People always oooh and ahhhh about Bill Gates' sacrifices to charity.
Who has ever said Bill Gates has sacrificed for his charity? Seriously. I want to see one legitimate quote about this, because I believe you are full of shit on this point.
The US funds 22% of the UN's budget - not what I would call primary funding if you looked at the sheer size of your economy.
I did word my post incorrectly. What I meant to say was the US is the biggest provider to the UN, and always has been. My point still stands, the "UN" isn't backing anything, it's the countries and taxpayers for those countries that are involuntarily "backing" this laptop, of which the US taxpayers contribute the most.
As for the real estate, you invitd the UN to take up that place. Don't crib about it now.
Yeah, right. "I" invited the UN just as much as "I" invited uncle sam and arnie to take $20K from me this year in taxes.
It isn't about judging... and then you go on to judge Bill Gates in your entire rant.
The fact is, Bill Gates has contributed more money to charity than most other people that have ever lived on this Earth. This is a fact you cannot refute, and is all that matters at the end of the day. Jesus may have felt the widow giving up her two cents made the biggest sacrifice, but at the end of the day it boils down to "how much do you have in the coffers?" when it comes to running a charity.
Bill Gates has made an extreme fortune, and he could have sat on the entire amount, given only entire to his family and friends, but Melinda and his father encouraged him to give most of it away (which he has pledged to do), and I say kudos.
Who are you to bitch and moan that he hasn't made a sacrifice? Who cares?
People like you can never be satisified. He could give everything away until he had only a million left to retire on the interest, and people like you'd be bitching that he didn't give more. I know you're kind very well. It's not fair that those evil rich only pay 35% in taxes, because they can afford to pay 70% and still live better than me!
Have some cheese with your whine, and grow up. Bill Gates is giving away a fortune to charity. Leave the nerd alone.
I am not going to take a position yet on how well these laptops are going to work out. However, the fact that they are now going to be distributed by governments, paid for with government funds, means that market economics and reality will get shoved aside for politics... this is never a good thing. Especially with the track record of the UN and corruption.
Secondly, I really take offense with the notion that "the UN" is backing the laptop. The UN is primarily funded by the USA. They take up a sizeable portion of valuable real estate on US land. And the US government gets funded by "non-voluntary contributions" from US citizens. Therefore, the title should read, US Citizens Backing the $100 Laptop (Involuntarily). The distinction is important. It's very easy to spend other people's money on ideas which may not be the best use of the funds.
(Sorry, just got done spending about 3 days working on my taxes, sending uncle sam and arnie $20,000 of my hard earned, so they can put about 1% of it to good use, and blow the rest on politics and vote-buying.)
one important thing (in my experience) the UK doesn't have so much of is militant fundamentalism
Maybe not the UK, but your next-door neighboors seem to have/had a streak of that. The Troubles ring a bell?
basically I think the difference is that in America you have the very dangerous combination of 1. Churches are big businesses (much more so than elsewhere) 2. businesses can easily buy into politics
Churches are also not taxed, and if they do try to dabble in politics directly, they will lose their tax-exempt status. It has happened before. That doesn't prevent the religious from trying to inflict their will on politics, but you're wrong to imply it's "the churches."
Also, coming from someone who lives in an area where there's an official state religion, my right eyebrow is raised conspicuously high on my forehead.
VOTE!!! If enough people share your views then you will get your libertarian/green/free trade/whatever people into office. There is nothing that stops them from running.
Wow, your thinking here is so off-base I don't even know where to begin.
1. Yes, there are things that make it hard for 3rd party candidates to run, or at least, to get on the ballots, which is really the same thing. Ask Ralph Nader, for example.
2. The media is entrenched in the two-party system, and does not give fair and equal coverage to third party candidates. Why? Because they feel they can't win. Why? Problem #3:
3. People think they are wasting their vote if they vote for a 3rd party candidate? Why? Because they know most other people feel the same way, and therefore it's nearly impossible to break the cycle.
4. People in fact ARE "wasting" their vote by voting for a third party, thanks to our horrible election process. Move to a fairer, better (mathematically) voting system, such as Instant Run-off Voting or the Approval Method. Either would be better than what we have now. This would let people vote for their first choice, which could be a third party, yet still not "wasting" their vote since they can vote for their 2nd and 3rd choices. (BTW, I vote for 3rd party candidates... I feel my vote is wasted contributing to either of the 2 big party candidates.)
