A few quotes from the Mozilla statement....

I personally disagree with Mr. Eich, but I find it worrying that we are at a point where it has become acceptable to punish someone for a belief, without any action on his part. He clearly stated he wasn't changing Mozilla policy in anyway and would not seek to do anything that would alter the employment of anyone. This guy is basically being burnt at the stake because other employees are mad he doesn't share *their* view... How inclusive and diverse is that mentality?

Actually, lowest minimum wage is $2.13/hr for service industry jobs.

There.. fixed it.

That is actually incorrect. Only 16% of millionaires inherited their fortune, the vast majority (the overwhelming portion actually) are self made, as others commenting here have already stated. 23% alone became that way from being paid professionals, and I highly doubt they were compensated so well for doing the 'minimum'. Anyway... I just wanted to be factually correct here, as many won't believe me and I am certain to be modded into oblivion, but nonetheless here is a reference:

The Economist: A special report on global leaders, More millionaires than Australians, 20 January 2011, pp. 4–7.

That is actually incorrect. Only 16% of millionaires inherited their fortune, the vast majority (the overwhelming portion actually) are self made. 23% alone got that way through paid work as professionals, and I don't think they were compensated that way for just doing the 'minimum'. Don't believe me, check the research, here is one example:

The Economist: A special report on global leaders, More millionaires than Australians, 20 January 2011, pp. 4–7.

When Obama was elected I remember so many people talking about how soon we were going to be out of these wars. I for one thought the sooner the better, but I took a more pragmatic approach. I always thought Obama would be the partisan figurehead he has turned out to be, and would wait to do anything meaningful in an attempt to win re-election. Now he finally gets around to withdrawing troops, towards the end of his first term, when it serves him best politically. I am really appreciating that change we got, he definitely breaks the mold of a politician!

The government fails at providing a service properly again? Well that is breaking news!

I guess I should say I don't want to start a generational fight, or really get flamed a lot. I am just simply trying to state a simple observation. A system like Social Security is entirely dependent on the number of contributors always being much greater than the number of recipients. A system like this can never work, at least not in the long run. It is never going to be easy for a workforce to support the retirement of a previous workforce of about it's own size, no matter how many ways to play with the numbers. I for one will never see any SS payments even though I pay in. Do I really care? No, not really. I will just plan my future and retirement accordingly. I hope to retire off personal investments and my own (hopefully good) business decisions over the years, as I don't want to depend on a government for my needs. However, that said, I do not fault anyone who wants to, or will depend on a SS type system. I would just say to not be surprised if things don't always work out as planned.

There is also the problem that arises from the number of people contributing vs. the number withdrawing from SS. You have lightly touched on it, but It probably needs to be explicitly stated. It was easy to run Social Security when the Baby Boomers, who drastically outnumbered their parents, contributed to Social Security to support a limited number of recipients. ie: Social Security will work when there are 5 baby boomers paying in for each one of their parents withdrawing. (These numbers are a fictional example, don't take them as fact). One of the problems arising today is the population is not swelling at a rate to maintain that status quo. It becomes increasingly difficult to to support the retirement of an individual when the ratio of contributor to recipient approaches 1:1. The only way for a Social Security system to work and have a minimal impact on the job force is to have exponential population growth. I doubt that is something to many of us want these days. There are already enough people on this planet as it is.

Actually, it is only the businesses that do pay taxes under the Fairtax.

Workers pay absolutely nothing, they get to keep their wages.

The tax is incorporated in the sale price of an item. So at the end of the year, a business owes the government 23% of it's revenue.

He is forgetting FICA and all the other taxes. You would no longer have state income tax, social security taxes, medicare/medicaid taxes, property tax, car tag taxes.
Factor those into his numbers above, and you will see the Fairtax saves you money.

Sorry, you are right. Probably not the best response to name calling, with name calling. Unfortunately, I cannot edit my post.
I wish this individual would just simply peruse the relevant documentation before commenting to see that what he is arguing for, does not happen under the proposed system.

Poverty guidelines differ by state, but you are right, at a minimum is 10,830. You also forget though, that if you make above the poverty limit, you still get a refund up to the poverty limit for that share of your income.

So while you would pay 23% of your income, you would get a refund on the first $10,830.

Lets say for example, you made $30,000.
$30,000 x .23 = $6,900 in taxes
$2490.90 refund up to poverty limit.
Total taxes - refund, so 6,900 - 2490.90 = 4409.10

Your yearly tax burden would be $4409.10, assuming you spent every single penny you earned.

Thats effectively a 14.697% tax rate. Is that more than you currently pay in taxes? Does that cost you more than the current system?

Remember you are only taxed on what you spend, not what you save, so any savings would be untaxed. So if you save any of that 30,000 your tax burden would be even lower. If you made less than 30,000 then your tax burden % would also be lower.

The refund is the exact percentage of the tax rate. There is no way to whittle it away to nothing.

If you would read actual reports, when major companies were asked if they would relocate to the US under this law, 80% said they would, because it simplifies the tax structure. No more need for an army of tax lawyers and accountants to figure it all out. No new laws to have to brace for.

This past year, Chevron-Texaco paid 9.8 billion in taxes, but only 200 million of that to the US government. A similar situation with Microsoft, because they sell their licenses to a foreign subsidiary, who in turn licenses the products back to the US company for almost all the profit they made. That way they can export their profits, but still claim them in stock reports.

The fair tax would make this type of system impossible to continue. In other words, major companies would pay their taxes for once. How is this a lack of contribution from the rich?

Also, you argue the rich will buy their luxury products abroad. How can they? The sale will have taken place in the US, and thus taxed. Read the bill.

You, moron, need to read the national fairtax bill. It reduces the taxes on the poor to absolute 0. If you make below the poverty limit, you get a 100% refund of the taxes, with an increase for each dependent. If you did not work at all this year, you would get a refund of taxes up to the poverty limit, as if you had worked (the same refund, for doing nothing). So your argument is null. Under that tax system, the poor would pay absolutely nothing, and would even get paid, if they didn't work.

Now if you are rich on the other hand, the tax would apply to all kinds of luxury expenses. Buying a ferrari? Well then you are paying 23% of the purchase price in a tax. Buying a plane? The same.

By all means, keep supporting the progressive tax system. I will be more than happy to make millions I can keep shifting through tax loopholes because you are unwilling to close them. The reason a consumption tax is better, is because you can determine your tax overhead at the beginning of the year. No need to manage taxes for your employees paycheck, figure out your deductions, find tax credits, buy your car with your company, buy your vacation home as a company asset. It would no longer matter, because all of these things would become moot points. You would pay taxes on them, end of story.