Two men entered a liquor store: Mr. Goldflab and Mr. Thinspittle.
Making typical purchases, both spent $100.00, paid a sales tax of about $8.00, and left.
Over the period of one year both men, who were married, made frequent trips to the store to purchase inebriant (did I mention they were married?) and both paid about $200.00 in sales tax that year for these purchases.
Thinspittle worked retail and barely made $20,000 a year. He ended up paying 0.1% of his earnings in sales tax to that liquor store.
Goldflab, an investment banker, earned $200,000 a year. He paid 0.01% of his earnings in sales tax for the same purchases.
In summery, both spent the same amount of money but Thinspittle paid a much larger percentage of his earnings (.1%) than Goldflab (.01%).
Therefore, if the nation went to a national sales tax and eliminated income tax, the poor would get an extra burden because they pay a greater percentage of their income in sales tax, whereas the rich would be no worse off because percentage wise they pay much less sales tax, and would be much less affected by a sales tax increase.
Therefore the FairTax would benefit the rich and penalize the poor.
However, if we keep the federal income tax, the rich would then pay a greater percentage of their income because they are in higher federal income tax brackets. For example Thinspittle, making $20,000 a year may pay $100.00 in federal income tax but Goldflab, making $200,000 a year pays $50,000 after deductions. This balances things out. With both a sales tax and an income tax, the rich and the poor pay their fair share. This balance would be plunged into chaos by going to a FairTax and the poor, and their children, would suffer.
Thus ends the only logical argument I’ve heard against the FairTax.
When I get the chance, I’ll post a rebuttal.
Grimgold
September 1, 2007
A Rational Argument Against the FairTax – Grim
Bathroom Sex FAQ
Christopher Beam, Slate, August 29, 2007
Sen. Larry Craig was arrested in June for soliciting sex in an airport bathroom, Roll Call reported Monday. According to the police, Craig had “tapped his right foot … as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct.” After pleading guilty to a charge of misdemeanor disorderly conduct, the senator paid $575 in fines and fees and was sentenced to a year of probation. But since then, he has said he regrets his guilty plea and that his actions were “misconstrued”—he merely has a “wide stance” when using the toilet.
This incident raises all sorts of questions about cruising signals, congressional privilege, and the logistics of bathroom sex. Here’s a roundup of our favorites.
Is tapping your foot really code for public sex?
Yes. The signal has been around for decades in the United States and Europe. Generally, one person initiates contact by tapping his foot in a way that’s visible beneath the stall divider. If the second person responds with a similar tap, the initiator moves his foot closer to the other person’s stall. If the other person makes a similar move, the first will inch closer yet again. The pair usually goes through the whole process a few times, just to confirm that the signals aren’t an accident.
Next, one of the men will slide his hand under the divider. This usually means he’s inviting the other person to present himself, as if to say, “Show me what you got.” The partner can respond by kneeling on the floor and presenting his penis or rear end underneath the divider. Or he can swipe his own hand under the divider, as if to say, “You go first.” Some married men make a point of displaying their wedding band (like Sen. Craig allegedly did) to make themselves more alluring.
Just how sexy can you get when there’s a divider in the way?
It depends on the bathroom. If the participants were in the last stall in a long row, they might have enough privacy to get it on right there beneath the divider. Alternatively, one person can enter the other’s stall by surreptitiously ducking out and back. Positions vary depending on the space, but one classic setup has one man sit on the toilet while the other straddles his legs and receives oral sex. (In the 1970s, some men frequenting the popular bathrooms at Bloomingdale’s in New York would hide their legs by standing in a pair of shopping bags.)
It’s Not the Size of Your Stance – It’s How You Use It
Well, well, well. Yet another GOP politician was caught with his pants down – literally and figuratively. I wish I had the slightest bit of compassion for soon-to-be EX-Senator Craig but I don’t.