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

"Every year, the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] determine the "poverty level" for each family size."

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

It doesn't work. They can simply say the poverty level is $150,000. And even if the result of the calculation was only $1, it would still be income redistribution, and still be socialism.

Ah, your true colors seep through. Dishonesty is okay with you

Liar. My "So?" was simply indicative of me not seeing any real problem with no sales tax being paid on medicines (AIDS drugs, in the particular case). Considering that your alternative is worse than simply not paying a tax, but a government handout to every household in the U.S., it is clear that "Dishonesty" is part of your "true colors". You refuse to admit that a government payout to every household in the U.S. is wealth redistribution. If THAT doesn't qualify as redistribution, I can't think of anything that would.

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

Not true. The product gets tax exemption, not some special interest group. Anybody who purchases that product either pays a tax if the product is taxed, or does not pay the tax if the product is not taxed.

For example, AIDS sufferers get exemptions but glaucoma and Alzheimer's suffers don't

No, people who buy AID drugs get exemptions, whether they happen to be AID sufferers or not (a seemingly inconsequencial difference, but the relevant difference nevertheless). In any case, if medicines were declared tax exempt glaucoma and Alzheimer drugs would almost certainly be declared tax exempt as well. Your alternative is a government payout to every household to pay the taxed on AIDS drugs whether that household purchases those drugs or not.

The FCA "prebate" is integral to the NRST

No it isn't; in fact the opposite is true. Without the wealth-redistributing "prebate" mechanism a national sales tax isn't a bad idea.

and is not a socialist mechanism no matter how loudly you proclaim it is. I'm not lying

A payment by the federal government to every household is quite clearly an instrument of socialism. It is a government handout. If you insist that it is not, you are indeed lying, whether you realize it or not. That it is paid to every household equally, far from negating it's socialistic properties, enhances them.

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.

I meant it as serious, not hyperbole. The "prebate" system creates the mechanism for full income redistribution, with no safeguards to prevent any future administration from transforming the US into a pure communist economy. And even without such an administration, the "prebate" system, AS PROPOSED, is socialism. The "safeguards" that you mention (i.e., based on poverty level as determined by the HHS) are worthless and essentially non-existent.

The system that you are advocating is fundamentally flawed.

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

Wealth is income earned and retained after taxes. They have paid far more in proportion to their income in aquiring that wealth than any other class. Your hyperbole merely points once again to the personal problem you have concerning what the rich do with their after tax income.

Even page three of this JCT Study you refer others to, and you base you distribution calculations on says otherwise:

the top 1% receive 17.2% of the income and pay 23.2% of the taxes.

and less than the benefits they receive.

benefits from government? benefits in proportion to tax they pay? Definitely not. Again from your own sources, those who receive the greater share of government largess in proportion to their incomes, the poor, pay the least in taxes:

less than $10000 gross, receive 1% of the income and pay 0.4% of the taxes.

This leaves the great in between middle class which receive:

81.8% of the income and pay 76.4% of the taxes paid, far less in proportion to the income they receive.

Your own sources you rely on, disprove your statements and show your socialist agenda and ingenuousness for what it is.

Your own sources you rely on, disprove your statements and show your socialist agenda and ingenuousness for what it is.

You’re starting to use Technogeeb’s hyperbole. If you re-read my post I clearly state that I agree with you that the higher income groups pay more than disproportionately to their income. That is the only issue addressed by my “own sources.” I then go on to say, that the higher income groups also pay a smaller rate on their wealth. You respond:

Wealth is income earned and retained after taxes. They have paid far more in proportion to their income in aquiring that wealth than any other class.

While this is true, in no way does it negate what I said. You continue:

Your hyperbole merely points once again to the personal problem you have concerning what the rich do with their after tax income.

You identify the comment that the higher income groups pay a higher portion of their income and a lower portion of their wealth as hyperbole? How? It is a statement of fact that doesn’t even include a judgment let alone a hyperbolic comment or judgment. I then go on to say that the wealthiest people receive the greatest benefit from government. This is an opinion not a statement of fact as you seem to think when you respond:

Definitely not. Again from your own sources, those who receive the greater share of government largess in proportion to their incomes, the poor, pay the least in taxes

My “sources” do not address the issue of who benefits from government. However, the most basic (and I would add, valuable) aspect of government services is the defense of life and property from both internal and external threat. Therefore, the more property one has to protect, the more he benefits. In a sentence, that is a primary basis for believing the wealthier classes do not pay for the value received.

