[RobFromGa]

right, he can only save 10% max, so adding the 23% fair tax will make the bread $1.17 which was my exact calculation in the letter to Boortz/Linder.

The price of bread went up 17%. Which is ok for the people who got the take-home increase of 25% or thereabouts. But its not so good if you have accumulated wealth that just took a 17% or so dive.

[goldstategop]

Again, your wealth is not taxed until you spend it. If you make X amount of profit or earn a salary, that's not taxed. If you want to save it, you don't pay a tax on it. If you spend it, you pay a tax on it ONCE. There's no different forms of taxes. As you can imagine, politicians love the current system for they can tax your income any number of imaginable ways. With the fair tax, they can tax your consumption once. That means raising the tax has real political costs since its visible. And people know exactly how much they owe since every pays the same tax rate. A consumption tax is stable and isn't subject to the boom and bust cycle that accompanies income tax levies.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[phil_will1]

"But its not so good if you have accumulated wealth that just took a 17% or so dive."

But if your accumulated wealth is in equities which increase substantially in value during the first two years of the FairTax, that pretty much wipes out any differences in how much you pay for bread, milk, socks and shoes during that two years, doesn't it?

Here come the attacks from the SQLs who will accuse me of promoting the FairTax as a cure-all when I point out another benefit. Flame away, guys, I have my asbestos boxers on!!

[lewislynn]

The price of bread went up 17%. Which is ok for the people who got the take-home increase of 25% or thereabouts.

Not when the expectation has been pounded in your head that you would have more money AND prices would be about the same as they are now...