Some would call that superstition. That's about as insightful as flipping a coin or consulting a magic 8-ball.
I'm merely explaining the logic behind the phrases, not recommending someone base their decisions on whether or not Dvorak's opinion pieces really are kisses of death.
Perhaps. But was it modded insightful because suddenly everybody's opinion about Skype changed when Dvorak got behind it, or because it made fun of Dvorak? Frankly, I think it's the former.
The license doesn't let you have multiple people connecting to your machine like that, if I recall correctly.
You recall incorrectly. Try proving your claims with a link next time.
The "seat licensing" of Windows has to do with Windows clients logging into Windows servers. They have similar licensing restrictions on SQL Server and IIS.
It has nothing to do with, and does not restrict you from using, your own third party apps like Apache or PostgreSQL.
But that isn't an appropriate argument for the question at hand. The question is "why switch"
No, actually the question is, "Why do you care about making people switch?"
An entirely different question. My answer is I don't care if they switch, and whether or not a program is open source or not is secondary to me. I guess the submitter assumed everyone that reads slashdot is an open source zealot.
Not only that, but corporations do not pay taxes. Never have and never will. Any money paid out towards taxes is covered by you and me, since that corporation must make the money up from somewhere:
- Higher cost of goods and services it produces. - Lower pay for existing employees. - Fewer jobs available. - Less money paid out to stock dividends.
Corporate taxes are simply indirect taxes on people. Makes it easy to hide the fact that your tax burden is even higher than you thought.
The reason why your analogy doesn't hold? Computers with viruses can't kill people. Cars with bad brakes can.
Let me introduce you to California, my friend. Your car must pass SMOG tests, and if you don't pass, you will be paying for repairs so that it does pass.
If your car doesn't pass, will it kill someone? Probably not. There goes your reasoning.
ISPs could easily end most viral outbreaks with outbound scanning of port 25 traffic. Sadly, they won't do this until they start getting sued over it.
Sadly, while some customers might get motivated to learn something, others would just be motivated to switch ISPs. Which costs the ISPs money, which means that they won't do it.
Another thing that will cost the ISPs money? Lawsuits. Class action lawsuits from people that experience damages from zombie PCs and virus infected spew-factories that could EASILY be shutdown by an ISP with a minimal effort of outbound scanning.
Google does track everyones searches already. However, if you turn this service on, they also track which links you click on in the search results.
I don't see a problem with either thing since they are up-front about what they are doing and the privacy policy is clear about how they use this information.
"Upon your first visit to Google, a cookie is sent to your computer that uniquely identifies your browser. A "cookie" is a small file containing a string of characters that is sent to your computer when you visit a website. We use cookies to improve the quality of our service and to better understand how people interact with us. Google does this by storing user preferences in cookies and by tracking user trends and patterns of how people search."
When this feature is enabled, Google adds an "onmousedown" event to the search result links which makes you hit their servers first, and then they redirect you to the page you requested. You might not even notice this is happening since you can't see in the status bar that the URL you are visiting is different. (And since they are not using any status bar text changing tricks to fool you, the Firefox settings to prevent people from changing the status bar text would have no effect, obviously.)
I think this feature is pretty damn cool, and I have no reason not to trust Google will adhere to their privacy policy and not abuse this information. I am sure the privacy nuts (i.e. those that like to have knee-jerk reactions to anything that even hints at privacy implications::cough michael::cough) ought to love this.
You can turn the tracking off easily by pressing the "pause" button in your Google History page, or by going to your google account settings and selecting "Delete History." I verified this causes the onmousedown code to disappear completely.
When my insurance rates go down and my prescription medicines no longer cost as much as they do then I feel Congress is free to explore some other avenues.
What do your expenses have to do with Congress or the laws of the United States of America?
BTW, if you are convicted of a Felon, you forfit your right to vote. Gee, how fitting.
I don't see how this is "fitting," even in a sarcastic way. People that release copyrighted works before the creators can even offer them for sale are the worst kind of pirates, followed by those that sell the works on street corners.
It's official folks, USA is now a Plutocrocy [sic].
Something tells me they might be a little more persistant over $4500 than $11. I doubt this would work as well in this case
Please read the drop dead letter. It specifically states, "Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a federal law, you may not contact me further once I have notified you not to do so."
So yes, it would work just as well, since it would be illegal for them to continue to hound you over the debt once you have notified them to drop dead.
If I was downloading copyright protected music, I would much prefer to receive a notice from a debt collection agency, rather than be sued.
