Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Zon
I see your point of view, but there is the small possibility of an individual or family being rebated more than they spend on new necessities, a self sufficent hunter/fisherman/farmer living basically offf the land and being thifty by buying as much used articles as possible....

I see there is no perfect solution, but doing away with the rebate and it's administrative costs seems the easiest way to go. Since the rebate only applies to legal residents what about illegals and tourists?

Unfortunately, the rebate seems to be a pacifier for the socialist lefts and a necessary evil to make it politically palatable. I would accept it readily over what we have now.

As you state there would be only two items to fiddle with, the amount of rebate and amount of tax, far better than the thousands of sections of tax code for special interests & resulting political payoffs.
1,035 posted on 11/12/2002 11:37:36 AM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1032 | View Replies ]


To: rolling_stone

Since the rebate only applies to legal residents what about illegals and tourists?

They pay the full tax rate at the cash register same as everyone else but they receive no FCA.

A definite plus in comparison to income/payroll taxes or exemption of particular goods from taxation.

See HR2525 CHAPTER 3:

`SEC. 302. QUALIFIED FAMILY.

`(a) GENERAL RULE- For purposes of this chapter, the term `qualified family' shall mean 1 or more family members sharing a common residence. All family members sharing a common residence shall be considered as part of 1 qualified family.

`(b) FAMILY SIZE DETERMINATION-

`(1) IN GENERAL- To determine the size of a qualified family for purposes of this chapter, family members shall mean--

`(A) an individual,
`(B) the individual's spouse,
`(C) all lineal ancestors and descendants of said individual (and such individual's spouse),
`(D) all legally adopted children of such individual (and such individual's spouse), and
`(E) all children under legal guardianship of such individual (or such individual's spouse).

`(2) IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS- In order for a person to be counted as a member of the family for purposes of determining the size of the qualified family, such person must--

`(A) have a bona fide social security number; and
`(B) be a lawful resident of the United States.

`(c) CHILDREN LIVING AWAY FROM HOME-

`(1) STUDENTS LIVING AWAY FROM HOME- Any person who was a registered student during not fewer than 5 months in a calendar year while living away from the common residence of a qualified family but who receives over 50 percent of such person's support during a calendar year from members of the qualified family shall be included as part of the family unit whose members provided said support for purposes of this chapter.
`(2) CHILDREN OF DIVORCED OR SEPARATED PARENTS- If a child's parents are divorced or legally separated, a child for purposes of this chapter shall be treated as part of the qualified family of the custodial parent. In cases of joint custody, the custodial parent for purposes of this chapter shall be the parent that has custody of the child for more than one- half of the time during a given calendar year. A parent entitled to be treated as the custodial parent pursuant to this paragraph may release this claim to the other parent if said release is in writing.

`(d) ANNUAL REGISTRATION- In order to receive the family consumption allowance provided by section 301, a qualified family must register with the sales tax administering authority in a form prescribed by the Secretary. The annual registration form shall provide--

`(1) the name of each family member who shared the qualified family's residence on the family determination date,
`(2) the social security number of each family member on the family determination date who shared the qualified family's residence on the family determination date,
`(3) the family member or family members to whom the family consumption allowance should be paid,
`(4) a certification that all listed family members are lawful residents of the United States,
`(5) a certification that all family members sharing the common residence are listed,
`(6) a certification that no family members were incarcerated on the family determination date (within the meaning of subsection (l)), and
`(7) the address of the qualified family.

Said registration shall be signed by all members of the qualified family that have attained the age of 21 years as of the date of filing.


1,038 posted on 11/12/2002 11:56:59 AM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1035 | View Replies ]

To: rolling_stone; ancient_geezer
...the rebate and it's administrative costs

The rebate increases the rate by, if I recall, 1.8%??? The % increase in overall rate is a trade off for:
-the tax is no longer regressive,
-the political reality is that necessities must be tax free

I too would prefer no rebate. But I'd also like to marry a young blond girl.

1,040 posted on 11/12/2002 12:30:38 PM PST by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1035 | View Replies ]

To: rolling_stone

I see your point of view, but there is the small possibility of an individual or family being rebated more than they spend on new necessities, a self sufficent hunter/fisherman/farmer living basically offf the land and being thifty by buying as much used articles as possible....

The sportsman is sending X amount of hours each month in the streams or hunting woods or the home vegetable garden. They do their work in those locations rather than at a job that gives them a paycheck for their labor.

Here's the long version:

Suppose forty hours of work each month at a desk job pays the monthly food bill and that the food bill is $738 dollars a month plus the 23% retail sales tax ($170) for a total $908 "out of pocket" monthly food bill.. Thus his forty hours at a desk job pays him $908. Then he applies his $170 prebate check by subtracting it from the $908 total and his out of pocket cost for his monthly food bill is $738. In effect, he spent $908 dollars he got from forty hours of work and ends up with a month's worth of food plus $170 dollars in his pocket.

Let's do similar for the vegetable gardener and assume he buys no food. It takes the vegetarian forty hours of work in his garden to harvest a month's worth of food. The vegetable gardener's forty hours of garden work is the equivalent of $908 if he was getting a paycheck to work in his garden. But instead of getting a paycheck, the fruits of his forty-hours labor is his monthly supply of food, not $908. The garden then applies his prebate check to his forty hours labor and he in effect ends up with a month's worth of food plus $170 dollars in his pocket.

Both men's labor has value. One trades his desk-job labor for money from his employer which he then trades the money for food with the grocer. The other person/gardener works directly creating/producing his food and trades with no other party, neither an employer or grocer. At the end of the month they each have one month's worth of food and $170 dollars in their pocket.

1,049 posted on 11/12/2002 5:17:08 PM PST by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1035 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson