CAVUTO REPORTS THAT BUSH CONSIDERING SCRAPPING THE IRS CODE!!!

Neil Cavuto just interviewed Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., the director of the OMB, and Neil let it be known that he's hearing rumblings that Pres. Bush is considering a total re-write of the tax code and that SecTreas O'Neill is strongly pushing a national retail sales tax!

Redistribution is taking it from one and giving to another. That doesn't happen with the prebate.

Yes it does; or at least it can. The prebate/rebate is a check drawn from government accounts that goes to a recipient. That recipient then spends (or doesn't spend) that money. Unless the associated bureaucracy literally micromanages the economy and watches the spending of every single citizen to assure they get back only the exact amount to the penny that they paid in taxes on the relevant items, the result will be tax money (paid in by one individual) that will be going to another individual. That is redistribution of the wealth.

It is provided to an individual who then spends it back to gov't.

If that is really true, then it is self-evidently the most idiotic thing any member of Congress has ever proposed. What possible benefit could be obtained by having a bureaucracy whose sole purpose in life is to collect taxes from an individual, and give them the exact same amount of money back? It certainly provides no benefit to the taxpayer, and there is no gain derived in tax receipts. Obviously, the real purpose for the existence of such a mechanism and associated bureaucracy must be something else. If it is not redistribution of wealthy (the only thing for which it seems to be useful), then what is its purpose?

The reason for the prebate check to all families is to eliminate the need to identify specific items for exclusion and to eliminate the need to track income, as that would open the door to manipulation and politics... exactly what we want to avoid.

In that case, another mechanism needs to be found. Adding specific items for inclusion/exclusion of taxes is nothing compared to the risks the rebate system would have.

If somebody were to try to increase the tax rate, the rate would go up equally on EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL WHO BUYS ANYTHING- every kid, every adult, and most importantly, every single voter.

And at the same time the tax rate went up, the government would simply increase the "prebate" amount, thus guaranteeing to these people that THEY wouldn't be paying the higher rate (or worse, they would be getting back even more money from the government each month, whether they spend the money or not).

which is NOT, btw, redistribution

Sorry, but the only way to keep such a system from being income redistribution would be a police state tracking even the smallest of purchases. No thanks; I'll stick to the tax code as it exists now (as much as I despise that particular abominiation).

Did you know Doritos is exempt but Fritos aren't? Did you know bologna is exempt but hot dogs aren't

Perhaps in some states. But this could not legally be done at the federal level. Such a specific enumeration of products by brand name would be a bill of attainder, and illegal under the Constitution (of course, that probably wouldn't stop them, but still the principle is there).

I realize what you are saying as to the purpose (or rather, the purpose by the author) of the "prebate". But the very existence of the associated bureaucracy that would be required for it's functionality, not to mention the risk of tampering for income redistribution purposes, still appears to be a fatal flaw in the scheme. It would be far simpler (not to mention being cheaper for both the taxpayer and government) just to not tax those things in the first place.

It may be spent on fine art, existing mansions, etc.

Improvements on existing homes(i.e. making the mansions) are taxable consumption. etc. Any money spent on investement whatever it nature goes where it will be spent for more mundane consumption in any case.

Somehow I fail to worry over apparent concerns of where rich folks put there money. Seems to be a personal problem for you though.

I have repeatedly asked you for material dealing with distributional effect

None exist in the form you wish, Mastromarco and Jorgensen's studies address the issues via model and links to that material has been provide which you say you have not studied.

I can lead a horse to water, not much more than that.

This may be true, but to date it bears more on the issues of interest to me

That's good but when you get something that actually bears on the issues of others in regard to the NRST and it impact through "consuption expenditure" as opposed to ill defined measures of "income" let me know.

I have compared average effects by income level.

How do you manage that without detailed information about expenditure levels as they relate to pre-earned as well as currently earned income.

If you are wondering whether I recognize that any given group contains a range of separate situations the answer is, of course, “yes”. Analyses of this kind all draw conclusions from aggregated data with that understanding.

Remember the tables you pointed out to me as applicable to distribution of the tax burdent, showing expenditure of more than $17,000 on a avg income of $1,500 by persons owning homes worth $40K. I would like to know how those in what could be termed real "poverty" fair in comparison to those how could be considered to be better off than poverty level.

How those forced to a life of poverty as opposed those capable of living at high expenditure levels is your concern as regard distribution of the tax burden isn't it?