After all, with the debt collection notice, you can easily and legally get the to cease and decist by simply sending them a "Drop Dead Letter", certified/registered for delivery.
http://clarkhoward.com/topics/drop_dead_letter.h tm l
Once they receive this letter from you, they are no longer allowed to contact you, and the alleged "debt" will not show up on your credit report, either.
I have used this technique twice now on bogus debts. Once, I told WIRED magazine to stop my subscription, but they never did. They continued to mail me magazines, even after I received notices telling me if I didn't pay to re-subscribe for another year, they would cease sending the magazines. I thought, cool, I won't pay, and they will stop sending the mags. Then I got a letter from a debt collection agency for $11 (one year's subscription). Since you pay for magazine subscriptions in advance, I was amused at how WIRED had decided to operate. I sent the DDL, never heard back from the agency, and furthermore, stopped buying WIRED even on the newsstand.
Similar situation happened with Microsoft. I was subscribed to their technet monthly service where they send out CDs and information each month with updated software, beta software, etc. They asked me to re-subscribe for another year, I declined. Later I received a debt collection notice. DDL sent, seeya later.
Since we're on the theme of rent-a-cops, and since this article is about one of the most useless activities that has taken place in a while, I thought I might entertain you with the lyrics from Ben Folds's "Rent-a-Cop":
I'm 'trolling food court for girls Yeah, it's the best job in the world They know they're safe with me They love my little mustache They love a man in uniform Oh
With my sunglass they can't See what I'm really looking at And as they're walking by I whisper through my doughnut Hey baby, baby light that ass on fire
How long must this day go on? I got to stand here two more hours till I Punch the clock How long must this day go on?
No kid, they don't give me a gun I don't get paid enough to run So you can call me what you want I'll be hanging at the check out Checking out your girlfriend Figure out how she's going to fit all of that Butt into that underwear - yeah Yeah
Hey girl if you can't recall Where you parked your daddy's car Then I could help you out All alone in this great big mall Oh
How long must this day go on? I got to stand here two more hours Till it's Miller Time How long must this day go on? Whoa oh oh, oh oh
I'm 'trolling food court for girls
I whisper through my doughnut I whisper through my doughnut I whisper through my doughnut Hey baby baby, hey baby baby baby Light that Light that ass on fire
But that they are paying less as a percentage of their income, which is the definition of a regressive tax.
Nope, that is not.
Right, because that's what the term "regressive tax" means. http://www.answers.com/regressive+tax
I read their definitions. They state a regressive tax is one that effects poor people more. Such as a gas tax, or tax on food.
Therefore the FairTax is not regressive, because there is a prebate to cover the sales tax on those basic necessities.
What's certainly true is that the people who spend more money are paying more in taxes than those who spend less.
Correct.
But people with more money may or may not pay more in taxes than those who make less (if you could even compare how much someone has to how much someone else makes, but I think I know what you mean.
I don't follow this logic, but even grasping at what you might mean, I don't see the point of it. On average, people that have more money spend more money. They therefore pay more in taxes. That is a fair way of doing things which doesn't penalize success or hard work, nor unfairly benefit sloth and laziness (or treachery and fraud).
Actually I personally think people should be taxed as a fixed percentage of how much they own, without regard to how much they make or how much they buy (though with an exception for necessities at the poverty line).
Too bad this would decimate our economy. Those hated rich people that have earned a lot of money (yes, EARNED it) benefit everyone in our economy when they are able to invest it, rather than having to fork it over to the government. Those people create businesses, hire employees, provide loans, invest in banks which provide loans. The more money invested in the economy, the better the economy.
And that is ignoring the complexity of taxing "a percentage of what you own." Can you imagine the loopholes? The lobbyists would have an orgy over something like that. The FairTax does not give lobbyists any footholds. It is fair and transparent.
Taxing what people "own" is even more egregious than taxing their income. It would punish people who are successful, who save, who invest, and it would favor those who are lazy, who don't make much, who don't save anything, who spend it all.
Watch Brewster's Millions and tell me if you think taxing what people "own" is a good idea.
Honestly, I don't think you've thought this through at all. Conversely, the people studying the FairTax proposal have been studying it for a decade. It has had hundreds of economists studying it for many years.
The reality is, that no matter how simple or fair you think a national sales tax is, it will get complicated fast and there will be holes that you can drive a truck through.
I don't think there will be many holes, and definitely not many you can drive a truck through. Compare it to what we have now, essentially swiss cheese the size of Jupiter.
