Replies

Drop your class warfare argument and argue issues on their merits!
The NRST is but one of the arguments/governmental actions we will use to destroy the Marxist class warfare theology. There are actions we will take, but first things first!
=====================

TM, Your NRST IS CLASS WARFARE!! As I have written and shown, it is DESIGNED to benefit the wealthy investors, and wealthy investors ESPECIALLY. It is DESIGNED to debilitate the resources of middle income people, and to emasculate the resources and ANY chance of economic advancement for BOTH groups. Even including ANY of the short term benefits such as consumer savings that MIGHT occur in the beginning.

You are almost right about your wish "to once and for all destroy the Marxist class warfare argument "FRom each according to their ability, to each according to their need.", though you will never destroy an arguement for something that NEVER esisted in working reality. Even Marx on his death bed said, "I am not a Communist". He was a socialist. One who believed that he was better than others, and deserved a better "to each" than most. And, socialism is how the former{?} U.S.S.R. and China were run. "Some pigs are more equal.
But, the NST written into the tax cut bill and the NRST if enacted will eliminate ALL possibilities of advancement except for the wealthy investors and government workers and politicians. The "Perots and Gateses" will NEVER occur again. THIS is the ITENT of the bill. To insure that wealth and power remain in the hands of the "elite" of today and their progeny into perpetuity. In a word, SOCIALISM!! Or, as it was called in former times, Baronies, or feifdoms and feudalism of power.

If you don't want "class warfare", don't start the war! The numbers on the differences in taxes paid by different income groups are absolute fact, and all the wishing and yelling in the world won't change that. And, as long as the war goes on, I AIN'T gettin' out of the way. As long as I am physically and mentally able.

And, I am DAMN SURE NOT argueing for the proven destructive "FRom each according to their ability, to each according to their need." policy. That REQUIRES a GRADUATED {progressive} income tax. A flat tax based on income from whatever source derived with NO deductions and/or exemptions would be the more "fair" taxation that could be devised. It is the ONLY taxation system that allows for equal opportunity for individual advancement through hard work, initiative, and/or the presence of good luck.It also allows equally for the depredation of wealth for those who spend more than their investment only income provides. Which, is WHY the wealthy and their moneyhandlers so oppose such a tax system, and WHY they would lobby incessantly for a lower rate.

ALL other taxes should be eliminated! ESPECIALLY the abominable yearly rent that homeowners MUST pay governments that we know as property taxes. Peace and love, George.

"TM, Your NRST IS CLASS WARFARE!! As I have written and shown, it is DESIGNED to benefit the wealthy investors, and wealthy investors ESPECIALLY. It is DESIGNED to debilitate the resources of middle income people, and to emasculate the resources and ANY chance of economic advancement for BOTH groups."

George, do you have a clue as to how the FairTax proposal was developed? FYI, it was developed using an approach similar to one that a Fortune 500 company would use to develop a new product, i. e. market research was done to determine what the American people wanted, in terms of broad principles, in their tax system and that info was fed back to leading economists to make the numbers work. The market research was in the form of phone polling, targeted advertising, counting website hits and focus groups. The focus groups were comprised of young and old, democrat and republican, all races, religions, etc. Those funding the research went into it with no preconceived notions as to the best alternative to the current abominable system and, in fact, were NOT disposed toward a sales tax as a replacement. The design of the plan fell out of the research.

Would you like to retract your statement now?