Knowing that you only work with snapshot data, I would like to know how you separate groups into classifications that are meaningful, without using lifetime income/expenditure measures? That seems key to leaning about the NRST tax burden in comparison with other tax systems.

Yes it does; or at least it can.

Hmmm "does" or "can"?

A necessity is by definition that which is necessary. So how can you avoid buying necessities? They are necessary, required, essential, compulsory, obigatory, indispensable, etc.

There can be no accumulation of the rebate to an individual for this reason. Hence the "redistribution" you appear fixated upon is not germane.

Every single family who wished to receive the "prebate" may do so. The prebate is simply the tax money that a family will spend on necessities. Hence necessities become untaxed. I don't think the necessities of life should be taxed, do you? You realize, of course, that the necessities of life ARE being taxed right now?

If some individual starves himself in order to pocket a few bucks, he'll start a mass wave of "hungry for dollars" campaigns across the nation!

BTW I obviously don't think there's any redistribution of wealth going on with this proposal. Redistribution is the policy of taking from one in order to give to another. I am violently opposed to redistribution schemes such as, say, I don't know....maybe THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX CODE!

Anything I can do to minimize redistribution I dang well do.

If the real reason is just to offset the tax on "necessities", why not simply make them tax free in the first place
If the objective is to not tax necessities, then why not simply not tax those items in the first place?

Who gets to define necessity for you?

The FCA mechanism allows you the individual to define your necessity by your situation and actual purchases. Exempting particular goods leaves the choice to the government via lobbyists pushing advantage for their client's particular "necessity."

Personally I prefer to make the choice of what constitutes necessity by what I actually purchase than by what Politicians or worse bureaucrats by arbitrary regulation choose to allow for "tax free" purchase.

The existence of such a system (and the associated bureaucracy, which would have a scope just as wide as that of the IRS

The bureaucracy and data already exists with no addition to scope, and without the IRS. The Social Security Administration, where the legislation places that responsibility of receiving application for the FCA in accord with household size measured by number of legal residents in the household.

I fail to see any new, and infact a reduction in bureaucracy under the FCA mechanism of the NRST. Making specific items exempt instead of FCA, does nothing to change the bureaucracy required whatsoever. Exempting particular good through political processes does ,however, assure that you'll be paying taxes on things that you personally consider a necessity in your particular situtation.

When I suggest adjustments to merely make the NRST more comparable to the current distribution of tax burden, you consider it a full blown attack on the essence of NRST. How come?

1)Technogeeb is not suggesting that we should hide the tax burden from view of the general electorate nor treat one individual different from another such as the Tobin Tax would.

2) Technogeeb is not suggesting that we increase the tax/FCA rate to compensate for what you feel to be insufficient progressivity.

I can live with particular items tax free, I do however expect that everyone perceive the tax burden equally in terms of rate paid at the register.

Your system would maintain a defacto division in society, those who pay the Tobin Tax and can perceive its effect on their livelyhood, and those who do not. A perceive "Poor" against the perceived "Rich". Such distinctions are tearing this nation apart and warping the judgement of the electorate as a whole.

The NRST is applied the same with every person regardless of economic station. All pay the same rate of tax, all receive the same per person FCA. No artificial distinctions of one group of citizens over another.

That is also known as equal protection of the law. A fundamental concept in our constitution.

Hmmm "does" or "can"?

Mostly "does", unless the micromanaging bureaucracy is set up to track purchases and then refund the exact amount of tax paid on necessities, in which case it reverts to "can". But since there is no mechanism in place to prevent the payment of more money to the citizen then he paid in taxes, "does" seems more likely to apply.

A necessity is by definition that which is necessary. So how can you avoid buying necessities?

Easy. I knew a kid in grad school that lived off of beans and rice bought in bulk, vitamins, and water. Such an individual would be spending almost nothing on food, but outside of the micro-managed version of the bureaucracy, he would be receiving far more money than he would have spent in sales tax. In fact, he would be receiving tax dollars that he did not pay. Those tax dollars would have been paid in by another individual. That is income redistribution. It might be a "trivial" amount of redistribution, but it is redistribution nevertheless. And since there is nothing to prevent the same mechanism from being used to redistribution wealth by design rather than by coincidence, I can't see any way that the system will not lead to a level of socialism never before seen in this country.

I don't think the necessities of life should be taxed, do you?

Of course not, which is why I think those items deemed as "necessities" should simply not be taxed, rather than having an intrusive bureaucracy whose purpose is to pay back (or simply give, in some cases) to the consumer the amount of money the bureaucracy seems is "reasonable".

