[Hostage]

Still waiting Filo!

Did you give up?

You should. Because you dug yourself into a hole that you cannot climb out of.

Here I will answer for you since you have wisely chosen to give up.

From this link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/30homeless.html

the number of chronically homeless is less than 200,000. Let’s say they all get a rebate of $196 per month, the maximum allowed for an individual using the 2007 poverty line.

And assume that these homeless don’t spend one dime on NRST taxable items, so they keep all of their rebate of $196 and if they spend any of it, they spend it on NRST non-taxable items such as used blankets, clothes, etc.

200,000 x $196/mo. = $39.2 million per month or 470.4 billion per year, less than a half billion.

Now if any of these 200,000 spend any of their rebate on NRST taxable items such as food or rent, then the amount above of $39.2 million will be much less.

But as there is no source for more people living in such squalor (having less than $392 per month to spend for all necessitities), then the only way you can justify the existence of ‘millions’ of such people is to ‘imagine’ them into existence.

Isn’t that true Filo?

You have to ‘imagine’ millions collecting more revenue than they create by retail spending, right?

Yeah, you have to ‘hallucinate’ these millions into existence, right?

Yeah right! Damn right!

In order to back up your claim that the FairTax Rebate is a massive socialist wealth distribution scheme, you have to ‘hallucinate’ millions of people into existence that would be taking more in rebate than they every generate through consumption.

And these people do not exist! Except in your mind!

Ergo, the FairTax is not a socialist wealth distribution system.

[Filo]

the number of chronically homeless is less than 200,000.

Last time, brainless one:

This isn't about homeless, although they fit into the category.

This is about anyone who spends less than the "break-even" amount for their prebate.

Assuming the accurate $700 a month number I used before (as opposed to your mathematically challenged BS) any individual making under about $8,500 a year falls into this category.

Clearly two-member households under $17K as well, and so on.

From the US Census Bureau, as summarized here the number is far, far larger than the 200K BS in your transparent straw man.

The 2006 numbers appear to be around 9 million individuals and roughly 20% of two earner households.

Again, even if it were just one person the program would be socialist and, therefore, unconstitutional (a debate you ran away from - the first intelligent thing I've ever seen you do.)

So sorry to jump back in, but your BS was too much to take.

I’m really done now. You can keep posting your idiocy for the world to see. I have confidence that the rest of the Freepers reading this can recognize how desperately stupid you really are and how vacuous your “argument” has been.

In the end if this were the only flaw with the FT I might still support it, but it's just one of many. . .