Posted on 12/15/2005 10:33:58 AM PST by Eaglewatcher
Read the bill. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Read the bill. You have no idea what you're talking about.So give us an example of non-family members living in the same household that wouldn't get their full FCA.
I am 100% sure it is not me who does not understand it. You are dumber than a box of rocks, and I really don't mean to insult rocks.
Maybe you didn't hear me.
no i was busy responding at the time and missed it
No, everyone does NOT qualify merely because they live in the same household. The bill is quite clear on the point.
If, say, Nightie and I were to be living in your house [shudder](assuming you were single here) neither of us would be qualified to receive the prebate - only you would assuming you were the "head of the household". There is only one residence for the family and the people residing there must be related per the bill for them to qualify for the inclusion in the prebate. You'd get it for the one-person family (you) but poor old Nightie and pigdog would not qualify ... nor would their cocker spaniel.
You need to read and understand what the bill says - I posted the applicable portion in #287. In post #299 I also explained how there could be other types of non-qualified persons residing in a non-family household (even as the head of household) which could disqualify anyone in the household from getting the prebate.
Your assumption that the Census Bureau has any sort of accurate record of illegal aliens isn't even reasonable. (In an earlier post you see to grasp to some degree how inaccurate the data can be - but I don't think you genuinely understand it is probably off by 10% or more in the case of illegal aliens. You must have missed the Bear Stearns study which was quite definitive using multiple methods of data verification and derivation as opposed to the C. B. numbers. The Bear Stearns paper came up with a well-reasoned count of 20 million illegal aliens - and that was a year ago. The 20 million figure is certainly closer to the truth than 8 million.
U. S. citizenship is only one of the requiremente - not the only one as you seem to think. Once again, read the bill (post #287). Then read #299 with more understanding. Your $480 B is way too high. As I saaid in #299, it's likely that my $369 B estimate is too high even.
If, say, Nightie and I were to be living in your house [shudder](assuming you were single here) neither of us would be qualified to receive the prebate - only you would assuming you were the "head of the household". There is only one residence for the family and the people residing there must be related per the bill for them to qualify for the inclusion in the prebate. You'd get it for the one-person family (you) but poor old Nightie and pigdog would not qualify ... nor would their cocker spaniel.You are just flat out wrong. AG, tell him.
U. S. citizenship is only one of the requiremente - not the only one as you seem to think.Citizenship is not a requirement for the FCA. Are you mistaken or lying?
If, say, Nightie and I were to be living in your house [shudder](assuming you were single here) neither of us would be qualified to receive the prebate - only you would assuming you were the "head of the household". There is only one residence for the family and the people residing there must be related per the bill for them to qualify for the inclusion in the prebate. You'd get it for the one-person family (you) but poor old Nightie and pigdog would not qualify ... nor would their cocker spaniel.The FCA goes to "qualified families," not households or residences. A "qualified family" is defined as "all family members sharing a common residence." There is no language in the bill that says different "qualified families" can have the same residence. In your example we would each be deemed a "qualified family" even though we had the same residence. We would each get the full FCA.
OK, let me be more precise - "lawful resident" rather than U. S. citizen. I was mistaken. The "lawful resident" requirement, though, is still only one of the requirements. See the bill for others.
Thanks, that's helpful and the example I gave was wrong.
I should have defined Nightie and I as illegal aliens which, of course would be a different situation and would allow only the host (assuming HE met the requirements) to get the prebate for himself.
Certainly there are, Nightie. Take the case of a lawful resident with a valid SSN who has two illegal aliens living with him. The host would qualify for the prebate and the two guests would not.
They qualify but only if they also have a valid SSN.
That is why I subtracted out 18 million people out from my calculation. That particular case is already accounted for. You were flat out wrong on your point about two non-married people living in at the same residence. My calculation stands.
"My calculation stands."
No, it doesn't. You're short on illegal aliens by at least 11 million as I indicated out earlier pointing to a more definitive study that the estimates you used.
I agreed that my example of Nightie and I living with you was wrong (whew) unless we were both illegal aliens or did not have valid SSNs. That surely makes neither your calculation nor your reasoning for it correct.
There will certainly be people in all three of those categories who do not qualify as required in the bill and you've made no realisic allowance for them and the adjustment you did make (a total of 18 million is clearly short of the mark as the Bear Stearns study shows). For example some of these people will be non-resident aliens that are not here lawfully but yet reside here in addition to the more commonly recognized illegal aliens. Some for example (students, etc.) will have overstayed their lawfully permitted time yet remain. The point is that using the Census Bureau's numbers (which in itself has errors) without adjustment for nonqualifiers yields figures that are much too high. I still like my $369 B as being more realistic while I think yours is not sufficiently corrected to adjust for non-qualifiers.
If the Census Bureau numbers are off by over 100% as they were in the number of illegal immigrants from south of the border, it's hardly rational to think that their number for specifying other sorts on non-citizen residents is any more accurate. The fact is - they simply haven't a handle on those numbers but they are CLEARLY greater than those you used.
In any event it doesn't really matter since anyone receiving the prebate will merely be receiving a refund of his tax money paid (or to be paid) and it is NOT an entitlement. As it is, the money goes right back to the taxpayer as a refund so trying to set any sort of number on it isn't meaningful as an expenditure - no more so than trying to fix a dollar amount on the income tax refunds of April 15. They are both refunds.
I shorted nothing. If there are 100 million illegal aliens in this country it makes no difference. They were not included in the census number. I subtracted off 18 million people who were non-citizens. Apparently I should have only subtracted off 9 million if legal residents qualify for the prebate.
It goes to everyone, including bums on the street who will pay next to nothing in sales tax. That is not their money. That is money taken from me and given to them in the form of a government check, which is an entitlement by all three legal defintions of entitlement.
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.