[Zon]

I’m curious. When Technogeeb worries that one of the two establishment parties may actually have a communist intent with regard to FCA, you consider him, perhaps, overly hyperbolic but otherwise aligned with your support of NRST. When I suggest adjustments to merely make the NRST more comparable to the current distribution of tax burden, you consider it a full blown attack on the essence of NRST. How come?

I didn't read his response at all like you apparently have chosen to, then again, I retained the context. I understand your mischaracterization. Not as bad as Technogeeb mischaracterization of the FCA as a "redistribution mechanism"877 -- despite having it previously explained to him that it's not redistribution because every household receives an equal size check each month. That is, all single-person households get the same check as do all two-person house holds get the same check as do three-person households get the same check, etc. The distribution is equivalent and not even mandatory. Any person can chose not to receive the monthly checks and mostly that will be the upper income persons that will let their equal share remain as tax revenue. In that sense people by free choice can volunteer to pay more taxes which is very different than having the government with gun-to the-head forcing upper-income persons to pay more taxes.

Taxation is necessary to gain revenue but honest principle, integrity, honoring and protecting individual life-and-property rights are primary unit. All those in bold are violated when taxes are imposed greater on one group than another. It sacrifices a portion of the individual for the supposed betterment of the group. It is collectivist groupthink. Like voting for the lesser of evils always begets evil -- how so many people thinking they're right can be so wrong. Politics, and especially reflected in politics of taxation, suck. Politics suck objectivity out and insert irrationality in. Individual life-and-property rights are primary and must be protected, honored and respected -- not sacrificed.

In practice the FCA is this: For each single-person household the government acknowledges that each of those persons is going to pay $170 in NRST on the necessities they buy each month. Thus, because the government doesn't know which specific necessities each of those millions of single-person households are going to buy rather than exempt a slew of different items that would cause even more politicians and bureaucrats committing "look busy" partisan bickering (work) and special interests' "bribery" forever fighting over what should be exempt and not exempt the government won't exempt anything and just send each single-person household a $170 check each month. Thus cutting out the partisan bickering and special interest bribes that are partially responsible for creating the leviathan government in the first place.

[Technogeeb]

Technogeeb mischaracterization of the FCA as a "redistribution mechanism"877 -- despite having it previously explained to him that it's not redistribution because every household receives an equal size check each month

If every household receives an equal size check each month, then this is redistribution. I do not understand how you can characterize this as anything else. "To each according to his needs (necessities)" is NOT a republican concept. The only way to prevent it from being redistribution would be a system that allowed a specific rebate based on taxes that were actually paid (which eliminates much of the desirability of the system, since it would require a "tax return" to be filled out along with the appropriate receipts for which a refund is being requested, a bureaucracy just as large as the IRS, etc).

In practice the FCA is this: For each single-person household the government acknowledges that each of those persons is going to pay $170 in NRST on the necessities they buy each month

But what if they don't? If they pay less than $170, then tax money (paid by another individual into the general treasury) that isn't theirs will be given to them. That is income redistribution. And to further complicate matters, what if they pay much more than that (I know one individual that pays several times that much money a WEEK in medical expenses alone). Why should she have to pay taxes on something that is a "necessity" for her? Why not eliminate this problem and instead of creating a bureaucracy (which introduces the risk of overt socialism whenever some future administration decides to implement it), simply make things that are deemed "necessities" tax free?

Thus cutting out the partisan bickering and special interest bribes that are partially responsible for creating the leviathan government in the first place.

I think you're being a bit naive to believe it would eliminate such. Instead, I see the "partisan bickering" moving to the subject of the amount of the "prebate", with continual increases in this amount (automatic cost of living adjustments, increases to special interest groups such as people that need to purchase AIDS medicines, etc) until the worst fears of a socialist state are realized.