I can see this as a huge loophole. Big time. Just like *IAA should never underestimate the will and power of people with computers connected to highspeed Internet, don't underestimate the will and power of rich people who are connected to accountants and polititions.
I'm still waiting to hear from you how this is a "loophole." The FairTax is specifically designed not to tax businesses, because those are simply hidden taxes on people.
All the plans I've seen promise that no one would pay more in taxes, most people would pay less in taxes, and yet government revenue would go up.
That's right. And why is that? Is it, as you contend, that the poor would carry a higher burden? Although I wouldn't care if it were true, it is not true. The poor actually would carry less burden. You eliminate the hidden tax on them, by removing payroll taxes and thereby increasing their salaries.
The reason the revenue is able to be neutral or even higher than now, is for many reasons. Some are:
- Now taxing everyone spending money in America, including people earning money in the black markets, under-reporting, tax-evading, foreign tourists, etc. This is the biggest uptick.
- Spending less on enforcement and almost entirely abolishing the IRS. Taxes are collected through (in most states) existing infrastructures.
- Spending less on maintaining/changing the tax code.
- People spending less on the reporting of taxes. Rather than hiring experts or paying for TurboTax, or spending hours on their own figuring taxes, it is very simple to figure a sales tax.
probably cut taxes on a lot of the super-rich, at least those that haven't figured out how to avoid income taxes completely.
Who cares?! They have more money than you, they are saving more money than you, they are investing more money than you (which benefits you indirectly), and most importantly, THEY ARE SPENDING MORE THAN YOU. That means they are paying more than you in taxes under FairTax.
OK, so one person earns $20,000 and spends $20,000. She pays 0% in taxes. Another person earns $40,000 and spends $35,000. She pays $4500 in taxes (13% of income). Another person earns $100,000 and spends $50,000. She pays $9000 (9% of income). Another person earns $1,000,000 and spends $125,000. She pays $31,500 (3.15% of income).
Except for those at the very lowest end of the spectrum, it's still regressive.
Haha. This is truly HILARIOUS.
You just pointed out that each person earning more and more money is paying more in more in taxes. Starting with the poorest person spending nothing in taxes, to the highest earner spending $31,500 in taxes.
That is a PROGRESSIVE tax.
Yet you deem it regressive because you are basing the tax paid on the percentage of income earned. However, this is not an income tax, this is a national sales tax. You are thinking the old, liberal way. Trying to force the tax thinking in terms of income.
You can't escape the reality, however, that under the national sales tax, the people with more money are paying more in taxes than those who make less. Why are you trying to couch it in terms of how much they make? What does it matter how much they make, as long as those with more money are paying more than those who make less? The tax is fair because they pay more, because it is a fixed tax rate, and because no one pays taxes on the basic necessities of life.
A national sales tax is the most regressive form of taxation imaginable.
The FairTax national sales tax plan solves this using a prebate to cover taxes spent on the necessities. It is not regressive. It is fair.
The tax system now is (mostly) fair. Everyone pays a % of their earnings.
Everyone? No. Only everyone that reports their income. And then only the fraction that reports it correctly. And then only the fraction that makes more than $X. And then only the fraction that doesn't get bullshit "credits."
A national sales tax taxes everyone in the country, including people earning money off the books, people earning money illegally, people visiting America from elsewhere, etc.
Upper class earners spend a much smaller percentage of their wages.
Yeah, and poor people never have any money to set aside for savings. What is your point? That's how it is now, and that's how it will be with the FairTax in place.
The fact is, upper class earners spend much more than poor people, and therefore will pay more in taxes than poor people. Poor people will bring home their entire paycheck, even those that don't pay taxes now, yet still have SS deducted through payroll taxes via their employer. (One of many hidden taxes.)
Slashdot Mirror
Some would call that superstition. That's about as insightful as flipping a coin or consulting a magic 8-ball.
I'm merely explaining the logic behind the phrases, not recommending someone base their decisions on whether or not Dvorak's opinion pieces really are kisses of death.
Perhaps. But was it modded insightful because suddenly everybody's opinion about Skype changed when Dvorak got behind it, or because it made fun of Dvorak? Frankly, I think it's the former.
Nope, it was the latter.
Then again, I have a sense of humor.
The license doesn't let you have multiple people connecting to your machine like that, if I recall correctly.
You recall incorrectly. Try proving your claims with a link next time.