If some individual starves himself in order to pocket a few bucks, he'll start a mass wave of "hungry for dollars" campaigns across the nation

What about the inverse situation? A lot of people can't afford to go to the doctor and therefore treat themselves with over-the-counter medications. Should these be tax exempt? If so, then since we're creating one class of tax exempt products, then why not another(food, shelter)? If not, then should the "prebate" check be based on an average amount (and have the people who consume a lot be cheated)? Or should it be the maximum amount (in which income redistribution is again assured)?

BTW I obviously don't think there's any redistribution of wealth going on with this proposal. Redistribution is the policy of taking from one in order to give to another

And that is exactly what this system does. It might not be the intended goal of the system, but it would be the result, if only on a minor level. And that assumes that the system is not immediately corrupted into becoming such a mechanism, and I can see no way in which that result will not be inevitable once the power is in the hands of bureaucrats during a leftist administration.

I am violently opposed to redistribution schemes such as, say, I don't know....maybe THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX CODE!

Then logically, you should be even more opposed to this system. The only income redistribution mechanism in the current tax code is EITC, which even then only offsets payroll taxes. The redistribution in the current budget occurs in separate programs (HHS, HUD, etc), not in the tax code itself.

Explain to me what keeps some administration from simply upping the sales tax rate and increasing the "prebate" amount to turn this into overt socialism?

I’m curious. When Technogeeb worries that one of the two establishment parties may actually have a communist intent with regard to FCA, you consider him, perhaps, overly hyperbolic but otherwise aligned with your support of NRST. When I suggest adjustments to merely make the NRST more comparable to the current distribution of tax burden, you consider it a full blown attack on the essence of NRST. How come?

I didn't read his response at all like you apparently have chosen to, then again, I retained the context. I understand your mischaracterization. Not as bad as Technogeeb mischaracterization of the FCA as a "redistribution mechanism"877 -- despite having it previously explained to him that it's not redistribution because every household receives an equal size check each month. That is, all single-person households get the same check as do all two-person house holds get the same check as do three-person households get the same check, etc. The distribution is equivalent and not even mandatory. Any person can chose not to receive the monthly checks and mostly that will be the upper income persons that will let their equal share remain as tax revenue. In that sense people by free choice can volunteer to pay more taxes which is very different than having the government with gun-to the-head forcing upper-income persons to pay more taxes.

Taxation is necessary to gain revenue but honest principle, integrity, honoring and protecting individual life-and-property rights are primary unit. All those in bold are violated when taxes are imposed greater on one group than another. It sacrifices a portion of the individual for the supposed betterment of the group. It is collectivist groupthink. Like voting for the lesser of evils always begets evil -- how so many people thinking they're right can be so wrong. Politics, and especially reflected in politics of taxation, suck. Politics suck objectivity out and insert irrationality in. Individual life-and-property rights are primary and must be protected, honored and respected -- not sacrificed.

In practice the FCA is this: For each single-person household the government acknowledges that each of those persons is going to pay $170 in NRST on the necessities they buy each month. Thus, because the government doesn't know which specific necessities each of those millions of single-person households are going to buy rather than exempt a slew of different items that would cause even more politicians and bureaucrats committing "look busy" partisan bickering (work) and special interests' "bribery" forever fighting over what should be exempt and not exempt the government won't exempt anything and just send each single-person household a $170 check each month. Thus cutting out the partisan bickering and special interest bribes that are partially responsible for creating the leviathan government in the first place.

I feel the middle class already carries a disproportionate share of the burden.

You are welcome to your opinion.

The data suggests that the upper income class pays more tax in proportion to their income than any other class. It also supports the conclusion that the middle class pays less tax in proportion to their income than the average rate would provide.

Obviously I do not agree with your assessment.

In any case, my prime guide is not who pays the most or least for that matter, rather what is the effect upon liberty privacy and the ability of the electorate to hold government accountable for its excesses through their knowlegable assessment of government burden vs government benefit.

The current system is severly skewed in perception of the electorate in favor of growth and ever more powerful government at the expense of a minority of citizens.

The Crisis of Democracy

The Honorable James DeMint (R-SC)
United States House of Representatives
THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2001
12:00 noon
"In 1996, Congress passed a historic welfare reform law that has dramatically reduced the number of Americans who depend on welfare. In spite of this positive development, Representative DeMint is concerned about the steady growth of a welfare/entitlement state that extends well beyond the poor and is forcing millions of middle income Americans into dependency.
There has been a shift in the relationship between individuals and government, he argues, such that fewer and fewer are paying taxes at the same time that more and more are receiving increasingly generous benefits. If it becomes the case that most voters do not bear a financial burden for this largess, then there will be little to restrain--and significant political incentives to encourage--the continued growth of government. And at that point, DeMint warns, we have reached a major crisis in our democracy."

