[ancient_geezer]

This particular aspect of some of the national retail tax schemes seems very disturbing to me. The idea of the United States government sending a monthly check to every household in the US is a mechanism of socialism at its worst;

The key is whether or not you want an Retail tax or one of the versions of income tax.

Yes, it would be appropriate to remove all exception to the tax, including supposed necessity. There, by rights should be no exception what so ever.

Unfortunately that is not the politically viable choice before us at this to, the future perhaps but not at this time.

The choice is between graduated Income taxes and VATs, the direction the socialist want to take in order to separate the perception of who bears the tax burden from those who partake in government largess.

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

And the NRST in which makes the burden equally visible to all citizens.

The NRST recognises on basic principle, and that is the individual must choose and the individual must exercise responsibility commensurate with his liberty.

Life and that which is necessary to life should not be taxed by government, nor should government make the choice of that which is necessary to the individual necessity anymore than is absolutely necessary to fiscal responsibility.

The Family Consumption Allowence(FCA) is a recognition not taxing that which is most precious and the ultimate right of the individual without which all other rights are meaningless. That is life itself.

The FCA is the alternative to government choosing what goods and what service are essential for the individual. A thing that only an individual in the totality of his experience can know.

You may not like the answer I have given or may not feel it pure enough in motive. But the simple fact is this nation will tax, the key is how it should tax and how do we limit its reach in regards to that which should not be taxed.

I see the FCA as the least objectionable in terms of personal freedom to choose for one's self, of other schemes put forth to assure necessity (that minimum necessary to the maintenacne of life) is not taxed and taxation of consumption(an indirect tax) become taxation of property(the most onerous and intrusive of the direct taxes.)

It's your choice my friend.

[Technogeeb]

The key is whether or not you want an Retail tax or one of the versions of income tax.

Obviously, I would prefer a retail tax. But not with the redistribution mechanism. That is so obviously flawed that I would prefer even the current abomination of a tax code over it.

Unfortunately that is not the politically viable choice before us at this to, the future perhaps but not at this time.

Why not? What difference does it make to a "moderate" whether or not food, clothing, and shelter are merely "tax free" or are offset by a "prebate/rebate" system? If the real reason is just to offset the tax on "necessities", why not simply make them tax free in the first place and eliminate the bureaucracy (and it's potential for abuse by its mere existence)?

The Family Consumption Allowence(FCA) is a recognition not taxing that which is most precious

If the objective is to not tax necessities, then why not simply not tax those items in the first place? The existence of such a system (and the associated bureaucracy, which would have a scope just as wide as that of the IRS, touching the lives of every American citizen) seems to be a fundamental flaw in what is otherwise a simple, effective (and desirable) mechanism of taxation.

[Deuce]

Technogeeb: This particular aspect of some of the national retail tax schemes seems very disturbing to me. The idea of the United States government sending a monthly check to every household in the US is a mechanism of socialism at its worst;

Ancient_Geezer: The key is whether or not you want an Retail tax or one of the versions of income tax.

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?