Not fair! They have the right to make their case if they want to. And why shouldn't I assume the same thing about your advocacy of NRST?
My own observation of the NRST debate is that most of the avid defenders of the idea are, like the three men who dreamed it in Houston, businessmen or (in the case of the attorney) people whose clients are businessmen whose cash flow would go to the moon if suddenly all federal income and payroll taxes were repealed. Such individuals would be leveraged to any such changeover and shift of business taxes to individual taxpayers, i.e. their own tax bills would rise the same as everyone else's, but the increased tax liability would be dwarfed by their new flows of tax-free income. For them, it's a no-brainer.
For anyone who's retired on a small income, it'd be a disaster.
LOL
Why? I can ignore anyone's postings.
They have the right to make their case if they want to.
Sure they do. They just don't have a right to be heard and replied to.
And why shouldn't I assume the same thing about your advocacy of NRST?
I have posted many times that I am an unpaid volunteer. I have also posted that the FairTax is contrary to my own very narrow situation and self interest. My taxes would soar, but this is the right thing to do.
My own observation of the NRST debate is that most of the avid defenders of the idea are, like the three men who dreamed it in Houston, businessmen or (in the case of the attorney) people whose clients are businessmen whose cash flow would go to the moon if suddenly all federal income and payroll taxes were repealed. Such individuals would be leveraged to any such changeover and shift of business taxes to individual taxpayers, i.e. their own tax bills would rise the same as everyone else's, but the increased tax liability would be dwarfed by their new flows of tax-free income. For them, it's a no-brainer.
Just because there will be a personal gain doesn't mean that they are the only one to benefit. I believe that better than 90% of the people will be better off in terms of taxes paid. I further believe that 100% of us will be better of with the removal of the IRS and the Federal Income Tax. Keeping the current system because of a narrow self interest when doing so hurts the vast majority of people is quite the opposite and quite wrong.
For anyone who's retired on a small income, it'd be a disaster.
You are flat out wrong and that has been amply demonstrated here. Why you choose to persist in this causes me to wonder about your motivations.
("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
You lose points with me when you quote him. Maybe I need to add you to the list of 'avoidees'. You run with some pretty suspicious company.
For anyone on a "small income", their effective tax rate would be pretty darn small, once the FCA was factored in.
"For anyone who's retired on a small income, it'd be a disaster."
Incorrect. Those living at or below the poverty level would experience a 15 - 30% increase in their purchasing power. How would that constitute "a disaster"?