The "seat licensing" of Windows has to do with Windows clients logging into Windows servers. They have similar licensing restrictions on SQL Server and IIS.
It has nothing to do with, and does not restrict you from using, your own third party apps like Apache or PostgreSQL.
There's a difference between not being right and being a kiss of death.
Right. And when everything you talk about fails, converse to your opinion, then you are both not right AND a kiss of death.
You're saying that Skype doesn't have a prayer, but you're basing that on the improbable chance that it has something to do with Dvorak.
No, he's saying since Dvorak likes it, based on his track record, Skype is doomed.
But that isn't an appropriate argument for the question at hand. The question is "why switch"
No, actually the question is, "Why do you care about making people switch?"
An entirely different question. My answer is I don't care if they switch, and whether or not a program is open source or not is secondary to me. I guess the submitter assumed everyone that reads slashdot is an open source zealot.
Not only that, but corporations do not pay taxes. Never have and never will. Any money paid out towards taxes is covered by you and me, since that corporation must make the money up from somewhere:
- Higher cost of goods and services it produces.
- Lower pay for existing employees.
- Fewer jobs available.
- Less money paid out to stock dividends.
Corporate taxes are simply indirect taxes on people. Makes it easy to hide the fact that your tax burden is even higher than you thought.
Trust me, you don't want the Metro guys working on Longhorn. You know what they say about steers and queers, right?
The reason why your analogy doesn't hold? Computers with viruses can't kill people. Cars with bad brakes can.
Let me introduce you to California, my friend. Your car must pass SMOG tests, and if you don't pass, you will be paying for repairs so that it does pass.
If your car doesn't pass, will it kill someone? Probably not. There goes your reasoning.
ISPs could easily end most viral outbreaks with outbound scanning of port 25 traffic. Sadly, they won't do this until they start getting sued over it.
Sadly, while some customers might get motivated to learn something, others would just be motivated to switch ISPs. Which costs the ISPs money, which means that they won't do it.
Another thing that will cost the ISPs money? Lawsuits. Class action lawsuits from people that experience damages from zombie PCs and virus infected spew-factories that could EASILY be shutdown by an ISP with a minimal effort of outbound scanning.
Well, I see a problem with it, in that I don't want to be tracked in this way.
So don't enable the history service.
Oh, you meant the anonymous tracking they do with cookies? Please tell me how it harms you (assuming Google abides by their privacy policy)?
Google does track everyones searches already. However, if you turn this service on, they also track which links you click on in the search results.
I don't see a problem with either thing since they are up-front about what they are doing and the privacy policy is clear about how they use this information.
"Upon your first visit to Google, a cookie is sent to your computer that uniquely identifies your browser. A "cookie" is a small file containing a string of characters that is sent to your computer when you visit a website. We use cookies to improve the quality of our service and to better understand how people interact with us. Google does this by storing user preferences in cookies and by tracking user trends and patterns of how people search."
When this feature is enabled, Google adds an "onmousedown" event to the search result links which makes you hit their servers first, and then they redirect you to the page you requested. You might not even notice this is happening since you can't see in the status bar that the URL you are visiting is different. (And since they are not using any status bar text changing tricks to fool you, the Firefox settings to prevent people from changing the status bar text would have no effect, obviously.)
::cough michael ::cough) ought to love this.
I think this feature is pretty damn cool, and I have no reason not to trust Google will adhere to their privacy policy and not abuse this information. I am sure the privacy nuts (i.e. those that like to have knee-jerk reactions to anything that even hints at privacy implications
You can turn the tracking off easily by pressing the "pause" button in your Google History page, or by going to your google account settings and selecting "Delete History." I verified this causes the onmousedown code to disappear completely.
When my insurance rates go down and my prescription medicines no longer cost as much as they do then I feel Congress is free to explore some other avenues.
What do your expenses have to do with Congress or the laws of the United States of America?
BTW, if you are convicted of a Felon, you forfit your right to vote. Gee, how fitting.
I don't see how this is "fitting," even in a sarcastic way. People that release copyrighted
works before the creators can even offer them for
sale are the worst kind of pirates, followed by
those that sell the works on street corners.
It's official folks, USA is now a Plutocrocy [sic].
Why, because we don't let criminals vote?
Someone from the OS will hopefully be along shortly to correct my terminology...
Why do I feel like I just entered TRON?
Something tells me they might be a little more persistant over $4500 than $11. I doubt this would work as well in this case
Please read the drop dead letter. It specifically states, "Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a federal law, you may not contact me further once I have notified you not to do so."