Thank you for clarifying your failed character development. You demonstrated your dishonesty and intent to deceive the reader. Thus rendering yourself not to be trusted or respected because you disrespect the reader. You probably think you can mislead and try to deceive the reader and that they should just comply with you and answer your questions -- you're clueless.

Here's the proof in our discussion:

Technogeeb: 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. 898

Zon: Every year, the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] determine the "poverty level" for each family size." 900
Here's the paragraph (in red) that was sandwiched in between and is the paragraph Technogeeb dishonestly omitted in his intent to deceive the reader.
[ 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
Zon: There's the mechanism that prevents an administration from increasing the payout beyond the poverty level. 900

Technogeeb: It doesn't work. They can simply say the poverty level is $150,000. 901

You don't work. Your brain is steeped in irrationality and has rendered you ineffective. According to your "logic" they can do whatever they want. Thus they can do whatever they want with your preferred plan too. For with any plan you propose they can simply say the _______ (fill in the blank) level is __________ (fill in the blank). For example, they can simply say a 99% income tax will be withheld from all paychecks where the person's annual income level is $10,000 or more.

Ancient_Geezer to Deuce: Your own sources you rely on, disprove your statements and show your socialist agenda and ingenuousness for what it is. 902

That's how I see it too, as would any rational, honest person.

Deuce: 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. 899

From what I can tell you have a collectivist groupthink mentality about it wherein you join the corralled group herded into thinking it is okay to sacrifice a portion of the individual's life-and-property rights to the supposed betterment of the group.

"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." 888

ancient_geezer, see post 905.

Good news! The local landfill is willing to accept the IRS's Code and NOT classify it as TOXIC WASTE!

From what I can tell you have a collectivist groupthink mentality

Because I don't favor changing the distribution of the tax burden from what it is now to one which increases it for the middle class---the class to which, I, an individual belong? Connect the dots for me.

Zon: Every year, the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] determine the "poverty level" for each family size." 900

Here's an example of the flaw in your know it all, one size fits all big central government, rebate:

9-25-01

Study: Costs rising for average California families
By Leon Drouin Keith
Associated Press Writer

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The wages needed for the typical California family to meet basic costs total nearly three times the federal poverty level, according to a report released Monday by a non-profit research and advocacy group.

The study by the California Budget Project found that a family of four needs an income of $52,034 a year to earn a modest living -- a 16 percent increase from 1999, when the organization first studied how much it takes to make a living in the state.

The study found that the cost of living is rising faster than the state's average hourly wage, which went up 9.5 percent, from $11.96 in 1998 to $13.10 last year.

Raising two children is tough all around California, said Jean Ross, the project's executive director. Housing costs are sky-high in urban and coastal areas, but because wages are lower inland, "in a lot of respects it's a toss-up," Ross said.

Making ends meet is particularly hard for single parents. An adult raising two kids while working one 40-hour-a-week job would need to earn close to $21 an hour to cover the basics, the report found. That's well over triple the state's minimum wage of $6.25 an hour.

"There has to be some broader awareness that the minimum wage standards are utterly contemptible -- they're not just ridiculous," said Bob Untiedt, executive director of the Hollywood Interfaith Sponsoring Committee, a coalition of churches and a synagogue working to improve the living standards of their community.

Untiedt said that although wealthier people may think that families can get by on much less than the report suggests, doing so means coping with hardships including overcrowded, substandard housing, a lack of transportation and no medical care.

"There really is a lot of struggle in the lives of lots of ordinary people," he said.

The project used the latest available federal and state data to estimate how much families need to pay for housing, transportation, child care, food, taxes and other necessary expenses. It did not take into account this year's federal income tax cut because details on the newest tax tables were not available, Ross said.

The report assumed the families had housing cheaper than 60 percent of their region's rental properties, and that they enrolled in individual health care plans through Kaiser Permanente or Blue Cross.

Although families in lower-cost housing or who have health care through employers or public programs would have lower expenses than the report indicates, there are other expenses that are not included, Ross said.

The study assumes that families rent their homes, do not send their children to private schools, are not saving money and aren't taking vacations, Ross said. "We don't even figure in two weeks at a state park," she said.

Ross said one thing federal officials could do quickly to ease the burden on families is to grant the state a waiver that would allow it to expand its "Healthy Families" program, which provides health care to children in families earning two and a half times the poverty level or less. The waiver would expand the program to the children's families.