5. Due to the above, many people don't even bother to vote. Many of these people would likely vote for a third party candidate if it was feasible for them to win.
Those are the big 5 reasons why we are currently entrenched in a 2-party system. It has nothing to do with most people agreeing with the Republicans and Democrats, as you imply. It is all about 3rd parties not being viable in our current voting scenario.
What the hell is the government doing taking 25% of someone's income that NEEDS it to survive
The government doesn't take 25% for someone that bad off.
while a guy selling stock for some extra disposable income keeps 85% of it?
Both guys in your example EARNED their money, and have the right to keep it and spend it as they deem necessary. However, it is reasonable that the government needs some money to provide constitutionally mandated services, so everyone should help cover that bill. The inequity is in how it's currently done. Why should the tax rate elevate with the more you earn? You're already paying more because you're making more?
So the point is that even people not making a lot of money are still paying a higher tax rate because of the manner in which they made their money. And lo and behold, those who make money through capital gains- which the wealthy are more likely to- pay a lower tax rate.
Who cares? If they received 1.68 billion in stock and paid 15% capital gains on that, their tax bill for this year alone would be $252 MILLION.
Are you really going to try and pretend like they aren't contributing enough because their PERCENTAGE is lower than yours?
Sweet jesus, give me a fucking break!
Let's switch to the FairTax, and then you guys can complain that they are keeping a higher percentage of their income compared to you, even though they are spending (and thus being taxed) a hell of a lot more.
By all means, please continue to be sucked into class warfare. The politicians love that shit.
I just bought a powermac recently, came with iLife 5. Anyone know the procedure for upgrades? I have coupons with this mac that indicate I have iLife 5 and Mac OS 10.4.3, can I use these somehow to upgrade to iLife 6 for free? How?
How is that different from now? They often have no job, no home, no form of identification.
Do you really think them not having a "RealID" is going to alter the landscape? Suddenly all homeless people will be put in jail, fed 3 squares a day, etc?
Wouldn't it be great if we all went back to that sort of system?
You neglected to provide one reason why it would be "great."
Personally, if I go into an Apple store to buy something other than an iPod, and Apple has found a way to get the majority of shoppers in that store into another express line for ipods, then that makes my life easier.
I am so sick of the tinfoil hat crowd, as they give those of us with reasonable privacy concerns a black eye.
This mis-use of podcast is what causes similarly clueless people to say things like, "Why did they need to create this word, podcast, when all it means is an http link to an mp3 file?"
A podcast is typically an audio presentation that you can subscribe to receive on a regular basis, simplified with RSS, and tools that sync the audio up to your player du jour. There wasn't a word to describe this succinctly, so "podcast" was born.
What MoMA has done is provide an audio file you can download on your audio player to explain an exhibit.
the 'makes the burden on the middle class heavier' factor is only one of my objections
I am still waiting for someone to show me how this increases the burden on the middle class? The only attempt I've seen is the faulty reasoning that "if my taxes are going down and I'm rich, the middle class's burden must be going up." That's false, because the burden is now being spread out to people who are currently NOT PAYING ANY TAXES -- criminals, foreign tourists, income tax evaders, to name three.
In fact I don't really have a problem with the amount of taxes that I pay. I have more ability to pay, more expendable income, why shouldn't I pay more?
Unless you live like a pauper, you WILL pay more. People with more money tend to spend more money.
The taxes I pay go towards making this a country where people have the possibiliy of dragging themselves up by hard work and brainpower like I have done.
This is a straw-man, because the fair tax system will also provide just as many benefits. It is revenue neutral -- the country will bring in the same amount of money as it does now.
Call me a socialist if you like, but I'm a stong believer in the capatlist system. Look how well it's done for me.
So why continue to handicap our capitalist economy with this socialist system of taxation? The fairtax can bring in the same amount of money we bring in now, but encourage a stronger economy by promoting the increase of foreign investment, and eliminating much of the waste associated with filing taxes.
Because you are punishing people who are successful, arbitrarily, and using the money they earned to give to people who did not earn it, also arbitrarily. Where is there any fairness in that system? It's not even a flat tax rate, where everyone pays 10% or whatever... the rich pay not only more money, but also a higher percentage. Stop me if you hear any fairness anywhere.
Most rich people are either very smart or very lucky.
Or hard workers. And most poor people are either dumb, unlucky, or lazy. I don't really understand how this enters into the equation, unless you want socialism, in which case the conversation with me will end right here.
Also, just because someone is born with a high IQ doesn't mean they'll be successful. You have to apply yourself, no matter how smart you are.
