It's not Boortz's plan, he wrote about it. $22 mil was spent on research for this idea. Please be more specific about how African Americans "positions" (or any Americans for that matter) will be negatively effected by the FairTax. I really don't get what you're saying.
The FairTax would collect the same amount of money that is currently collected for social security. There would no longer be payroll taxes nor self-employment tax. As far as "a social society that wants everyone to have as much as they desire", the FairTax doesn't provide this. It's a very simple idea.
Two things: 1) Its very clear you don't understand the FairTax 2) If Illegals see the tax as too high (which they won't, because prices will be about the same, since embedded taxes will be removed) then maybe we won't have to cart their asses out of here, because they'll do it themselves.
If you read the book, and you claim to have talked to Boortz, don't you remember that little detail about every household receiving a prebate check? Under the FairTax plan, the poor are completely exonerated from paying ANY federal or payroll tax. What more could a liberal want???
What does being "liberal" have to do with leaving a poor person enough money to buy food? But honestly do you think our congressmen and women can write a simple, workable, fair tax bill? I don't. Face it we are stuck with our crappy tax and spend government and it doesn't matter who is elected democrats or republicans.
And you honestly believe that the states will take less with the increased needs that they claim that aren't being met now? There's always a reason to spend more. Modernization, replacement, past raises now available to be advanced. Something will always need more money. If no more than to now give the GOOD RAISES to the underpaid!
Hmmm, all that spending is not improving his savings, investments, or any rainy day cushions. All you see here is the economic boost? That does not do anything for the person and the climb on the economic bases. And that's where the education needs to be. That's where the true grey area is here. Sounds like you want them to just spend. I want them to save, invest and plan. And initially, spend very little! Your scenario calls for them to keep spending and buying so the economy gets a drive. I would encourage them to kill their debt and increase their long term investments. We're painting two different pictures. Which one has a longer term PERSONAL benefit? I have a bit of an advantage on you on the business question. In the case of my own businesses, no I don't need to add permanent manpower to meet the increase. But I'm probably rare. In many of my client's businesses, I have shown them how to use the benefits of technology instead of running out to hire another body. I helped three start-up businesses this past year and all of them did not go the traditional route of their own bricks and mortar operations. All are flourishing with minimal staffs and expenses. Oh, and I only added one other guy for a contract position for three months to cover the increased workload. And I added him at the just-in-time moment and when the contract was over, so was the expense. Yet the revenue continues....
I never said that he would not have anything left over for savings and investments. What I am basically saying is that he will be left with more ability to make any of these choices because he will be in control of his entire paycheck.
Well at least you are honest. And, this only proves my point that an increased workload will require more job creation -- no matter how temporary it is. Furthermore, what if your increased workload were 5-fold, how many temporary positions might you create then?