Replies

Redistribution is taking it from one and giving to another. That doesn't happen with the prebate.

Yes it does; or at least it can. The prebate/rebate is a check drawn from government accounts that goes to a recipient. That recipient then spends (or doesn't spend) that money. Unless the associated bureaucracy literally micromanages the economy and watches the spending of every single citizen to assure they get back only the exact amount to the penny that they paid in taxes on the relevant items, the result will be tax money (paid in by one individual) that will be going to another individual. That is redistribution of the wealth.

It is provided to an individual who then spends it back to gov't.

If that is really true, then it is self-evidently the most idiotic thing any member of Congress has ever proposed. What possible benefit could be obtained by having a bureaucracy whose sole purpose in life is to collect taxes from an individual, and give them the exact same amount of money back? It certainly provides no benefit to the taxpayer, and there is no gain derived in tax receipts. Obviously, the real purpose for the existence of such a mechanism and associated bureaucracy must be something else. If it is not redistribution of wealthy (the only thing for which it seems to be useful), then what is its purpose?

The reason for the prebate check to all families is to eliminate the need to identify specific items for exclusion and to eliminate the need to track income, as that would open the door to manipulation and politics... exactly what we want to avoid.

In that case, another mechanism needs to be found. Adding specific items for inclusion/exclusion of taxes is nothing compared to the risks the rebate system would have.

If somebody were to try to increase the tax rate, the rate would go up equally on EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL WHO BUYS ANYTHING- every kid, every adult, and most importantly, every single voter.

And at the same time the tax rate went up, the government would simply increase the "prebate" amount, thus guaranteeing to these people that THEY wouldn't be paying the higher rate (or worse, they would be getting back even more money from the government each month, whether they spend the money or not).

which is NOT, btw, redistribution

Sorry, but the only way to keep such a system from being income redistribution would be a police state tracking even the smallest of purchases. No thanks; I'll stick to the tax code as it exists now (as much as I despise that particular abominiation).

Did you know Doritos is exempt but Fritos aren't? Did you know bologna is exempt but hot dogs aren't

Perhaps in some states. But this could not legally be done at the federal level. Such a specific enumeration of products by brand name would be a bill of attainder, and illegal under the Constitution (of course, that probably wouldn't stop them, but still the principle is there).

I realize what you are saying as to the purpose (or rather, the purpose by the author) of the "prebate". But the very existence of the associated bureaucracy that would be required for it's functionality, not to mention the risk of tampering for income redistribution purposes, still appears to be a fatal flaw in the scheme. It would be far simpler (not to mention being cheaper for both the taxpayer and government) just to not tax those things in the first place.

Yes it does; or at least it can.

Hmmm "does" or "can"?

A necessity is by definition that which is necessary. So how can you avoid buying necessities? They are necessary, required, essential, compulsory, obigatory, indispensable, etc.

There can be no accumulation of the rebate to an individual for this reason. Hence the "redistribution" you appear fixated upon is not germane.

Every single family who wished to receive the "prebate" may do so. The prebate is simply the tax money that a family will spend on necessities. Hence necessities become untaxed. I don't think the necessities of life should be taxed, do you? You realize, of course, that the necessities of life ARE being taxed right now?

If some individual starves himself in order to pocket a few bucks, he'll start a mass wave of "hungry for dollars" campaigns across the nation!

BTW I obviously don't think there's any redistribution of wealth going on with this proposal. Redistribution is the policy of taking from one in order to give to another. I am violently opposed to redistribution schemes such as, say, I don't know....maybe THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX CODE!

Anything I can do to minimize redistribution I dang well do.

If that is really true, then it is self-evidently the most idiotic thing any member of Congress has ever proposed.

You leaving out the personal exemptions and standard deductions of the income tax, and EITC in your reconning?

Congress has always been rather idiotic. If they weren't I would prefer no FCA or excepted goods under the NRST at all.

Problem is, a strong majority of Congress is rather idiotic in what they do, at least mercenary in their intent.

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw

Right now the bottom 60% perceive little to no "Individual Income Tax" burden,(in many cases even a handout) and 70% of the voting public clamors for more from government looking for the top 40% of income earners/producers to foot the bill. That perception continues to grow ever stronger by eliminating even more participants from the Federal Individual Income Tax rolls as proposed in the tax reduction proposals through changes in personal exemption limits and other mechanisms such as the EITC.

Congress plays both ends against the middle; hiding the real burden in inflation, higher prices on all goods and services, lower takehome pay, lower return on investment, and higher interest rates. All keeping the poor right where they are and pushing for more freebees.

That shell game has to end. The NRST is a solid means to achieve that.