These lucky rich people have an obligation to help people less fortunate than themselves.
Moral obligation, maybe. Legal obligation? No way. Not in the constitution, and morally I cannot find a desire to force someone to help someone else out. Where does it end? Should a doctor be forced to provide a certain percentage of their medical knowledge to sick people for free?
I am pretty well off, mostly because I was gifted with being born intelligent.
So you were born intelligent? Wow, that's impressive. So you could count and talk and everything right out of the womb? And with no work on your part, you're now well-off? Even more impressive. The only rich people I've ever met were either lucky OR both smart AND driven.
I was probably born with a higher than average IQ, but that doesn't mean I haven't worked to LEARN many skills which make me more valuable in our economy, and therefore, better off than many.
And I have no problem helping out my girlfriend's sister and some of my poorer friends by paying a higher tax rate.
Ha. And herein lies the stupidity of our system. You have poorer friends and girlfriend's sister you could be helping out directly with the money you've earned. But instead you are forced to give much of your money to the federal government, who will waste most of it through bureacracy and ineffiency, and your poorer friends may see a very slight trickle down effect. How efficiently nice of you?
I guess that is because I like to consider myself responsible instead of greedy.
Charity starts at home my friend, and not at the end of a gun's barrel, which is what uncle sam has aimed at your head with our current tax scheme.
I know it's much easier to take a dig at those evil rich folks with all the money, but the fact is the rich carry the greatest tax burden in this country, and therefore rightfully get the biggest tax breaks.
And no, I'm not rich. But even at my level (middle class), I can see that the way the current tax system is devised precisely so your class warfare complaints allow the politicians to divide the country, and more importantly, buy votes. (The rich are a minority, so it's pretty easy to make promises to the non-rich in exchange for votes.)
Yes, that's why this tax shifts the tax burden onto the middle class, away from rich people like me.
Ummm, actually no it spreads the burden out evenly to EVERYONE, rather than what we have now, which is to tax honest working people. Think about the ability to tax everyone that spends money in the united states, rather than a much smaller group of people that happen to work in honest jobs in the U.S. We're talking about taxing people that make money illegally (since they still spend money, and often, a lot of money), taxing foreign tourists that spend money here, and building the economy by encouraging foreign businesses to invest here (since they get a reduction on taxes due to the elimination of B2B taxes and payroll taxes. You are glossing over a lot of the facts, and trying to fill the void in with what you THINK the fairtax does. Please read the actual text of the bill for details (HR25/S25).
Essentially there would be more than $200,000 that the govenment gets from me every year that would have to be made up by someone else.
See above.
And those people would be middle class.
This is false, see above.
Now as a rich guy I should be all for this. It makes me richer. But it's not 'fair' by any means and I'm against it.
How is it not fair that the tax burden should be shared more equally by everyone? How is it fair that a person that is more successful has to pay more a percentage of their income? That has never been fair, you are just used to it and brainwashed into thinking nothing else can compare. Try reading the details on the FairTax at www.fairtax.org, with an open mind.
In general rich people spend a lower percentage of their income than people who's income is closer to their needs. Someone would have to make up for that. That would be the middle class who spend 99% of their income each year.
You are poor at math. Who cares what percentage of your income you spend? The only thing that matters is HOW MUCH DO YOU SPEND?
If you make $500K a year and spend $60K a year, you are paying more in taxes than someone who makes $50K a year and spends $49K of it a year. Right?
This is one reason it is called a FAIR tax.
Similarly, poorer people tend to have more children (this is after all why they are often "poor" or "middle class," because they have more things that need to be paid for. A family with more children, to some extent, will receive more of a credit to cover basic expenditures like food, rent, shelter, clothing, etc. So a single man making $50K living alone will still pay more in taxes compared to a couple making $50K a year together with 2 children, if both parties spend the same amount of money. This is due to the tax prebate built into the fairtax.
The fairtax plan is really smart, clear, and the fairest system I've seen, which is why I support it.
Slashdot Mirror
People always oooh and ahhhh about Bill Gates' sacrifices to charity.
Who has ever said Bill Gates has sacrificed for his charity? Seriously. I want to see one legitimate quote about this, because I believe you are full of shit on this point.
The US funds 22% of the UN's budget - not what I would call primary funding if you looked at the sheer size of your economy.
