[lucysmom]

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.

Principled links to a BLS table with no explanatory notes or even an indication of what year is represented in the data. I ask for more information and get back - well - basically nothing useful.

What would you call Regular contributions for support listed under Sources of income and personal taxes? Perhaps that's actual dollars, and perhaps that's in-kind gifts. I don't know because there isn't enough information.

[Principled]

LOL - not enough information in the link. Right....

You haven't even looked have you? Besides, this isn't the real reason you oppose the nrst. But it does give a chance for lurkers to see that today, waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more people receive more in refunds than tax paid than would under the nrst. Link.

You didn't even look at the data. From the link:

Average annual expenditures and characteristics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2001

Average annual expenditures..................

Income before taxes b/ ......................

All of which indicate that irrespective of income, people spend up to the poverty level. Whether by spending savings, illegally earned money, borrowed money - whatever. People spend up to the poverty level even if they don't report that much income.

Why not just tell us the real reason(s) you oppose?