Milton Friedman as quoted by Northwest Florida Daily News, 10-16-2000:

"If we're to have an income tax, it's a good thing for everyone to pay at least a nominal amount," he said. "If non-taxpayers become a majority in society, what would restrain them from voting for ever higher taxes on others?"

If that is really true, then it is self-evidently the most idiotic thing any member of Congress has ever proposed.

You leaving out the personal exemptions and standard deductions of the income tax, and EITC in your reconning?

Congress has always been rather idiotic. If they weren't I would prefer no FCA or excepted goods under the NRST at all.

Problem is, a strong majority of Congress is rather idiotic in what they do, at least mercenary in their intent.

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw

Right now the bottom 60% perceive little to no "Individual Income Tax" burden,(in many cases even a handout) and 70% of the voting public clamors for more from government looking for the top 40% of income earners/producers to foot the bill. That perception continues to grow ever stronger by eliminating even more participants from the Federal Individual Income Tax rolls as proposed in the tax reduction proposals through changes in personal exemption limits and other mechanisms such as the EITC.

Congress plays both ends against the middle; hiding the real burden in inflation, higher prices on all goods and services, lower takehome pay, lower return on investment, and higher interest rates. All keeping the poor right where they are and pushing for more freebees.

That shell game has to end. The NRST is a solid means to achieve that.

Technogeeb mischaracterization of the FCA as a "redistribution mechanism"877 -- despite having it previously explained to him that it's not redistribution because every household receives an equal size check each month

If every household receives an equal size check each month, then this is redistribution. I do not understand how you can characterize this as anything else. "To each according to his needs (necessities)" is NOT a republican concept. The only way to prevent it from being redistribution would be a system that allowed a specific rebate based on taxes that were actually paid (which eliminates much of the desirability of the system, since it would require a "tax return" to be filled out along with the appropriate receipts for which a refund is being requested, a bureaucracy just as large as the IRS, etc).

In practice the FCA is this: For each single-person household the government acknowledges that each of those persons is going to pay $170 in NRST on the necessities they buy each month

But what if they don't? If they pay less than $170, then tax money (paid by another individual into the general treasury) that isn't theirs will be given to them. That is income redistribution. And to further complicate matters, what if they pay much more than that (I know one individual that pays several times that much money a WEEK in medical expenses alone). Why should she have to pay taxes on something that is a "necessity" for her? Why not eliminate this problem and instead of creating a bureaucracy (which introduces the risk of overt socialism whenever some future administration decides to implement it), simply make things that are deemed "necessities" tax free?

Thus cutting out the partisan bickering and special interest bribes that are partially responsible for creating the leviathan government in the first place.

I think you're being a bit naive to believe it would eliminate such. Instead, I see the "partisan bickering" moving to the subject of the amount of the "prebate", with continual increases in this amount (automatic cost of living adjustments, increases to special interest groups such as people that need to purchase AIDS medicines, etc) until the worst fears of a socialist state are realized.

You leaving out the personal exemptions and standard deductions of the income tax, and EITC in your reconning?

Nope. They do make the tax code "unfair" to a certain extent (as if the confiscation of wealth by an entity that did not generate it could be anything else), but the only result of those is to limit the amount of money a person pays in taxes; and doesn't result in "getting back" money that they didn't pay in the first place (with the exception of the EITC, which still only offsets payroll taxes even if that isn't officially its objective). As much as I detest the current tax code, I think the "prebate" mechanism is even worse.

Problem is, a strong majority of Congress is rather idiotic in what they do

I can't really disagree on that point. :)

That shell game has to end. The NRST is a solid means to achieve that.

With that; I agree. My only opposition is with the "prebate" mechanism. It is fundamentally flawed, because it will establish a mechanism for income redistribution that can be used at the whim of any future leftist administration. Since the (supposed) desired purpose of this mechanism is merely to offset taxes paid on "necessities", then I believe that a far simpler mechanism (and more cost effective, since it eliminates the associated bureaucracy, a savings of several billion dollars by itself) would be to simply not collect a tax on things that are supposed to be "tax free".

