LOL. I really did.

It is not the governments business to regulate how much a person spends. If they save money now, they will use it later. Even if they don't, their heirs will.

It is fair because the person who earns the 100,000 could also save their money and invest it. Investments or savings of either the $1 million man (hehe) or the $100,000 man will stimulate the economy which creates more opportunities (jobs). This is fair.

You write:

"If a person cannot afford kids, they shouldn't have them."

Afford kids? You mean like afford education and healthcare for them or just basic needs? Anyway, poor uneducated people tend to have more kids than rich educated people, and they will have those kids whatever you think about it. 

"If a person has them anyway I consider that a form of abuse and neglect stemming from that person's inability to be responsible for their own reproductive system."

 And what is your solution to that problem? 

Well, my picture was just a hint to what people airing thoughts like yours suggested and implemented in the last century. Both in your and my country had this policy. 

What keeps these people from spending their money over seas and not being taxed at all, and not contributing anything to the economy of this country?

 What prevents these people from donating (what I would asume would be) tax free contributions to political campaigns, effecting policy without shouldering any sort of tax burdens?

Not only that but it would destroy any economy boost from legal foreign travelers as no one would want to spend money in this country as non citizens would be taxed equal to citizens.

I'd personally be better off with a fair tax in the US than with progressive tax here in Sweden.

I spend around 900$ per month on flat, food and all other expenses. With a lower tax I'd just have more money after my monthly consumption, I wouldnt consume more.

I would probably be better off with a Fair Tax as well, but what's best for me may not necessarily be best for the country

I agree with this.

@Crashman:

Yes, there is the possibility that you can spend your money overseas, but there are consumption taxes in other countries, too. With an income tax, first your citizens are taxes on their income, then they pay consumption taxes if they buy foreign goods, then they pay any import/export taxes. This is fair?

Regarding campaign contributions, those contributions will be spent on advertising, where they will be taxed. I don't see a problem here. If you want to argue for campaign finance reform, I'm all for that.

I have answered your concerns CrashMan in previous posts. I will respond more later if you want, just gotta tell me. If you want to do some research on your own, click on the link in my sig.

Also Copycon, what is wrong with people having more money? There is no solution to the poor having more kids. The only thing we can do about it is educate the kids and hope they climb out of the hole they were born into.

Also CrashMan the country is made up of individuals. If all the individuals are better off, then the country is better off.

Naturally if ALL are better off than the country will be better off, but I doubt this will do that.

Say you have an american Citizen that makes many million dollars in a year, but is living legally in another country for one reason or another. He could theoretically take all that money, have none of it taxed for income, and then spend it elsewhere and pay only the country's local sale's tax.

He could then contribute Millions of untaxed dollars to a political campaign, which we all know will influence said party's views to that of the contributor and this person has still not paid a cent in tax to the US.

Now here is the problem. If this helps All individuals in the country, the gross tax income for the country would decline. It would effectively be an income tax cut (a HUGE one for the top 1%) and there would have to be spending cuts. There needs to be spending cuts now as the deficit is out of control.

There is a limit to how much a person can contribute to a political campaign. If that person lives in another country, more power to him. Are you suggesting that we should force him to live in America to pay taxes?

Your last paragraph does not make sense to former posts I have made. Again, if it helps all individuals save money, therefore having more money how is this bad? But you suggest that "If this helps All individuals in the country, the gross tax income for the country would decline" which doesn't make logical sense. If people save more money than they spend, yes it would decline the revenue to the government, but there is no evidence that there will be any decline in spending under the FairTax. Final and I have already discussed the tax cuts for the 1%, with varying view points about the benefits thereof.

There is extensive research by respected economists on the rate of the FairTax to remain revenue neutral. Check previous posts for the link (page 4 or 5 I think).

I believe that there should be spending cuts already so your argument against the FairTax based on spending of the government doesn't move me.

I am in a hurry otherwise I would go into more detail.

What happenes to State sales taxes? So all prices will be inflated by 30%? 23 + 8.75% sales tax where I live 31.75% Gee, I don't get taxed at that rate on the income tax. Only on money I spend, I know I know. Problem is Americans spend all their money. Last time I checked domestic spending made up 70% of the GDP. Maybe this program would reinforce savings, but then in turn it would hurt the economy.