It has been proven that the national sales taz approach punishes very low income the most.

Not the Fair Tax. Look here for how HR 25 treats the various income brackets.

[GO65]

As a conservative, I can only envy them for that. It has been proven that the national sales taz approach punishes very low income the most.

That depends on how you structure it. If you exempt food, medicine, housing and education, and offer an annual flat rebate (e.g. $5k per citizen), you would actually find that those on the lower end of the income scale pay little or no federal taxes.

[meyer]

It has been proven that the national sales tax approach punishes very low income the most.

No, it hasn't any more than a 15,000 dollar car "punishes" lower income people who have less chance of affording it. You buy what you can afford and strive to afford what you hope to buy. That is opposed to the present system of getting someone else to buy your stuff which is all the "progressive" tax rate does.

A national sales tax is inherently fair, as is a flat-rate income tax. In fact, one could argue that a flat per-head tax is fair as well.

[rwfromkansas]

Normally, they are regressive in nature. But, not the FairTax since it has found a way to fix that problem.