I think you're being a bit naive to believe it would eliminate such. Instead, I see the "partisan bickering" moving to the subject of the amount of the "prebate", with continual increases in this amount (automatic cost of living adjustments, increases to special interest groups such as people that need to purchase AIDS medicines, etc)

With an increased tax rate for baby diapers, AIDs medications, etc. to go right along with it.

Perceived cost vs benefit to the majority, will be the rule of elections. Not cost vs benefit to minority interest as it is today where most taxes are hidden from view from the majority of the electorate.

until the worst fears of a socialist state are realized.

And exemption of specific goods and services selected by special interest pressure and desire to social engineering is going to prevent this how?

The real issue comes down to what the American people will allow given knowledge of cost of government intimately in their lives as opposed to special interest benefits they can garner.

FCA allows perception of the cost when NRST is paid at the register by everyone all the time.

Exemption of goods and services creates classes of folks who perceive little to no cost with respect to received benefit.

Under the current system, those receiving the benefits are not those who perceive the burden and out vote the burdened minority. Exemption of tax payment of any sort perpetuates that creation of taxpayers vs benefit receivers whether under an goods exempted NRST or Income/Vat system.

The FCA/NRST system requires payment of the tax regardless of benefit, thus provides a clear perception of cost, as well as perception of benefit.

If the burden is not perceived by certain groups of voters, how can they possibly be motivated to hold government accountable for excess.

"Let virtue, honor, the love of liberty ... be ... the soul of this constitution, and it will become the source of great and extensive happiness to this and future generations. Vice, ignorance, and want of vigilance, will be the only enemies able to destroy it."
-- John Jay, co-author of the Federalist Papers and, later, Chief Justice of the supreme Court

"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
-- James Madison (Letter to W.T. Barry, August 4, 1822)

That is the purpose of assuring that everyone pay a tax at the register on all goods and at rates equal to those of everyone else, that the burden be perceived as well as any benefit or largess arising of ones own particular situtation.

Since the (supposed) desired purpose of this mechanism is merely to offset taxes paid on "necessities",

Merely to offset, is not true. The FCA helps prevent a class of citizen from not paying any tax at all, by assuring everyone pays the same tax rate on all the retail goods and services they purchase.

Exemption of payment of a tax creates tax privileged groups as readily under a retail sales tax as under a graduated income tax.

FCA assures the basics as determined by the citizen are covered. But all products remain taxed for all citizens regardless of personal circumstance. All citizens remain intimately cognizant of cost of government in their daily lives, from the poorest to the richest, from those who receive much from government to those who receive none. They all share in the payment of tax due at the retail register.

It is only in knowledge that we can exercise vigilence and hold government accountable. Everyone must participate in the tax system even the poorest among us.

Argue to get rid of the FCA, and I could agree as a matter of principle. Don't argue that we must relieve groups of folks from participation which the exemption of a broadrange of "necessity" goods and services would create.

Zon: Not as bad as Technogeeb mischaracterization of the FCA as a "redistribution mechanism"877 -- despite having it previously explained to him that it's not redistribution because every household receives an equal size check each month. 888

If every household receives an equal size check each month, then this is redistribution.

Why not eliminate this problem and instead of creating a bureaucracy (which introduces the risk of overt socialism whenever some future administration decides to implement it), simply make things that are deemed "necessities" tax free?

Their will be no bureaucracy needed beyond a household telling the government how many people are in the household and the government sending them a check each month thereafter. As I said in my last post:

(which introduces the risk of overt socialism whenever some future administration decides to implement it), simply make things that are deemed "necessities" tax free?

I gave the rationale in my last post to you:

Zon: ...rather than exempt a slew of different items that would cause even more politicians and bureaucrats committing "look busy" partisan bickering (work) and special interests' "bribery" forever fighting over what should be exempt and not exempt the government won't exempt anything and just send each single-person household a $170 check each month. Thus cutting out the partisan bickering and special interest bribes that are partially responsible for creating the leviathan government in the first place. 888

That irrational will not exist with the rational FCA. But that's the irrationality and bureaucracy that you'd get by exempting necessities.

Instead, I see the "partisan bickering" moving to the subject of the amount of the "prebate", with continual increases in this amount (automatic cost of living adjustments, increases to special interest groups such as people that need to purchase AIDS medicines, etc) until the worst fears of a socialist state are realized.

You claim to argue against socialism while at the same time you either ignorantly or intentionally make arguments in favor of socialist/fascist tax-and-control mechanism -- controlled by bickering politicians, bureaucrats and special interest group/lobbyist bribery. The present graduated income tax is a socialist/fascist control mechanism. I won't stoop to your hyperbole and call it the worst socialist state already realized. The NRST is not a socialist tax-and-control system of collecting revenue. Yet you claim the NRST would be a socialist tax-and-control mechanism that would be worse than the present tax-and-control system.

