Replies

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.

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.