Tax Reform Panel Picks Apart FairTax Proposal

I view the prebate a bit differently and it seems to me to be quite filling for the basic precepts involved.

The way the income tax is structured, there are many low income folks who pay little or no income tax (and, of course, quite a number of those who DO). It works a much bigger hardship on such families to universally have to pay a sales tax - which, despite claims to the contrary by the SQL group is not easily avoided - that represents a large percentage of their income.

The prebate is intended to take this tax burden from them - or at least to greatly lessen it depending upon their income. This also helps not just those at the poverty level, but all taxpayers as it lowers their effective rate also. Just lowering the rate does not accomplish the same thing since the idea is to maintain revenue neutrality and having no prebate and a couple of points lower tax rate would not greatly help most people. The small percentage added by the prebate would hardly be noticed by an individual, but the overall funds raised would be considerably lower making passage much more difficult.

In addition, one of the benefits of the prebate is to make the FairTax into a progressive tax that does not punish those at the low end of the scale. This not only helps the low income groups but removes one of the big political arguments that have always been used by opponents of ANY tax reform - that it punishes "the little guy". Make no mistake, that is important in bringing the FairTax into law.

Also, the prebate has the very real benefit of ensuring that all pay a share of taxes and at the same rate while protecting those on the low end of the scale. That becomes important in helping most people begin to realize how much they are actually paying in taxes now. This should help in any grassroots effort to get Congress to reduce spwending once the bill becomes law. The prebate is not without cost to those receiving it since each must pay tax as does everyone else. This means that, particularly, the low income families will notice that their income (including the prebate) is reduced by government taxes. With a true welfare handout, there is no such pain - and believe me it WILL be pain for the low income families paying it as compared to having the money and NOt paying tax as with a real welfare plan. The FairTax is not welfare and it is not free else the tax effect would not be noted.

"Necessities of life" ... ah, yes - what are those? It seems that they are different things to different prople, I can think of no good reason why the government should be allowed to mandate those by declaring certain things exempt or tax favored for everyone. It is much more in line with the desires of the public (and freedom and fairness in general), I think, to have each taxpayer decide what his necessities might (or might not) be. The prebate accomplishes this very nicely.

All receive the prebate and all will notice the portion taken by the government for its endless spending binges. While an increased tax rate might result in a slightly higher prebate it is not a linear increase and, overall, those on the low end would most likely be more badly affected than those higher on the income scale since such increases tend to raise price levels. Also, an increase in the rate affects all taxpayers not just those on the low end of the scale and it would be the injudicious congressman, indeed, who pushes for something so contrary to the wishes of most of his constituents. Any FairTax rate increase would be bitterly contested by a large portion of Congress, I think. Even if the rate were increased (and it is not an automatic thing as some would have you believe) there comes a point where higher rates bring in LESS money for the government - which is one of the interesting characteristics of a sales tax. Even some of the founding fathers knew this as one of the benefits of such a tax.

We'll just have to have a differing view on the prebate since I think is accomplishes a good deal and is, overall, a good thing.

of course, we may have to agree to disagree.

Do you, however, understand my point about how the professed need for a Prebate undermines the argument that prices will fall and the new price including the sales tax will be close to where it is now ?

As an example, we consider that prices currenlty include an embedded 22% that will be removed when the FairTax comes into effect. So ...

A single person with a fixed SS or disability income of $10,000 may be paying no income or payroll taxes directly, but is actually paying $2,200 in taxes embedded in what they spend that income on. They, presumably, are receiving $7,800 in "real value", referred to usually as "buying power".

Under the FairTax, this same person spending their same $10,000 would have $7,700 "buying power" and pay $2,300 in sales tax.

This is not a huge change. Certainly not justifying the $2,176 (12 months of $178) Prebate they are slated to receive. The Prebate in this case leaves the person 20% better-off than before -- both in total income and in actual buying power.

To justify the full-size Prebate is to assume there is something wrong with the theory that prices will fall 22%.

And if we assume the poor in question is actually a worker, then their buying power is currently even lower due to paying the payroll tax. So they would be even better off.

Using the 2003 numbers, ( from http://www.fairtax.org/pdfs/State_and_local_FairTax.pdf ) Karen Walby reduces the taxable base by $1.7T to allow for the rebate. With the rebate, the FairTax rate is 19.1% (because it is rev neutral and we are running a deficit), but without the rebate it would be only 15.9%.