(automatic cost of living adjustments, increases to special interest groups such as people that need to purchase AIDS medicines, etc)

That's what you get via exempting necessities from NRST: special interest groups "bribing" government officials to get AIDS medicines and etcetera exempt from the NRST. Plus, politicians campaigning on the benefits to specific groups of people rather than benefits to equals/individuals. As if any group can be proclaimed from on high to be more important or deserving then one person or one individual.

Your attempts to paint the FCA as a redistribution scheme and the NRST as a socialist tax-and-control mechanism is disingenuous or ignorance at best and intent to deceive at worst.

With an increased tax rate for baby diapers, AIDs medications, etc. to go right along with it

Perhaps, but irrelevant. That increased tax rate would not only apply to those goods, but also to all other retail goods. The objective of the wealth redistributors would still be achieved, since they can set the "prebate" to whatever level necessary to offset the cost of the taxation on those goods (and then some, for the purposes of wealth redistribution).

And exemption of specific goods and services selected by special interest pressure and desire to social engineering is going to prevent this how?

Because the "most" socialistic thing you can do merely by exemption is to make the tax paid for something zero. At this point, you're still not giving the taxpayer more than they paid in; you're just not forcing him to pay in anything on those particular item.

FCA allows perception of the cost when NRST is paid at the register by everyone all the time

Unfortunately, it also allows income redistribution at will by any administration that wants to implement it.

The FCA/NRST system requires payment of the tax regardless of benefit, thus provides a clear perception of cost, as well as perception of benefit

The NRST system provides this. The only thing the FCA does (other than create a socialist system, or at least the potential for one) is put a reminder in the back of the mind of people buying certain products that they aren't 'really' paying that much tax on certain products, since they'll get that money back at the end of the month.

Exemption of goods and services creates classes of folks who perceive little to no cost with respect to received benefit

I don't understand how you can say this. I'm not advocating that food be "free" (i.e., that government pay for it); I'm just advocating that simply not taxing it in the first place is a far superior system than taxing it and having a bureaucracy whose purpose is supposedly to refund that amount of tax paid (whether it actually was paid or not). If they want the good or service, they still have to pay for it; they just don't pay any additional government tax in addition to the cost of the product itself.

That is the purpose of assuring that everyone pay a tax at the register on all goods

If that is the goal, then yet again the "prebate" should not be implemented. The core decision is whether or not "necessities" should be taxed. If they should be taxed, then just tax them at the same rate as any other product. But if they shouldn't be taxed, not taxing those particular goods in the first place is far superior to setting up some huge bureaucracy to give every household in the U.S. a monthly check from the government that has nothing to do with the amount of money that particular household actually paid in taxes.

Merely to offset, is not true. The FCA helps prevent a class of citizen from not paying any tax at all

On the contrary, it does the exact opposite. If a person is "paying" taxes using money they got from the government from their "prebate" check, the taxes being paid certainly isn't being paid by them. Eliminate the FCA portion, and a national retail sales tax would achieve your objective. The only people who would not pay taxes would be those who do not purchase anything. If "necessities" were excluded from taxation, the only people who would pay no taxes would be those who purchase only "necessities". But since under the "prebate" mechanism they would be getting this money back anyway, those same people wouldn't be paying taxes under either sytem (although they would be "going through the motions" of pretending to pay taxes; which is worse than simply not paying the taxes in the first place, since it creates what would otherwise be an unnecessary bureaucracy as well as sows the seeds for socialism).

FCA assures the basics as determined by the citizen are covered

Exactly. Socialism.

But all products remain taxed for all citizens regardless of personal circumstance

So you mean the purpose of the FCA is NOT to offset taxes paid on "necessities", but is instead a government payout to all citizens to cover the basic costs of living?

Argue to get rid of the FCA, and I could agree as a matter of principle

That's the only thing I am arguing. I certainly have no objections to a national sales tax. But the "prebate" system is socialism, pure and simple. It is a payout of money from the government treasury to individuals for no reason other than the existence of those individuals. They have done nothing (provided no product or service) to earn that money, so why is the government sending it to them?

