On Friday 23 March 2007 02:31, ken barber wrote:
> www.fairtax.org
> the only tax plan that frees those under the poverty
> level of any tax.
> read it before you argue.
>

The old indirect v. direct tax argument. :-) 

The site says:-

"The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend, not on what we earn. It 
does not raise any more or less revenue; it is designed to be revenue 
neutral."

So our own David Beckham (a soccer player) who will be earning $1m a week 
(playing for LA Galaxy) for the next 5 years ($250m total) would only be 
taxed on what he spends in the USA. (Don't forget his actual income will be 
several times higher than this with endorsements, shirt sales, etc., but lets 
just stick with his Salary).

In the UK he would be paying 40% of this income in direct tax ($100m). It is 
very unlikely anywhere near this amount would be recouped in a Sales Tax over 
5 years, so, since "FairTax" is designed to be revenue neutral the rest of 
Americans would be paying the difference. Also, bear in mind that a lot of 
the Beckhams spending may well be in other countries outside the USA.

After 5 years it is unlikely that David Beckham will remain in the USA, so all 
that potential Sales Tax for the next 40 years will be lost.

I am sure that Mr Beckham would be in favour of "FairTax" (along with all the 
other one percent of Americans who, together, own 38% of the countries wealth 
[1]). In a truly "Fair" tax system, that 1 percent should be contributing 38% 
of the nations tax burden.

Cheers

Deri

[1] <http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html>

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy