Replies

Hmmm "does" or "can"?

Mostly "does", unless the micromanaging bureaucracy is set up to track purchases and then refund the exact amount of tax paid on necessities, in which case it reverts to "can". But since there is no mechanism in place to prevent the payment of more money to the citizen then he paid in taxes, "does" seems more likely to apply.

A necessity is by definition that which is necessary. So how can you avoid buying necessities?

Easy. I knew a kid in grad school that lived off of beans and rice bought in bulk, vitamins, and water. Such an individual would be spending almost nothing on food, but outside of the micro-managed version of the bureaucracy, he would be receiving far more money than he would have spent in sales tax. In fact, he would be receiving tax dollars that he did not pay. Those tax dollars would have been paid in by another individual. That is income redistribution. It might be a "trivial" amount of redistribution, but it is redistribution nevertheless. And since there is nothing to prevent the same mechanism from being used to redistribution wealth by design rather than by coincidence, I can't see any way that the system will not lead to a level of socialism never before seen in this country.

I don't think the necessities of life should be taxed, do you?

Of course not, which is why I think those items deemed as "necessities" should simply not be taxed, rather than having an intrusive bureaucracy whose purpose is to pay back (or simply give, in some cases) to the consumer the amount of money the bureaucracy seems is "reasonable".

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

What about the inverse situation? A lot of people can't afford to go to the doctor and therefore treat themselves with over-the-counter medications. Should these be tax exempt? If so, then since we're creating one class of tax exempt products, then why not another(food, shelter)? If not, then should the "prebate" check be based on an average amount (and have the people who consume a lot be cheated)? Or should it be the maximum amount (in which income redistribution is again assured)?

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

And that is exactly what this system does. It might not be the intended goal of the system, but it would be the result, if only on a minor level. And that assumes that the system is not immediately corrupted into becoming such a mechanism, and I can see no way in which that result will not be inevitable once the power is in the hands of bureaucrats during a leftist administration.

I am violently opposed to redistribution schemes such as, say, I don't know....maybe THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX CODE!

Then logically, you should be even more opposed to this system. The only income redistribution mechanism in the current tax code is EITC, which even then only offsets payroll taxes. The redistribution in the current budget occurs in separate programs (HHS, HUD, etc), not in the tax code itself.

Explain to me what keeps some administration from simply upping the sales tax rate and increasing the "prebate" amount to turn this into overt socialism?