If in-kind contributions from charities is included as "spending" then the family is not taking cash out of its collective pocket to purchase. If our family is buying used clothing at garage sales, receives a used car for its use from a church, and receiving free food from a food bank, the family is not "spending" in a taxable sense.
But, perhaps I am misreading the information and misunderstanding you. If that is the case, I would appreciate it if you would explain how a family with and income of less than $5,000 manages expenditures of $20,517 annually. Please explain how purchasing used items under the FairTax, and receiving charitable gifts, translates as a refund on taxes paid.
I will note here that on this thread alone you have said that the nrst is bad because it gives overpayment of refunds to some people. But when it is pointed out and shown with data that the nrst gives near zero out over tax payments made, you said the nrst is bad for poor people.
Nope. I'm not saying that the FairTax is bad because it gives more as a prebate than the poor will pay in tax, I'm making the observation that when that is the case, it is not a refund for taxes paid. I am assuming, for sake of argument, that this all makes sense and I am just not getting it and for that reason, I am giving you the opportunity to clarify.
Why should that matter to you? Because I vote, am capable of writing letters to my Senators and Congressmen, and have the opportunity to influence other voters in conversation just like you do.
"If in-kind contributions from charities is included as "spending" then the family is not taking cash out of its collective pocket to purchase. "
An interesting speculation on your part all right, but nothing in the BLS data provided indicates anything other that spending of actual dollars of income. The BLS data in no way measures or includes charity contributions to the families involved and your claim that it does is indeed made of whole cloth.
And as has been pointed out to you several times, the criteria for the prebate is not taxes paid at all but strictly family size. Your pretense to the contrary is more of the same warped interpretation.
There is certainly no need to "clarify" something which is so crystal clear and which you merely intentionally choose to misstate as the rebate is clearly defined in the bill. Clarifying your misstatements would no doubt be a full time job.
Right. And it is shown that the FairTax will have far LESS of this situation than under the income tax.
Here it is again Lucy, your false premise.
IF you wanted to mimimize tax refunds that exceed tax payments, you would prefer the nrst. This data show it, again.
The data compares reported income to expenditures (not charity).
So you demonstrate again that this isn't the real reason you oppose the nrst. Why are you afraid to tell the forum the real reason? Don't you think we would like to know about your real reason? Just how far will you go to protect your real reason(s)?