Posted on 12/15/2005 10:33:58 AM PST by Eaglewatcher
Because I think many of your arguements are dishonest. I see this as a big entitlement, although I understand the politics and the reasoning. I think fairtaxers economic bliss predictions are based on demonstratably bad analysis. The real area the fairtax is better than the income tax is in the area of exports. It will significantly reduce the costs of our exports. I think most of the other claims are bunk or at the very least exagerations. Besides, I have disclosed my true motivation numerous times. It is no secret that I am a home builder.
Beyond that little detail, using your definition (and lewislynn's - ooohh you're in with it now!)...
Using your definition, today's income tax refunds are entitlements too.
Are you going to tell this forum that income tax refunds are entitlements?!
Great - then let's talk about those - that would make us all smarter. But being dishonest because you believe others are is childish.
Significantly? How's that?
No, you hadn't. You'd been making up dumb stuff for some still unexplained reason.
It is no secret that I am a home builder.
No, none at all. But that we know you're a home builder does not indicate your "real" motivation for posting such foolishness.
By your definition, today's income tax refunds are entitlements - after all, they're intended for a specific group - those that overpaidThat was your definition.
But yes, as a matter of fact as much as you might not like it, everyone is "entitled" to a refund of their overpaid taxes, retard.
...everyone is "entitled" to a refund of their overpaid taxes, retard.
OK, another flip flop. First, you were saying that the nrst would create the largest entitlement program in history. When pressed, you now say that, well, you meant that folks are "entitled to" refunds of overpaid taxes.
Nice, really nice.
I can't believe you don't have someone telling you to stop being so dumb. Really, think things through a bit before you head down the plank, 100-22 boy.
If it were an entitlement, there would be an appropriations bill, by law. There isn't one.What law?
First, you were saying that the nrst would create the largest entitlement program in historyNow you're a retarded liar. I never said any such thing.
But the prebate goes to everyone (legal). An entitlement goes to a specifed group based on income (or some qualifier).See, you are a lying retard.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/entitlement
no, you're just a teenager looking for some fun.
A simple google would've turned it up. Too anxious to call names, like any 14 year old.
No for two reasons. First you are not required to submit that money. Second, that is your money you paid. Under the fair tax, you are obligated to pay extra sales tax, and it is not neccessarily your money.
I don't know what you mean - this was amounts withheld from your paycheck... please clarify.
Second, that is your money you paid.
THis is indeed something that makes income tax refunds and prebates different, but it does not make either fall into or out of your entitlement definition.
That the prebate comes before you spend it is different too. That's how the intrusion is minimized - otherwise it's back to exempting certain items... doritos are food, not taxed while fritos are a snack and are taxed. Best to stay away from that nightmare IMO.
THen the next thing some people say is well, maybe there's someone who didn't spend any money one month, then they'll get the prebate anyway... I agree. But it isn't possible to do so continously... you may buy up one month and spend less the next month - but you can't always not spend for necessities - after all, they're necessities.
Even a homeless guy with no income at all spends some money on food or whatever. He likely buys used coats , but he'll eat - or die.
BTW, why back to arguing things that aren't important to you? I thought we'd discuss why you believe this would be bad for housing industry? Or is there more to it?
Your numbers are suspect, Nightie, since you've tried to peel the onion too finely and re-combining the numbers leads to cross-tallying and double counting. The Census Bureau Current Population Survey (Mar 2004) for total family household members to be 76,217,000.You knucklehead. Do you notice the two "Family Household" tables I posted? They total 76,216,000. But single people get the FCA, too. There are 35,783,000 "Non-family Households" (43,881,000 individuals) that you are ignoring.
This number gives a prebate of a bit over $396 billion rather that the inflated figures you (or your sidekick) offer.Your method is flawed [what a shock]. The total FCA for families is $363.5 billion. Add $94 billion for the single people and you get $457.5 billion (not the $440 billion I stated).
In any event the prebate is not an entitlement but a refund of tax money to the household much as with the income tax with refunds on Apreil 15. It's ridiculous to try to pretend it is an entitlement - it isn't. You guys are really getting desperate to find something to attack it seems.No. I'm entitled to the FCA whether I pay a penny in taxes or not. It's not a rebate/prebate/refund/prefund. It's an entitlement!
I don't know what you mean - this was amounts withheld from your paycheck... please clarify.
What don't you get? All you do is add exemptions so the withholding is correct. The reason so many people get refunds is because they set their withholdings too low. It is not a requirement that your employer withholds too much money.
No your numbers are not correct. the 100 million were undoubtedly never there to begin with. The Census Bureau population numbers are statistical projections based upon estimates made many years in advance and not frequently updated. As such they are subject (as with most governmen statistics) to a good bit of error. In addition they take in more than just U. S. citizens but all persons present.
The household numbers do not count many millions who are not U. S. citizens (20 million or more alone are illegal aliens) or the millions who are incarcerated. There are additional millions of people working and living in this country who are counted as numbers "being here" but are still not U. S. citizens, but here legally. They are also not householders for the purposes of the Census Bureau. All of these things can easily make up for the difference,
Your number grossly overstates the amount of the prebate as I've said. Taking some will number such as the total of 197 million individuals (if that's even close to correct) and making the assumption that they are all neatly arranged into households capable of receiving the prebate is bizarre since as I've said, many fit no such category and are not legal U. S, citizens at all so would not be able to recieve the prebate. You've never even begun to justify your claims with anything resembling reason. You just continue to make off-the-wall and wildly wrong claims.
So you are telling me the US only has a population of 197 million not 297 million??????????? Arguing with a complete moron is pointless.
2004 Family Consumption Allowance
Married Family Households Two members Three members Four members Five members Six members Seven or more members Non-married Family Households Two members Three members Four members Five members Six members Seven or more members Non-family Households One member Two members Three members Four members Five members Six members Seven or more members
The information y'all need is right here:
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2004/tabH1-all.csv
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.