[Zon]

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.

[Technogeeb]

"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.