I did word my post incorrectly. What I meant to say was the US is the biggest provider to the UN, and always has been. My point still stands, the "UN" isn't backing anything, it's the countries and taxpayers for those countries that are involuntarily "backing" this laptop, of which the US taxpayers contribute the most.
As for the real estate, you invitd the UN to take up that place. Don't crib about it now.
Yeah, right. "I" invited the UN just as much as "I" invited uncle sam and arnie to take $20K from me this year in taxes.
It isn't about judging ... and then you go on to judge Bill Gates in your entire rant.
The fact is, Bill Gates has contributed more money to charity than most other people that have ever lived on this Earth. This is a fact you cannot refute, and is all that matters at the end of the day. Jesus may have felt the widow giving up her two cents made the biggest sacrifice, but at the end of the day it boils down to "how much do you have in the coffers?" when it comes to running a charity.
Bill Gates has made an extreme fortune, and he could have sat on the entire amount, given only entire to his family and friends, but Melinda and his father encouraged him to give most of it away (which he has pledged to do), and I say kudos.
Who are you to bitch and moan that he hasn't made a sacrifice? Who cares?
People like you can never be satisified. He could give everything away until he had only a million left to retire on the interest, and people like you'd be bitching that he didn't give more. I know you're kind very well. It's not fair that those evil rich only pay 35% in taxes, because they can afford to pay 70% and still live better than me!
Have some cheese with your whine, and grow up. Bill Gates is giving away a fortune to charity. Leave the nerd alone.
I am not going to take a position yet on how well these laptops are going to work out. However, the fact that they are now going to be distributed by governments, paid for with government funds, means that market economics and reality will get shoved aside for politics... this is never a good thing. Especially with the track record of the UN and corruption.
Secondly, I really take offense with the notion that "the UN" is backing the laptop. The UN is primarily funded by the USA. They take up a sizeable portion of valuable real estate on US land. And the US government gets funded by "non-voluntary contributions" from US citizens. Therefore, the title should read, US Citizens Backing the $100 Laptop (Involuntarily). The distinction is important. It's very easy to spend other people's money on ideas which may not be the best use of the funds.
(Sorry, just got done spending about 3 days working on my taxes, sending uncle sam and arnie $20,000 of my hard earned, so they can put about 1% of it to good use, and blow the rest on politics and vote-buying.)
Truly an unexpected take on this story.
I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I presume it will read like Shakespeare some of the time.
one important thing (in my experience) the UK doesn't have so much of is militant fundamentalism
Maybe not the UK, but your next-door neighboors seem to have/had a streak of that. The Troubles ring a bell?
basically I think the difference is that in America you have the very dangerous combination of
1. Churches are big businesses (much more so than elsewhere)
2. businesses can easily buy into politics
Churches are also not taxed, and if they do try to dabble in politics directly, they will lose their tax-exempt status. It has happened before. That doesn't prevent the religious from trying to inflict their will on politics, but you're wrong to imply it's "the churches."
Also, coming from someone who lives in an area where there's an official state religion, my right eyebrow is raised conspicuously high on my forehead.
it's silly to use him as an example of modern Texan politics.
You're absolutely right.
Let's use Bush, instead.
In general, don't you find that conspicuously pious posturing and an inability to think through consequences go hand in hand?
No, I find those crazy left-wingers just as inable to think as those on the right.
That's government.
VOTE!!! If enough people share your views then you will get your libertarian/green/free trade/whatever people into office. There is nothing that stops them from running.
Wow, your thinking here is so off-base I don't even know where to begin.
1. Yes, there are things that make it hard for 3rd party candidates to run, or at least, to get on the ballots, which is really the same thing. Ask Ralph Nader, for example.
2. The media is entrenched in the two-party system, and does not give fair and equal coverage to third party candidates. Why? Because they feel they can't win. Why? Problem #3:
3. People think they are wasting their vote if they vote for a 3rd party candidate? Why? Because they know most other people feel the same way, and therefore it's nearly impossible to break the cycle.
4. People in fact ARE "wasting" their vote by voting for a third party, thanks to our horrible election process. Move to a fairer, better (mathematically) voting system, such as Instant Run-off Voting or the Approval Method. Either would be better than what we have now. This would let people vote for their first choice, which could be a third party, yet still not "wasting" their vote since they can vote for their 2nd and 3rd choices. (BTW, I vote for 3rd party candidates... I feel my vote is wasted contributing to either of the 2 big party candidates.)
5. Due to the above, many people don't even bother to vote. Many of these people would likely vote for a third party candidate if it was feasible for them to win.