This kind of potential savings certainly gives an incentive to figure out how large the Prebate really needs to be. Perhaps only half of poverty-level spending needs to be Prebated, and FairTax could be 17.5% ?

Maybe the answer is that while 22% is an average of what prices will fall, groceries, housing, and basic clothing are expected to fall by less than 22%. I honestly don't know, although the fact that farmers and builders have widely endorsed the FairTax leads me to believe what are traditionally labeled "necessities" would indeed fall by close to the average 22%.

BTW: I do agree it is nobody's business to decide for others what constitute "necessities", and I do not endorse any attempts to make exemptions to the sales tax.

I understand the point you make but do not quite agree. If a person has only $10,000 income in this day and age that is far down into the poverty level. In an instance like this I think the taxpayer deservews the prebate so that he has, in effect, his tax paid and then some - a negative fax effect. Offering no prebate would be greatly regressive and make the taxpayer far worse off than at present.

Having the prebate in a case like this greatly helps the taxpayer and I don't see how this help undermines the prices falling. The difference between prebate and no prebate (t-i basis) is only about a 3.4% rate difference. I don't view that as a big enough difference to make a great difference in price decreases even if the entire 3.4% were removed and there were no prebate. Obviously were that done, the FairTax would be quite regressive from that standpoint - at least at the lower end.

One of the intentions of the prebate is to greatly help those on the low end of the scale and the case you cites illustrates this sort of help. I don't think the fact that this taxpayer actually benefits from the FairTax necessarily means that prices falling undermines the prebate. To have a prebate obviously some particular point and methodology must be chosen and I think that using the basis as done in the FairTax is a good choice all things considered.

If for no other reason such help for the low income takes away a huge lever from the status quo backers who would otherwise claim with some justification that the Fairtax is regressive. With the prebate that argument goes away.

Perhaps when the bill is marked up that sort of prebate review will come under investigation. Hard to say, but certainly I agree with most of your observations. If we don't agree about the price falling/prebate issue that's OK. I think that will be ironed out as we go along.

Well, it seems I am not being clear.

It isn't that I think the Prebate wilAFFECT how much prices fall. I don't.

My point is that if prices really fall by 22%, then the effective buying power of those at pverty level has been increased. That may be fine with many people, and liberals especially. But we should not mistake it for "fairness", because it isn't. It is "kind". It is "compassionate". But since it is a benefit for the poorest at the expense of the higher-earner, it should rightly be called "welfare" wealth redistribution.

You are correct that to not provide the Prebate opens up the class warfare arguments, just as any truly "flat" tax system does.

I just wish that, at some point, everyone would acknowledge that EVERYONE should pay for the benefits that a government is supposed to provide.

Today, the poor DO PAY to the tune of whatever has been embedded in retail prices -- presumably, 22% of their income is paying (very inefficeiently) some taxes. The FairTax -- if prices do not fall at all -- completely untaxes them. To whatever extent prices do fall, the poorest actually come out far ahead. If their income all avoids the payroll tax, then they come out 20% ahead, and every rise in the sales tax rate makes that even higher. If their income is subject to payroll tax, then they come out 33% ahead, and again, a rise in the sales tax rate increases this windfall.

This imbalance means they actually have an INCENTIVE for the sales tax rate to be higher. That is not healthy for the country. Completely compensating for the sales tax at the poverty level means a higher rate rewards an entire group of voters. Creating a group of voters that would SUPPORT increasing the rate is going to come back and bite us.

I think there's something we need to clarify. You originally said the $10,000 person was paying $2,200 in taxes presently due to the embedded taxes. That's not really the case.

He is paying $2,200 in higher prices CAUSED by taxation but paying no tax. That's a big difference. Presently the taxpayer is paying no tax while under the FairTax he would be receiving the $2,141.30 prebate (2004 data) and if he spent his entire income for consumption he'd be buying about what he now does but would be paying $2,300 in sales tax while doing so (prices would fall, sales tax would raise them back to some level).

This would actually increase his net tax paid from $0 to $158.70 which, while small, perhaps, to some would be noticeable to him no doubt and would represent a share of federal taxation he does not now pay. It is in no respect, however, a windfall.