Don't argue that we must relieve groups of folks from participation which the exemption of a broadrange of "necessity" goods and services would create

Here you are trying to solve a "problem" with a national sales tax that not only does not exist, but cannot exist. The retailer does not require one class to pay taxes while excluding another class of consumer from that obligation. If certain "necessities" are tax-free, then they are free to all consumers regardless of their personal wealth. No class of people are excluded from paying taxes, and any taxes that are paid under a national sales tax are ultimately voluntary (i.e., a consumer can simply not purchase the product if they feel the tax rate is excessive).

To somehow suggest that the government sending a check to every household in the U.S. (regardless of the amount of taxes that particular household paid in taxes) is NOT collectivism, while at the same time suggesting that there is something collectivist about not having a tax on some products (whether they are "necessities" or not) seems quite alien to me. A national sales tax would be a great thing. But the "prebate" mechanism is so evil that it would immediately offset any advantage a NRST would provide.

As I said and you, oh so conveniently omitted (in bold): "every household receives an equal size check each month. That is, all single-person households get the same check as do all two-person house holds get the same check as do three-person households get the same check, etc." Not all households receive the same size check because not all households have the same number of people.

I didn't bother copying the bold because it is irrelevant to my objection(and even makes my point that this IS wealth redistribution). The number of people in the household has nothing to do with the objection; which is the amount of money given by the government, from the general treasury, to those households has nothing to do with the amount of tax money paid. It is nothing more than a government handout. It is redistribution of wealth by government power. To suggest that because the amount going to every household with a particular number of residents is "exactly equal" somehow legitimizes it is as ridiculous as suggesting that everyone who files a 1040 tax form under the current system should receive a tax refund of the same amount.

Their will be no bureaucracy needed beyond a household telling the government how many people are in the household and the government sending them a check each month thereafter

You don't really believe this do you? What if I say I have 5000 people living in my household? Thus, there would have to be compliance departments. Who actually handles changes of address, etc? Thus, an even larger bureaucracy. There are a number of other obvious requirements, and the size of this bureaucracy would be no less than that of the IRS. It would cost BILLIONS, and could be eliminated simply by not taxing food products in the first place.

I gave the rationale in my last post to you:

Yes, but you seem to be under the illusion that your answer was relevant. Such a system would NOT eliminate the "partisan bickering", it would only move it to a bureaucracy where it could do far more damage.

You claim to argue against socialism while at the same time you either ignorantly or intentionally make arguments in favor of socialist/fascist tax-and-control mechanism -- controlled by bickering politicians, bureaucrats and special interest group/lobbyist bribery

On the contrary, my proposal cannot be perverted into socialism. The "worst" that could happen from complete domination of the simple sales tax scheme by such lobby groups would be that some products simply wouldn't be taxed at all. The "prebate" system, on the other hand, would allow such people to demand that government money from the treasury be paid out to households; with no relevance to the amount that particular household paid. Unlike a tax-free (for certain products) system, the system you are advocating really would be socialism.

I won't stoop to your hyperbole and call it the worst socialist state already realized

It isn't hyperbole. There is nothing in the system to prevent an administration from increasing the default payout to every household to be equal to the average income of every citizen. Naturally, to pay for this, the taxation rate would have to be increased to 100% confiscatory levels, but the result would be a complete redistribution of wealth; and this system would allow such an abomination.

That's what you get via exempting necessities from NRST: special interest groups "bribing" government officials to get AIDS medicines and etcetera exempt from the NRST

So? The worst that can happen is that some products are tax-free. That might not be ideal if the purpose of the tax system is maximum revenue generation, but it is certainly better than pretending to charge a tax on those AIDS medicines and then giving the money back again at the end of the month to everybody, whether they bought the AIDS drugs or not.

As if any group can be proclaimed from on high to be more important or deserving then one person or one individual.

Choosing not to charge taxes on some product does nothing to unequalize any consumer. There is nothing in a pure national sales tax that would require any particular group to pay a higher taxation rate, or give an exemption from taxation to any other group.

Your attempts to paint the FCA as a redistribution scheme

That is because it is exactly that. It gives money from the government treasury to people who didn't put it there and have done nothing (other than existing as a resident) to deserve it.

and the NRST as a socialist tax-and-control mechanism is disingenuous or ignorance at best and intent to deceive at worst.

Now you're either confused or deliberately lying. I haven't said ANYTHING negative about a national sales tax; I just don't want the social welfare state that the "prebate" system naturally and inevitably provides.

I figure on doing everything I can to decrease that rate myself.

While you are working on the nominal issue of decreasing the rate, I am working on the important issue of decreasing the amount and keeping the distribution of tax burden as it is, currently. When I suggest increasing the FCA and the tax rate you oppose raising the rate as if you think a higher tax will be paid. You’re wrong. If FCA and rate\are both raised in proper proportions it merely changes distribution of the tax not the amount of it.

