they simply get a "rebate" (prebate) check each month that covers the nrst they pay. It's obvious you're putting forth another straw man argument. Else wise, you thought there was a provision in HR2525 that exempts the poor from paying the NRST in which case you've again demonstrated your ignorance. IMO, it's your intent to deceive, not mere ignorance. But, you see, the statement about the poor not having to pay tax oin necessities was framed as "The poor won't have to pay NRST on necessities, which communicates that they at the point of purchase will pay a lower amount than the others standing in line. This is a attempt to mislead.
An up front and honest statemetn would have been, "The poor can fill out a government form projecting what they will spend on necessities next month amd receive a government check for that amount, if the organization which processes those forms think that projection is with in reasonal limits, and receive that check in time to use it for the month projected.
Do you see the difference? The statement "The poor won't have to pay NRST on necessities" amounts to a lie. And things like this is what advocates will use to convince America to exact an NRST. If a program has to be advertised using deception, what does that say about the program?
BTW, why are you so nasty? What's your problem?
You've been on this forum a whole four months longer than my four years here. Not to mention I've read many of the tax threads.
Then you know I've read and analyzed the NRST HR2525. Why do you ask me if I know it?
Yes. And I comprehend it better than you as noted below.
All right then, if you have read and understood it, answer this question. If the NRST collections at a certain percentage didn't maintain the set (the current level at the initial implimentation of HR 2525) level of social security, what, by law would have to happen?
I don't understand the relevance of your next statement in this post.
But, you see, the statement about the poor not having to pay tax oin necessities was framed as "The poor won't have to pay NRST on necessities, which communicates that they at the point of purchase will pay a lower amount than the others standing in line. This is a attempt to mislead.
Yo dude, get a quote and actually quote it. You have one set of quote marks ( " ). I never said the poor nor anybody else doesn't pay the NRST. Go find the quote where you claim I did or admit your error and correct it. I have been clear and unambiguous in showing where you've attempted to mislead the reader. You're failing miserably in your attempts to paint me as having mislead.
The statement "The poor won't have to pay NRST on necessities" amounts to a lie.
I never wrote that nor did I imply that. Either you go find a place where I said the above quote or correct your error. While you're at it an apology would be nice. Once again you have attempted to deceive the reader. You have been compounding your errors into intentional dishonesty.
BTW, why are you so nasty? What's your problem?
I'm not being nasty. I'm being honorable by not catering to your dishonesty and instead exposing the deception and dishonesty for other readers to benefit. You probably think you can mislead and try to deceive the reader and that they should just comply with you and answer your questions -- you're clueless.
All right then, if you have read and understood it, answer this question. If the NRST collections at a certain percentage didn't maintain the set (the current level at the initial implimentation of HR 2525) level of social security, what, by law would have to happen?
See my statement in the paragraph right above. Then read this, again: "I have no need or desire to educate "heathens". 678