IOW, I don't think it's correct to believe those at the poverty level pay taxes because they are the victims of higher prices (as are we all) CAUSED by the income tax. And it is not really welfare since they must now pay the sales tax as the same rate as you, I, or Bill Gates.

I believe it is, in fact, a very good solution to a difficult problem of regressivity. The FairTax is the only plan on the table that actually taxes everyone to help pay for this overblown government. Once that is in operation and people see clearly what "our" government really costs us, I believe there will be far more grassroots pressure upon Congress to begin to reduce spending - precisely because even the $10,000 income person is paying along with the rest of us ... and is not doing so now.

Raising the FairTax rate would not be so easy as you might think since ANY change affects all taxpayers. The $10,000 man may think he would be helped, but if he did much figuring he'd see that he is already above the level for the prebate to pay all his sales tax and he would be contributing even more to the federal coffers. Hamilton even knew that there was a point beyond which raising sales tax rates actually reduced the amount of government revenue.

I understand what you mean. You mean he currently doesn't SEE HIMSELF paying a tax, but the FairTax will feel like a tax because he is the one paying it directly.

I generally think of taxes as :

The difference between "value" received and income earned.

Maybe this is just because I have gone through the excercise many times of adding up all the hidden taxes I pay and figuring the real (untaxed) value of what I buy.

If we agree that $10,000 only buys $7,800 in "value", then $2,200 was used up by taxes.

If we consider the same person as having had 7.65% Payroll taxes witheld from his income, then he is only able to spend $9,235 and only receives $7,203 in value. $2,800 was paid in taxes.

Under the FairTax at 23%:
1) Income increases to $12,141
2) Receives 77% of spending as "value" which is $9,349
3) $2,792 went in taxes

If the FairTax was proposed to increase to 30%
1) Income increases to $12,792
2) Receives 70% of spending as "value" which is $8,954
3) $3,838 went in taxes

If the FairTax was proposed to decrease to 17%
1) Income increases to only $11,582
2) Receives 83% of spending as "value" which is $9,613
3) $1,969 went in taxes

That makes me feel better. He does have an incentive for lower taxes. My math was wrong before. I don't know what I was thinking.

His buying power goes up as the rate goes down (yea !!), which means the lowest possible rate that raises the necessary revenue benefits him most. I hope he is smarter than me and can figure that out instead of just voting for the larger Prebate check.

I've read most of the website over the years and I re-read portions constantly. Plus there are new documents added all the time, so it is good to run through it periodically. I also like to go through the "News" page and read what pundits are saying -- sending letters to the editor when I see something mis-represented.

About the Prebate: Although I am happy that no group of voters would have an incentive to increase the rate, the basic premise of the Prebate is still weak.

There is no getting away from the fact that it is an added cost and increases the FairTax rate necessary to raise the revenue required.

I guess it comes down to a question of "need". Do you have a good argument why it is needed ? One that doesn't rest on the merits of creating a "progressive" tax system ?

BTW, the deadline for submitting comments to the Tax Reform Panel on the proposals submitted so far expires on June 10th. The comments submitted so far are overwhelmingly in support of the FairTax compared to any other plan. Of course this is all about awareness, and not really a representative sample of the man on the street. Sadly, most people do not want to think about the taxes they pay. Taxes are a lot like death that way.

Let me ask you a question. First let me say that I haven't read any further yet so I don't know if anyone has commented on your remark. Now the question:

Let's say that the Congress votes in the FairTax and the FairTax Bill calls for the repeal of the Income Tax and the destruction of the IRS, and the start of the process of repealing the 16th Amendment -- you do know that the Congress can pass a bill overnight, but it might take years for the states to act on repealing an amendment, right?

Okay, this is what they do one day and all is good, right? Next week they vote to reinstate everything and still keep the FairTax?

What would you do? Would you just say "Damn, I knew that they'd do this"? or would you head out to the Capitol or your local rep who voted for a reinstatement -- and string 'em up?

If you choose to sit on your ass and just swear, perhaps you should have to pay both taxes.

I know that you are for the FairTax, but we can't be passive about this. Congress has to know that (at least) their political lives are on the line. Perhaps more than that.

They aren't our bosses. They are our representatives. If they do what you suggest, they have declared war on the American people and should pay a hefty price for their transgression.

Does that sound like I'm advocating violence? I sure hope so.

Welcome to the discussion, Dread. You aren't butting in. I welcome feedback on my suggestions with regards to FairTax implementation.