The state tax authorities, who charter and licenses retail businesses and keep track of em for tax purposes, don't seem to have much trouble with such. 80 percent of retail sales go through 10% of the businesses.

The shenanigans will be at all businesses not just retail businesses. For example, businesses can give cars to key employees as business expenses rather than give higher salaries so employees can buy their own cars (and hundreds of things like that). Also, are you not aware of the level of cheating on sales tax?

You really should watch your "it seems", "I say", "I think", and keep the discussion to something less than total speculation.

You do the same thing but put forth your opinion as objective truth. I’m being more honest and humble.

Somehow I fail to worry over apparent concerns of where rich folks put there money. Seems to be a personal problem for you though.

You conclude this from what? The fact that I prefer not to shift the tax burden from the upper incomes to the middle class?

Deuce: I have repeatedly asked you for material dealing with distributional effect
Ancient_Geezer: None exist in the form you wish, Mastromarco and Jorgensen's studies address the issues via model and links to that material has been provide which you say you have not studied.

I am interested in the distribution of tax burden. Most people are going to want to know this if this concept ever gets off the ground. Knowing that the tax burden is shifted downward, however much you welcome it, is not a feature likely to gain broad based popular appeal.

Upper income class pays more tax in proportion to income than any other class.

As a group, they also pay a smaller portion of their wealth and less than the benefits they receive.

There is nothing in the system to prevent an administration from increasing the default payout to every household to be equal to the average income of every citizen.

"The FCA will be paid in advance, in equal installments each month. The size of the monthly FCA will be determined by the government's Poverty Level for a particular family size, multiplied by the tax rate. Every year, the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] determine the "poverty level" for each family size."

[ The monthly FCA for each adult is .23 * (HSS poverty level for a single person)/12 to assure no marriage penalty due to the manner in which the poverty level is dependant on family size. The monthly FCA for each child is .23 * (the incremental increase of HSS poverty level for a family with one child over no child) ] A. Geezer 68

There's the mechanism that prevents an administration from increasing the payout beyond the poverty level.

Zon: That's what you get via exempting necessities from NRST: special interest groups "bribing" government officials to get AIDS medicines and etcetera exempt from the NRST 895

So?

Ah, your true colors seep through. Dishonesty is okay with you. I already knew that but thanks for making it so clear.

Zon: Plus, politicians campaigning on the benefits to specific groups of people rather than benefits to equals/individuals. As if any group can be proclaimed from on high to be more important or deserving then one person or one individual. 895

Choosing not to charge taxes on some product does nothing to unequalize any consumer. There is nothing in a pure national sales tax that would require any particular group to pay a higher taxation rate, or give an exemption from taxation to any other group.

It certainly does when politicians campaign based on catering to special interest groups with the intent of pushing a Bill through congress to exempt certain items not based on necessity, but rather, based on a certain group of people as promoted by a special interest group's lobbyist lobbying members of congress. It "unequalizes" because only certain special interest groups get exemption and other groups and individuals do not get an exemption and/or certain procedures or medicines are exempt when others aren't exempt. For example, AIDS sufferers get exemptions but glaucoma and Alzheimer's suffers don't.

Also, as AG wrote: "Exemption of goods and services creates classes of folks who perceive little to no cost with respect to received benefit." 893

Zon: Your attempts to paint the ...NRST as a socialist tax-and-control mechanism is disingenuous or ignorance at best and intent to deceive at worst. 895

Now you're either confused or deliberately lying. I haven't said ANYTHING negative about a national sales tax; I just don't want the social welfare state that the "prebate" system naturally and inevitably provides.

Here, I'll quote you:

Technogeeb: "I think you're being a bit naive to believe it would eliminate such. Instead, I see the "partisan bickering" moving to the subject of the amount of the "prebate", with continual increases in this amount (automatic cost of living adjustments, increases to special interest groups such as people that need to purchase AIDS medicines, etc) until the worst fears of a socialist state are realized." 891

The FCA "prebate" is integral to the NRST and is not a socialist mechanism no matter how loudly you proclaim it is. I'm not lying. If I'm confused it's because of trying to cut through your hyperbole. Thus it is you that initiated the confusion. But then again you did say "until the worst fears of a socialist state are realized." Which you claim isn't hyperbole. You can't have it both ways -- either you meant it as hyperbole or you meant it seriously. I took it as serious.

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.