So yes, it would work just as well, since it would be illegal for them to continue to hound you over the debt once you have notified them to drop dead.
Because it isn't related to a line of credit.
If I was downloading copyright protected music, I would much prefer to receive a notice from a debt collection agency, rather than be sued.
h tm l
After all, with the debt collection notice, you can easily and legally get the to cease and decist by simply sending them a "Drop Dead Letter", certified/registered for delivery.
http://clarkhoward.com/topics/drop_dead_letter.
Once they receive this letter from you, they are no longer allowed to contact you, and the alleged "debt" will not show up on your credit report, either.
I have used this technique twice now on bogus debts. Once, I told WIRED magazine to stop my subscription, but they never did. They continued to mail me magazines, even after I received notices telling me if I didn't pay to re-subscribe for another year, they would cease sending the magazines. I thought, cool, I won't pay, and they will stop sending the mags. Then I got a letter from a debt collection agency for $11 (one year's subscription). Since you pay for magazine subscriptions in advance, I was amused at how WIRED had decided to operate. I sent the DDL, never heard back from the agency, and furthermore, stopped buying WIRED even on the newsstand.
Similar situation happened with Microsoft. I was subscribed to their technet monthly service where they send out CDs and information each month with updated software, beta software, etc. They asked me to re-subscribe for another year, I declined. Later I received a debt collection notice. DDL sent, seeya later.
Thank you Clark Howard!
Meet her inside and save 10USD.
And lose any chance of a second date...
I personally do not see why going together to a movie should even count as a date.
It doesn't. No one just goes to a movie for a real date.
Ever heard of "dinner and a movie"?
Since we're on the theme of rent-a-cops, and since this article is about one of the most useless activities that has taken place in a while, I thought I might entertain you with the lyrics from Ben Folds's "Rent-a-Cop":
I'm 'trolling food court for girls
Yeah, it's the best job in the world
They know they're safe with me
They love my little mustache
They love a man in uniform
Oh
With my sunglass they can't
See what I'm really looking at
And as they're walking by
I whisper through my doughnut
Hey baby, baby light that ass on fire
How long must this day go on?
I got to stand here two more hours till I
Punch the clock
How long must this day go on?
No kid, they don't give me a gun
I don't get paid enough to run
So you can call me what you want
I'll be hanging at the check out
Checking out your girlfriend
Figure out how she's going to fit all of that
Butt into that underwear - yeah
Yeah
Hey girl if you can't recall
Where you parked your daddy's car
Then I could help you out
All alone in this
great big mall
Oh
How long must this day go on?
I got to stand here two more hours
Till it's Miller Time
How long must this day go on?
Whoa oh oh, oh oh
I'm 'trolling food court for girls
I whisper through my doughnut
I whisper through my doughnut
I whisper through my doughnut
Hey baby baby, hey baby baby baby
Light that
Light that ass on fire
Alright, that's good
But that they are paying less as a percentage of their income, which is the definition of a regressive tax.
Nope, that is not.
Right, because that's what the term "regressive tax" means. http://www.answers.com/regressive+tax
I read their definitions. They state a regressive tax is one that effects poor people more. Such as a gas tax, or tax on food.
Therefore the FairTax is not regressive, because there is a prebate to cover the sales tax on those basic necessities.
What's certainly true is that the people who spend more money are paying more in taxes than those who spend less.
Correct.
But people with more money may or may not pay more in taxes than those who make less (if you could even compare how much someone has to how much someone else makes, but I think I know what you mean.
I don't follow this logic, but even grasping at what you might mean, I don't see the point of it. On average, people that have more money spend more money. They therefore pay more in taxes. That is a fair way of doing things which doesn't penalize success or hard work, nor unfairly benefit sloth and laziness (or treachery and fraud).
Actually I personally think people should be taxed as a fixed percentage of how much they own, without regard to how much they make or how much they buy (though with an exception for necessities at the poverty line).
Too bad this would decimate our economy. Those hated rich people that have earned a lot of money (yes, EARNED it) benefit everyone in our economy when they are able to invest it, rather than having to fork it over to the government. Those people create businesses, hire employees, provide loans, invest in banks which provide loans. The more money invested in the economy, the better the economy.
And that is ignoring the complexity of taxing "a percentage of what you own." Can you imagine the loopholes? The lobbyists would have an orgy over something like that. The FairTax does not give lobbyists any footholds. It is fair and transparent.