I am not suggesting the struggling poor be taxed more than they are now. I am not suggesting they should end up with less "buying power" than they have now. I am suggesting that having them benefit at the expense of others is welfare.

Put it this way: What is more important when considering two tax alternatives ? 1) How much tax a person pays, or 2) how their buying power is affected.

I would rather make $50K per year and have taxes leave me with $50K buying power than make $200K and have taxes leave me with $40K buying power. I would have no preference whether I make $50K and be left with $40K buying power or make $40K and be left with $40K buying power.

What matters is what any tax system leaves you with in terms of buying power. It doesn't help to have the government give you money with one hand and take it away with the other.

If prices fall by 22%, then the FairTax even at 23% would make prices basically the same as they are now. The buying power has not changed. Even without any Prebate at all, a person's buying power has not diminished. So why is it needed ?

If eliminating the Prebate allows a rate of 20% rather than 23%, this has no effect on prices -- prices still fall by 22% -- so buying power has increased. With no Prebate. (Actually, I can see an argument that prices would fall more with the Prebate because it is more spendable income in the hands of consumers. But only if supply can meet additional demand, otherwise the extra money makes prices rise instead.)

"...folks that struggle to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table ..."

This is an argument based on compassion, charity and social engineering, not fiscal basics. It is the same argument that any "progressive" tax scheme relies on. But it opens the door to all manner of government intrusion -- witness existing "sin" taxes and ponder how long it would take for "the people" to decide there was something wrong with Prebate money paying for those "sins". If the government gives you money, watch out, because they are eventually going to want control over how it is spent. Instead of a check, we might end up with a debit card that would only be valid for certain things -- groceries, "basic" clothing, etc. Sure the FairTax is not written that way now, but I can see it evolving that way because it has been all too easy to tax "sins" and "luxuries" in the past and get away with it.

Of course, the government could give everyone a check as large as they would like. All it requires is that they raise taxes enough to pay for it. When that tax is flat or progressive, the result is income re-distribution.

Without a Prebate, the FairTax needs to raise $1.7T

With the Prebate, the FairTax needs to raise $2.0T

The difference in the FairTax rate with and without Prebate is 3.4%

So the "loser" point for a single person receiving a $2,141 Prebate is when they spend more than $63K.

The "loser" point for a family of four receiving a $5,902 Prebate is when they spend more than $175K.

People with spending below the above levels benefit from the Prebate. People spending above it are having part of their income redistributed to those below it. A single person spending $100K of his income will have $1,250 of his income given away to others. A single person spending $300K of his income (my family dentist, say) will have $8K "redistributed". A really successfull CEO spending lavishly $10M of his income will have $338K of his income given away to others.

And these others were already better off than under the old tax system. So the Prebate is just making them even better off -- at the expense of other people. Charity should be charity. The government shouldn't be playing Robin Hood. Based on the numbers above, it looks like the government will be robbing 10% of the people to hand out goodies to the other 90%.

To me, it sounds like the Prebate exists as an expensive sound bite to buy off support from liberals. And it sets a dangerous precedent. It raises the cost of government as a percentage of GDP, which many studies have shown results in slower growth and lower real wages. It also makes the FairTax a harder sell to those that pay more attention to the rate -- and the total rate when combined with State & Local taxes -- than they do to a Prebate check.

In California, if the FairTax was adopted for State & Local (7% rate) at the same time as nationally (23%), $30 out of every $100 spent would be taxes. Without the Prebate (FED 19.6%, CA 5.5%), it would be only $25. Without the Prebate and without the Windfall on tax-deferred savings in my first post, it (FED 14.5%, CA 5.5%)would be only $20. So the Prebate and Windfall features make the combined tax 50% higher than it otherwise needs to be.

I think careful thought is in order before saddling people with a tax rate 50% higher than it needs to be. If keeping these features is the cost of moving to the FairTax, then let's at least be clear on what those costs are. To say "...only a very slight raising of the sales tax rate ..." is not the whole story.

I am suggesting that having them benefit at the expense of others is welfare.
Put it this way: What is more important when considering two tax alternatives ? 1) How much tax a person pays, or 2) how their buying power is affected.