Those are the big 5 reasons why we are currently entrenched in a 2-party system. It has nothing to do with most people agreeing with the Republicans and Democrats, as you imply. It is all about 3rd parties not being viable in our current voting scenario.
What the hell is the government doing taking 25% of someone's income that NEEDS it to survive
The government doesn't take 25% for someone that bad off.
while a guy selling stock for some extra disposable income keeps 85% of it?
Both guys in your example EARNED their money, and have the right to keep it and spend it as they deem necessary. However, it is reasonable that the government needs some money to provide constitutionally mandated services, so everyone should help cover that bill. The inequity is in how it's currently done. Why should the tax rate elevate with the more you earn? You're already paying more because you're making more?
Bring on the FairTax.
So the point is that even people not making a lot of money are still paying a higher tax rate because of the manner in which they made their money. And lo and behold, those who make money through capital gains- which the wealthy are more likely to- pay a lower tax rate.
Who cares? If they received 1.68 billion in stock and paid 15% capital gains on that, their tax bill for this year alone would be $252 MILLION.
Are you really going to try and pretend like they aren't contributing enough because their PERCENTAGE is lower than yours?
Sweet jesus, give me a fucking break!
Let's switch to the FairTax, and then you guys can complain that they are keeping a higher percentage of their income compared to you, even though they are spending (and thus being taxed) a hell of a lot more.
By all means, please continue to be sucked into class warfare. The politicians love that shit.
How is this different than other commercial software vendors?
Microsoft just releases less frequent updates that are more expensive than Apple's.
I just bought a powermac recently, came with iLife 5. Anyone know the procedure for upgrades? I have coupons with this mac that indicate I have iLife 5 and Mac OS 10.4.3, can I use these somehow to upgrade to iLife 6 for free? How?
How is that different from now? They often have no job, no home, no form of identification.
Do you really think them not having a "RealID" is going to alter the landscape? Suddenly all homeless people will be put in jail, fed 3 squares a day, etc?
I think he probably just calls it "Playing with my other bald head."
I'm not sure I want my credit card number floating around in the clear
Have you ever given your credit card number out over the phone?
Wouldn't it be great if we all went back to that sort of system?
You neglected to provide one reason why it would be "great."
Personally, if I go into an Apple store to buy something other than an iPod, and Apple has found a way to get the majority of shoppers in that store into another express line for ipods, then that makes my life easier.
I am so sick of the tinfoil hat crowd, as they give those of us with reasonable privacy concerns a black eye.
C'mon. Prison Break?
This mis-use of podcast is what causes similarly clueless people to say things like, "Why did they need to create this word, podcast, when all it means is an http link to an mp3 file?"
A podcast is typically an audio presentation that you can subscribe to receive on a regular basis, simplified with RSS, and tools that sync the audio up to your player du jour. There wasn't a word to describe this succinctly, so "podcast" was born.
What MoMA has done is provide an audio file you can download on your audio player to explain an exhibit.
Now pass me a kleenex.
the 'makes the burden on the middle class heavier' factor is only one of my objections
I am still waiting for someone to show me how this increases the burden on the middle class? The only attempt I've seen is the faulty reasoning that "if my taxes are going down and I'm rich, the middle class's burden must be going up." That's false, because the burden is now being spread out to people who are currently NOT PAYING ANY TAXES -- criminals, foreign tourists, income tax evaders, to name three.
In fact I don't really have a problem with the amount of taxes that I pay. I have more ability to pay, more expendable income, why shouldn't I pay more?
Unless you live like a pauper, you WILL pay more. People with more money tend to spend more money.
The taxes I pay go towards making this a country where people have the possibiliy of dragging themselves up by hard work and brainpower like I have done.
This is a straw-man, because the fair tax system will also provide just as many benefits. It is revenue neutral -- the country will bring in the same amount of money as it does now.
Call me a socialist if you like, but I'm a stong believer in the capatlist system. Look how well it's done for me.
So why continue to handicap our capitalist economy with this socialist system of taxation? The fairtax can bring in the same amount of money we bring in now, but encourage a stronger economy by promoting the increase of foreign investment, and eliminating much of the waste associated with filing taxes.
Why is it unfair.
Because you are punishing people who are successful, arbitrarily, and using the money they earned to give to people who did not earn it, also arbitrarily. Where is there any fairness in that system? It's not even a flat tax rate, where everyone pays 10% or whatever... the rich pay not only more money, but also a higher percentage. Stop me if you hear any fairness anywhere.
