Dear Mind-numbed Robot,
"The rich will always spend less of their total than the poor. That is a no brainer. What is a mistake, in my opinion, is to care about it and to consider it wrong."
I never said anything regarding the morality of the situation.
I'm looking at the practical consequences. The bill is revenue neutral. If the poor continue to pay nothing, if a few more folks near poverty level pay less than they do now, and the rich get a big tax cut, then someone's gotta pay for all these winners. If some income groups - the poor and the rich - see drops in their tax liability (and for the rich, it will be a very big hunk of the total taxes collected, as these folks pay the bulk of taxes now), then someone's taxes are going up.
Guess who is going to get socked?
sitetest
The "poor" don't pay "nothing" under the FairTax. They pay taxes at the same rate as everyone else and thereby have a stake in the economy and its performance that they do not presently have.
The rich also get no "... big tax cut ..." so you're incorrect on both ends of the economy. The accumulated wealth of "the rich" becomes taxed as it eventually becomes used for consumption. In the meantime if it is invested it merely helps boost the economy by offering more opportunity in the way of new or expanded businesses or jobs for other taxpayers. That's altogether good.
Who gets socked now? If your answer is the rich that highlights our disagreement over how much they pay in aggregate versus the middle class. Remember there are lots more of the middle class than the rich.