I think you're looking at it from the other side of the river than I am.
My view is that there is a basic level of spending required to sustain living that shouldn't be taxed. -- The "poverty level" chart is as good a guide as any to define what that level is.
The only way to do that, without getting involved in the financial affairs of the individual or what they buy, is a blanket credit of tax that will be paid on those basic goods. Once the citizen has provided himself with the minimal basics of life, will the state get a share of his spending.
Since every citizen is eligible for the FCA, the prebate is not at the expense of another. It's a refund of your own taxes that you paid to buy those basic necessities.

This is an argument based on compassion, charity and social engineering, not fiscal basics. It is the same argument that any "progressive" tax scheme relies on. But it opens the door to all manner of government intrusion -- witness existing "sin" taxes and ponder how long it would take for "the people" to decide there was something wrong with Prebate money paying for those "sins". If the government gives you money, watch out, because they are eventually going to want control over how it is spent. Instead of a check, we might end up with a debit card that would only be valid for certain things -- groceries, "basic" clothing, etc. Sure the FairTax is not written that way now, but I can see it evolving that way because it has been all too easy to tax "sins" and "luxuries" in the past and get away with it.

Yes, it is an argument based on compassion. Although I think "ethics" is the better word for it.
Even under medieval land tenure, the serf was provided for by the lord during winter and the planting. Only after the harvest could the owner take his share.

The other two ideas that you mention "charity and social engineering"; can only come about if government is involved in your finances and your spending (like it does now). By broadly taxing all consumption and giving everyone a fungible check to credit the tax paid on the basics, you eliminate the main excuses for the state to meddle in the affairs of the citizens.
The limited "welfare" debit card is a possibility that we would have to contently watch-out for; there are (and always have been) politicians that believe the nanny-state should keep track of and control what the ~~livestock~~ citizens are doing.

In your example, you're not considering all of the facts when you say:

"If prices fall by 22%, then the FairTax even at 23% would make prices basically the same as they are now. The buying power has not changed."

But, you see, the buying power HAS changed and quite dramatically in favor of the FairTax since you now have your (formerly taxed) income as tax free while paying the same for purchases as before the FairTax (when you were using after-tax income). That's a net gain in buying power no matter how you slice it.

Reducing that increased buying power by enough to provide the prebate is not a significant change since the rate difference between prebate and no prebate would be about 3 to 4%.

In addition I believe you need to review your analysis of those spending $59,000 and $175,000 since they are incorrect - or perhaps I misunderstand your point. Anyone spending $59,000 will be paying the FairTax of $13,570 and the higher spending will pay much more. Since these spenders are both gaining greatly in purchasing power with the FairTax it is hardly reasonable to describe them as "losing" at the sums you mention even though they would be able to purchase slightly less due to the prebate. Try to recognize where they would probably have been with the presennt system, for example.

Also keep in mind you are not factoring in any sort of investment (interest, dividends, etc.) by these individuals which would work even more to their benefit. You apparently assume they spend all their income. That may not be realistic in many if not most cases. Investment benefits would also redound to the benefit of the FairTax (which, of course, merely adds to their purchasing power).

I have no doubt that we differ at least in degree in viewpoint since I believe that a taxpayer who has his purchasing power greatly increased by the FairTax (though slightly less than it would be increased if there were no rebate) should reasonably be pleased to help some others at the low end of the economic ladder with such a relatively painless method of doing so.

I think it is very beneficial to society that this can be done and I do not believe for one moment - as apparently you do - that it sets a welfare precedent that can be greatly expanded by the government at their whim. Keep in mind that any rate increase in the future (and it is actually more likely that the rate will decrease rather than increase due to economic expansion caused by the FairTax) would affect ALL taxpayers so that politicians will have to tread very carefully. Today, however, rates can be diddled and fiddled along with exemptions, deductions, etc. and "artfully" hidden from the taxpayer.

With the FairTax that ALL goes away and the single rate is there for all to see.

I guess that rather than viewing the taxpayers you note as having a "loser" point at their income levels, I would more likely think them guilty of considerable selfishness or even greed to not be willing to help others with such an easy method available to them. And, no I certainly do not consider it "welfare" at least not in the sense you describe it.

The analysis of the combined state and Federal tax rates also needs some looking into, but I'm not going in to that right now. Step back from the arithmetic of adding up tax rates (which are operating on differing bases, BTW) and think about the effects of the bigger picture of state sales tax due to the FairTax.

Ah, pigdog, where to begin .... ?