Taxing what people "own" is even more egregious than taxing their income. It would punish people who are successful, who save, who invest, and it would favor those who are lazy, who don't make much, who don't save anything, who spend it all.
Watch Brewster's Millions and tell me if you think taxing what people "own" is a good idea.
Honestly, I don't think you've thought this through at all. Conversely, the people studying the FairTax proposal have been studying it for a decade. It has had hundreds of economists studying it for many years.
The reality is, that no matter how simple or fair you think a national sales tax is, it will get complicated fast and there will be holes that you can drive a truck through.
I don't think there will be many holes, and definitely not many you can drive a truck through. Compare it to what we have now, essentially swiss cheese the size of Jupiter.
I can see this as a huge loophole. Big time. Just like *IAA should never underestimate the will and power of people with computers connected to highspeed Internet, don't underestimate the will and power of rich people who are connected to accountants and polititions.
I'm still waiting to hear from you how this is a "loophole." The FairTax is specifically designed not to tax businesses, because those are simply hidden taxes on people.
The FairTax plan (HR25/S25) is revenue neutral, so why wouldn't the income tax go away?
All the plans I've seen promise that no one would pay more in taxes, most people would pay less in taxes, and yet government revenue would go up.
That's right. And why is that? Is it, as you contend, that the poor would carry a higher burden? Although I wouldn't care if it were true, it is not true. The poor actually would carry less burden. You eliminate the hidden tax on them, by removing payroll taxes and thereby increasing their salaries.
The reason the revenue is able to be neutral or even higher than now, is for many reasons. Some are:
- Now taxing everyone spending money in America, including people earning money in the black markets, under-reporting, tax-evading, foreign tourists, etc. This is the biggest uptick.
- Spending less on enforcement and almost entirely abolishing the IRS. Taxes are collected through (in most states) existing infrastructures.
- Spending less on maintaining/changing the tax code.
- People spending less on the reporting of taxes. Rather than hiring experts or paying for TurboTax, or spending hours on their own figuring taxes, it is very simple to figure a sales tax.
probably cut taxes on a lot of the super-rich, at least those that haven't figured out how to avoid income taxes completely.
Who cares?! They have more money than you, they are saving more money than you, they are investing more money than you (which benefits you indirectly), and most importantly, THEY ARE SPENDING MORE THAN YOU. That means they are paying more than you in taxes under FairTax.
OK, so one person earns $20,000 and spends $20,000. She pays 0% in taxes. Another person earns $40,000 and spends $35,000. She pays $4500 in taxes (13% of income). Another person earns $100,000 and spends $50,000. She pays $9000 (9% of income). Another person earns $1,000,000 and spends $125,000. She pays $31,500 (3.15% of income).
Except for those at the very lowest end of the spectrum, it's still regressive.
Haha. This is truly HILARIOUS.
You just pointed out that each person earning more and more money is paying more in more in taxes. Starting with the poorest person spending nothing in taxes, to the highest earner spending $31,500 in taxes.
That is a PROGRESSIVE tax.
Yet you deem it regressive because you are basing the tax paid on the percentage of income earned. However, this is not an income tax, this is a national sales tax. You are thinking the old, liberal way. Trying to force the tax thinking in terms of income.
You can't escape the reality, however, that under the national sales tax, the people with more money are paying more in taxes than those who make less. Why are you trying to couch it in terms of how much they make? What does it matter how much they make, as long as those with more money are paying more than those who make less? The tax is fair because they pay more, because it is a fixed tax rate, and because no one pays taxes on the basic necessities of life.
FairTax.
A national sales tax is the most regressive form of taxation imaginable.
The FairTax national sales tax plan solves this using a prebate to cover taxes spent on the necessities. It is not regressive. It is fair.
The tax system now is (mostly) fair. Everyone pays a % of their earnings.
Everyone? No. Only everyone that reports their income. And then only the fraction that reports it correctly. And then only the fraction that makes more than $X. And then only the fraction that doesn't get bullshit "credits."
A national sales tax taxes everyone in the country, including people earning money off the books, people earning money illegally, people visiting America from elsewhere, etc.
Upper class earners spend a much smaller percentage of their wages.
Yeah, and poor people never have any money to set aside for savings. What is your point? That's how it is now, and that's how it will be with the FairTax in place.
The fact is, upper class earners spend much more than poor people, and therefore will pay more in taxes than poor people. Poor people will bring home their entire paycheck, even those that don't pay taxes now, yet still have SS deducted through payroll taxes via their employer. (One of many hidden taxes.)