Most rich people are either very smart or very lucky.
Or hard workers. And most poor people are either dumb, unlucky, or lazy. I don't really understand how this enters into the equation, unless you want socialism, in which case the conversation with me will end right here.
Also, just because someone is born with a high IQ doesn't mean they'll be successful. You have to apply yourself, no matter how smart you are.
These lucky rich people have an obligation to help people less fortunate than themselves.
Moral obligation, maybe. Legal obligation? No way. Not in the constitution, and morally I cannot find a desire to force someone to help someone else out. Where does it end? Should a doctor be forced to provide a certain percentage of their medical knowledge to sick people for free?
I am pretty well off, mostly because I was gifted with being born intelligent.
So you were born intelligent? Wow, that's impressive. So you could count and talk and everything right out of the womb? And with no work on your part, you're now well-off? Even more impressive. The only rich people I've ever met were either lucky OR both smart AND driven.
I was probably born with a higher than average IQ, but that doesn't mean I haven't worked to LEARN many skills which make me more valuable in our economy, and therefore, better off than many.
And I have no problem helping out my girlfriend's sister and some of my poorer friends by paying a higher tax rate.
Ha. And herein lies the stupidity of our system. You have poorer friends and girlfriend's sister you could be helping out directly with the money you've earned. But instead you are forced to give much of your money to the federal government, who will waste most of it through bureacracy and ineffiency, and your poorer friends may see a very slight trickle down effect. How efficiently nice of you?
I guess that is because I like to consider myself responsible instead of greedy.
Charity starts at home my friend, and not at the end of a gun's barrel, which is what uncle sam has aimed at your head with our current tax scheme.
Why on earth do we maintain this system? It's not efficent, not effective, and benefits no one except politicans wanting to play social engineering!
You answered your own question, as I'm sure you know.
I know it's much easier to take a dig at those evil rich folks with all the money, but the fact is the rich carry the greatest tax burden in this country, and therefore rightfully get the biggest tax breaks.
And no, I'm not rich. But even at my level (middle class), I can see that the way the current tax system is devised precisely so your class warfare complaints allow the politicians to divide the country, and more importantly, buy votes. (The rich are a minority, so it's pretty easy to make promises to the non-rich in exchange for votes.)
Yes, that's why this tax shifts the tax burden onto the middle class, away from rich people like me.
Ummm, actually no it spreads the burden out evenly to EVERYONE, rather than what we have now, which is to tax honest working people. Think about the ability to tax everyone that spends money in the united states, rather than a much smaller group of people that happen to work in honest jobs in the U.S. We're talking about taxing people that make money illegally (since they still spend money, and often, a lot of money), taxing foreign tourists that spend money here, and building the economy by encouraging foreign businesses to invest here (since they get a reduction on taxes due to the elimination of B2B taxes and payroll taxes. You are glossing over a lot of the facts, and trying to fill the void in with what you THINK the fairtax does. Please read the actual text of the bill for details (HR25/S25).
Essentially there would be more than $200,000 that the govenment gets from me every year that would have to be made up by someone else.
See above.
And those people would be middle class.
This is false, see above.
Now as a rich guy I should be all for this. It makes me richer. But it's not 'fair' by any means and I'm against it.
How is it not fair that the tax burden should be shared more equally by everyone? How is it fair that a person that is more successful has to pay more a percentage of their income? That has never been fair, you are just used to it and brainwashed into thinking nothing else can compare. Try reading the details on the FairTax at www.fairtax.org, with an open mind.
In general rich people spend a lower percentage of their income than people who's income is closer to their needs. Someone would have to make up for that. That would be the middle class who spend 99% of their income each year.
You are poor at math. Who cares what percentage of your income you spend? The only thing that matters is HOW MUCH DO YOU SPEND?
If you make $500K a year and spend $60K a year, you are paying more in taxes than someone who makes $50K a year and spends $49K of it a year. Right?
This is one reason it is called a FAIR tax.
Similarly, poorer people tend to have more children (this is after all why they are often "poor" or "middle class," because they have more things that need to be paid for. A family with more children, to some extent, will receive more of a credit to cover basic expenditures like food, rent, shelter, clothing, etc. So a single man making $50K living alone will still pay more in taxes compared to a couple making $50K a year together with 2 children, if both parties spend the same amount of money. This is due to the tax prebate built into the fairtax.
The fairtax plan is really smart, clear, and the fairest system I've seen, which is why I support it.