[JoeGar]

Those spending at or below the poverty level will pay no tax.

And this is considered "fair"?

[nsmart]

Well, Joe, nobody pays tax on goods needed at the subsistence level. We all get the pre-bate. So yes, it is fair.

[maine-iac7]

And this is considered "fair"?

they don't now - duh...

so what's the difference there?

[Principled]

It isn't simply "poor people" who pay no tax - it's anyone who chooses to spend only on necessities. Me - I'll go ahead and buy stuff I like and pay the tax - since prices won't rise I don't care.

I don't like it that there would be some people paying no tax - but if necessities are exempted - and I think they should be exempted - how would you tax someone who only spends on necessities?

The argument that everyone should pay tax is a good argument because everyone should understand the cost of government. Although the nrst does allow necessities to be exempt, the problem is ameliorated when individuals hae to pull the money out of their pockets to pay the tax - even though the money was prebated they'll still say "ouch - dang them taxes!".

Further you can see that rejecting the nrst on this basis ends up being just another argument for the status quo - no way would it be politically possible to do this regressively. JMHO

[dread78645]

And this is considered "fair"?

If you file for the FCA, everybody's spending up to the poverty level is tax free.
You, Bill Gates, the guy working at the Stop-N-Rob.

As for me, I'd just as soon not not file for the rebate.

[Bear_Slayer]

And this is considered "fair"?

The less one buys the less one pays. If the rich want to buy less, or discover ways, i.e. (buy used) to avoid the tax, they also can pay less.