So in effect, in your system, contrary to your promise of equality, the impoverished in Cal. for example would be subsidizing the impoverished in other states.

That system would be fair because?_________

Because I don't favor changing the distribution of the tax burden from what it is now to one which increases it for the middle class---the class to which, I, an individual belong? Connect the dots for me. Connect the dots for me.

Okay. The connected dots show your collectivist groupthink mentality is irrational. You seek to enlist government agents to initiate force against certain persons on your behalf. ...For government to force people with higher incomes than you to sacrifice a portion of their individual life-and-property rights so that you may reap the benefits.

Zon said twice to Deuce: "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." 888, 905

Collectivist groupthink mentality is the rule of tribalism -- tyranny of a majority over the individual. It's a form of terrorism inflicted on the individual that if the individual doesn't bow to the tribe's irrationality, dishonesty and mysticism he or she will become the tribe's next victim. There in lies the underlying motive and cause of almost all politicians, bureaucrats, mainstream news media "personalities" and many academics: to undermine honesty.

Dishonesty, mysticism and irrationality are the problem/cancer that terrorize the little guy.

ancient_geezer to lewislynn: "Certainly, the choice to live in a high rent area as opposed to an area that has lower rents and lower taxes, is not a function of necessity. The HSS povertyline is the determinate. How you allocate your income by your choices of where you live or what you specifically buy is your own affair, as it should be." 796 ancient_geezer
Zon to lewislynn: "Lying Lewi, I've seen you on several tax threads going back years. I have no need or desire to engage "heathens" such as yourself. People that lie and are dishonest are not to be respected. For with their dishonest actions they disrespect others. Scorn. That's what you've earned and deserve. I doesn't always have to be that way. You could come clean and regain honor. I'm not holding my breath though." 826 Zon
You probably think you can mislead and try to deceive the reader and that they should just comply with you and answer your questions or take you seriously. You're a joke -- you're clueless.

i'll spend my time talking to somebody who hasn't already made his mind up-

bye

However, the most basic (and I would add, valuable) aspect of government services is the defense of life and property from both internal and external threat. Therefore, the more property one has to protect, the more he benefits. In a sentence, that is a primary basis for believing the wealthier classes do not pay for the value received.

As usual you try to substitute an absolute amount that is with without regard to proportion share for a proportionate measure. I would challenge you to provide statistical evidence if you are claiming that the high income groups are receiving more proportionately for their taxes paid than the low income groups receive in proportion to their taxes paid.

One might further ask which is of more value, life or property. If it is life, do you then imply a rich man's life is more valuable than that of the poor man's?

If you answer property is more valuable than life. I would submit the property of the low income group recieves far more protection in proportion to their tax payment than the high income groups receive in regard to theirs, and again challenge you to back up your claim with statistical evidence. Remember even the ownership of property of the low income groups is subsidized by the government in far greater proportion to their income than can possibly be construed for high income groups.

For evidence of this I refer you again to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics File you pointed out to me in your search for distribution of taxes by income for the year 2000,

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ce/standard/2000/income.txt

and once again I bring your attention to the case of the less than $5,000, average income of $1,942 with an expenditure of $17,946 owning a $40,008 home.

Income	less than $5,000	5,000 to 9,999	10,000 to 14,999	15,000 to 19,999	20,000 to 29,999	30,000 to 39,999	40,000 to 49,999	50,000 to 59,999	greater than 60,000
Gross Income	1,942	7,192	12,245	17,070	23,666	32,720	41,498	54,432	102,578
Expenditure	17,946	15,703	21,199	24,331	29,852	35,609	42,323	49,245	75,964
Personal Taxes	39	447	71	248	861	1,702	2,703	4,128	10,008
OwnedHome Value	$40,008	$38,335	$51,671	$60,981	$60,417	$68,825	80,089	102,153	185,009

In a sentence, that is a primary basis for believing the wealthier classes do not pay for the value received.

Explain to us where the resources for $17,946 a year expenditure comes from, and receiving protection on a $40,008 home( for a group of persons receiving average $1,942 per year income.) paying $39 per year in taxes for that protection.

Tell us how the person in the less than $5,000 bracket above receives less proportionate benefit from government than the top income bracket of greater than $60,000 does paying $75,964 in taxes and receiving protection of his $185,009 home.

Who does not pay for value received? The low income group or the high income group?

Once again the information you have provided and use yourself contradict your reckless and unfounded assertions.