["If prices fall by 22%, then the FairTax even at 23% would make prices basically the same as they are now. The buying power has not changed."

But, you see, the buying power HAS changed and quite dramatically in favor of the FairTax since you now have your (formerly taxed) income as tax free while paying the same for purchases as before the FairTax (when you were using after-tax income). That's a net gain in buying power no matter how you slice it.]

Of course it is for someone who is currently paying direct taxes like income taxes and payroll taxes. Remember that I am a fervent supporter of the FairTax, and my arguments are not against it, only to make it as low as possible and prevent it from becoming in any way a welfare program.

My point was really in regards to the "fixed income poor", which by my definition are spending all of their income, while paying no income tax and no payroll tax. So their buying power has not changed much -- the price drop benefit is taken away by the 23% FairTax, but they are not worse off. The Prebate would make them better off. Likewise, without a Prebate but a FairTax rate lower than 23% would still make them better off than the current system. Nobody has LESS buying power than the current system -- even without the Prebate. Yes, most people have MORE buying power -- even without the Prebate.

[In addition I believe you need to review your analysis of those spending $59,000 and $175,000 since they are incorrect - or perhaps I misunderstand your point. Anyone spending $59,000 will be paying the FairTax of $13,570 and the higher spending will pay much more. Since these spenders are both gaining greatly in purchasing power with the FairTax it is hardly reasonable to describe them as "losing" at the sums you mention even though they would be able to purchase slightly less due to the prebate. Try to recognize where they would probably have been with the presennt system, for example. ]

I guess my point was not clear. My comparison in this paragraph was not of FairTax vs. Current System. Or of purchasing power. My comparison was simply FairTax with and without Prebate. A person spending $63K (I didn't use $59K) will pay $14,490 at 23% whereas he would only pay $12,348 at 19.6% -- difference between Prebate and no Prebate FairTax rates. So he is now paying $1 more than his Prebate check of $2,141. From that point on, he loses. His Prebate does not increase, but his tax does.

[... that it sets a welfare precedent that can be greatly expanded by the government at their whim.]

Actually, you cured me of that misconception in my earlier post. Nobody benefits from a higher rate, so as long as it is up to a vote, I don't fear a rate increase. My concern here was that accepting money from the government leads to controls on how you can spend the money. I'd rather not increase the government's power in that regard, given the history of "sin" and "luxury" taxes.

[ ...I would more likely think them guilty of considerable selfishness or even greed to not be willing to help others ...]

Of course, this is the basis of ideologic splits, isn't it ? I think it should be up to the individual to decide what level of charity they want to engage in. I don't think anyone should be forced to be charitable. There are some people that think it is good to give a man a fish to eat, knowing tomorrow he'll be hungry again. Others think a better investment is to teach the man to fish, and he'll never be hungry again. It should be up to the individual to decide how best to help others, when it is his money involved. Government involvement in re-distribution of wealth adds overhead and less help actually makes it to those that need it. If you think good works result from forcing people to hand over money, then I certainly disagree.

[State Sales Tax Rate]

I listened to the Tax Reform Panel meeting where Tom Wright of the AFT presented. I've also read every news pundit's take on the FairTax for the last few months. I've read all of the transcipts of the Tax Reform Panel meetings. The issue of what the combined rate and the ensuing "sticker shock" is one that comes up amongst the skeptics every time. It is the root of the National Retailers Federation opposition to the FairTax. As far as "bases" go, I used the numbers from the AFT document I referenced above. This has an appendix that shows the same breakdown for CA, NY, TX, FL and the US to show how those states could eliminate most other taxes (I picked the number where the Property Tax remained) and harmonize their tax systems to a national FairTax. So the "bases" are identical. The fact that this analysis by the AFT includes calculations with and without Prebate tells me I am not alone in wondering if the Prebate is really a good idea.

I've seen posts by pigdog, ancientgeezer, chiefnegotiator, and others going back to '99 on the FairTax. So I know you've been thinking about it a long time. I've only been thinking about it the last two years and really running numbers only the last six months. So I appreciate your opinions. That won't stop me from looking at all the alternatives to see what could make the FairTax the most appealing to the most number of people. Frankly, there is nobody I know that would say "Yippee, the government is gonna send me a check every month." Not even my sister on getting the EITC would say that. They know nothing comes free and that the term "government help" is usually an oxymoron.

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.