Replies

kevkrom wrote:
The rebate is not income-related, you get the same amount as everyone else (well, ok, different rates for adults and children) just by virtue of being a US citizen who is not incarcerated.

In the currently proposed legislation, that's true. How long before the lobbyists and social engineers in the Congress change that?

kevkrom wrote:
The actual amount of the rebate wouldn't be sufficient to live on... let's take that same example of $14,000 as the poverty line for a family of four. That's an annual rebate of $3,220, or $268 a month.

And explain to me again how sending a check to every household in the nation advances conservative principles.

You are proposing making everyone in this country at least somewhat dependent on the federal government for their monthly income. The amount of those checks will be a political football. DemocRATS and their leftist friends will insist that it isn't fair that the checks are so small, especially during an economic downturn. They will also point out how unfair it is that Bill Gates and all of Dick Cheney's rich friends at Haliburton get "refund" checks that they don't really need.

This is my second big issue with the so called "Fair Tax" proposal.

kevkrom wrote:
The alternative for a rebate is exempting certain items, but then you just open up the special interests and social engineering can of worms again.

You haven't detailed exactly how that can of worms is going to be closed. Does part of the so called "Fair Tax" plan make lobbying illegal? Is there a provision that expells all current members of Congress and all current Senators and prohibits any future members of those bodies from any "social engineering" activities?

Nope, it's up to all of us outside the Beltway to make sure that it stays that way. The NRST provides a blank slate to start from -- but there's no point introducing problems now just because Congress may be able to do so later.

And explain to me again how sending a check to every household in the nation advances conservative principles.

Easy -- by holding to the fact that the essentials of life are not subject to taxation by the government. But rather than have a one-size-fits-all draconion set of rules and regulations, give an across-the-board credit for what would be spent of subsistence spending and let people decide for themselves how to use it.

Sounds pretty conservative to me.