Thank you for clarifying your failed character development

Thank you for identifying that you are a liar. When you realized that you couldn't debate the subject matter honestly, you've switched to personal attacks (starting several posts ago, but I had hoped it was just a temporary failing of yours). When I point out very real flaws (and massively fatal) in the system, you dismiss them as "hyperbole" without even bothering to analyze those flaws.

Here's the proof in our discussion:

And the proof that you are intellectually dishonest. You quote a portion of the mechanism that SEEMS to prevent the flaw in the system. In fact it does nothing of the sort and provides the mechanism for perversion of the system.

You don't work. Your brain is steeped in irrationality

I'm not the one refusing to admit that a system that gives handouts to every household in the US from the government treasury is socialism, and that a system which allows a single, unelected bureaucrat to adjust those values to whatever level he desires is fundamentally flawed.

and has rendered you ineffective. According to your "logic" they can do whatever they want

That's because, under your proposed system, they can do exactly that when it comes to the amount of the government handout. You show this calculation based on proverty level, but are either ignorant (or deliberately deceptive) of the fact that the same administration can modify the value of this calculation merely by changing the value of the poverty level. And since that requires nothing more than the secretary publishing the new value in the Federal Register, your system, once passed, allows a single individual (and an unelected one at that) the ability to convert the economy of the United States into a communistic one. They can choose to make those payouts as large as they want. Far from providing proof of a mechanism to prevent such a perversion of the system, your quote on the "mechanism" shows that it is instead the critical flaw itself.

You demonstrated your dishonesty and intent to deceive the reader. Thus rendering yourself not to be trusted or respected because you disrespect the reader. You probably think you can mislead and try to deceive the reader and that they should just comply with you and answer your questions or take you seriously. You're a joke -- you're clueless. You deserve no person's attention in a discussion. Scorn. That's what you deserve.

the same administration can modify the value of this calculation merely by changing the value of the poverty level. And since that requires nothing more than the secretary publishing the new value in the Federal Register, your system, once passed, allows a single individual (and an unelected one at that) the ability to convert the economy of the United States into a communistic one.

You have stepped beyond the bounds of any rational discussion.

I suggest you straighten your tinhat abit, them spycontrol waves are leaking in around the edges.

Might I suggest something abit more protective, in the way of shielding out them ray blasts from satellites, black helicopters, and secret CIA radio mind control weapons?

The Ultimate in Mind Control Protective Wear

Complete protection in todays spy wave environment, includes portable grounding prod displayed with the full protection tinhat suit. Guaranteed protection against all forms of satellite and ground based emissions.

The review for publication in the Federal Register is extensive with public and congressional input required with presidential review authorization, a process established by statutory law, not the mere fiat of an individual. I would suggest you tone your rhetoric down before you make even more of a fool of yourself than you have already.

The system you are making your statements about is the current one in place and the NRST changes nothing about it. By your reasoning , the EITC of the income/payroll tax system should have already done under the control of liberal congresses and presidents across the last 40 years, what you claim the NRST will do to the nation with an FCA.

The reasoning is flawed in concept as well as being the grossest sort of hyperbole.

You demonstrated your dishonesty and intent to deceive the reader

On the contrary; I'm just pointing out that your tax plan is nothing more than a mechanism for socialism. The only deception being perpetuated is your refusal to admit that a government handout to every household in the U.S. is socialism.

You're a joke -- you're clueless. You deserve no person's attention in a discussion. Scorn. That's what you deserve

Your lies are irrelevant. Now that the facts of your system have been revealed (socialism via government handouts to every household, with a monetary value set by an unelected bureaucrat), you can no longer legitimately argue the system itself, and must resort to personal attacks.

You demonstrated your dishonesty and intent to deceive the reader. Thus rendering yourself not to be trusted or respected because you disrespect the reader. You probably think you can mislead and try to deceive the reader and that they should just comply with you and answer your questions or take you seriously. You're a joke -- you're clueless. You deserve no person's attention in a discussion. Scorn. That's what you deserve.

I would suggest you both tone down your rhetoric and hyperbole.

We have a hard enough time fighting with socialists and liberals among us. To turn on each other for over the perfect method or approach to restoring constitutionally constrained government with accountability to the individual is insanity, and accomplishes more for the status quo proponents and socialists than it provides toward finding solutions, for the real problems in front of us.

I would suggest you both cool off for abit and approach your issues with abit less heat and more clearity of the reason instead of blinding emotional attachment to your own particular personal views.