If you have a choice to not buy food and fuel each month, you also have a choice of not going to work.
And you think that what I'M saying is illogical? First of all, the fact that the current system discourages productivity (which is exactly what you're suggesting) and the fact that the FairTax discourages spending (encouraging saving/investing) underscores how ridiculous an income tax really is.
Secondly, your example assumes that a person's entire paycheck will be going towards absolute necessities. How realistic is that?
Beyond that, choosing between buying something (or not) isn't the only method of deciding your tax contribution. Buying used is not taxed (and no, I'm not talking about used food). I'm sure you just conveniently forgot this point for dramatic effect. It'd kinda ruin the thought that someone might have to choose to go hungry in order to "avoid" being taxed.
Our state sales tax excludes food. The FT could too.
Folks here have been claiming that the FT lets them decide how much tax to pay. I'm just pointing out that that is not that much advantage because they already have the means to reduce taxes if that is thier overriding concern.
Arguing that the FT allows folks to voluntarily cut their tax contributions, but then also claiming that the FT will be revenue neutral is not internally consistent. What would the gov't response be to a drop in FT revenue? (raise the rate is the only correct answer)