[ancient_geezer]

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)

With an increased tax rate for baby diapers, AIDs medications, etc. to go right along with it.

Perceived cost vs benefit to the majority, will be the rule of elections. Not cost vs benefit to minority interest as it is today where most taxes are hidden from view from the majority of the electorate.

until the worst fears of a socialist state are realized.

And exemption of specific goods and services selected by special interest pressure and desire to social engineering is going to prevent this how?

The real issue comes down to what the American people will allow given knowledge of cost of government intimately in their lives as opposed to special interest benefits they can garner.

FCA allows perception of the cost when NRST is paid at the register by everyone all the time.

Exemption of goods and services creates classes of folks who perceive little to no cost with respect to received benefit.

Under the current system, those receiving the benefits are not those who perceive the burden and out vote the burdened minority. Exemption of tax payment of any sort perpetuates that creation of taxpayers vs benefit receivers whether under an goods exempted NRST or Income/Vat system.

The FCA/NRST system requires payment of the tax regardless of benefit, thus provides a clear perception of cost, as well as perception of benefit.

If the burden is not perceived by certain groups of voters, how can they possibly be motivated to hold government accountable for excess.

"Let virtue, honor, the love of liberty ... be ... the soul of this constitution, and it will become the source of great and extensive happiness to this and future generations. Vice, ignorance, and want of vigilance, will be the only enemies able to destroy it."
-- John Jay, co-author of the Federalist Papers and, later, Chief Justice of the supreme Court

"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
-- James Madison (Letter to W.T. Barry, August 4, 1822)

That is the purpose of assuring that everyone pay a tax at the register on all goods and at rates equal to those of everyone else, that the burden be perceived as well as any benefit or largess arising of ones own particular situtation.

[Technogeeb]

With an increased tax rate for baby diapers, AIDs medications, etc. to go right along with it

Perhaps, but irrelevant. That increased tax rate would not only apply to those goods, but also to all other retail goods. The objective of the wealth redistributors would still be achieved, since they can set the "prebate" to whatever level necessary to offset the cost of the taxation on those goods (and then some, for the purposes of wealth redistribution).

And exemption of specific goods and services selected by special interest pressure and desire to social engineering is going to prevent this how?

Because the "most" socialistic thing you can do merely by exemption is to make the tax paid for something zero. At this point, you're still not giving the taxpayer more than they paid in; you're just not forcing him to pay in anything on those particular item.

FCA allows perception of the cost when NRST is paid at the register by everyone all the time

Unfortunately, it also allows income redistribution at will by any administration that wants to implement it.

The FCA/NRST system requires payment of the tax regardless of benefit, thus provides a clear perception of cost, as well as perception of benefit

The NRST system provides this. The only thing the FCA does (other than create a socialist system, or at least the potential for one) is put a reminder in the back of the mind of people buying certain products that they aren't 'really' paying that much tax on certain products, since they'll get that money back at the end of the month.

Exemption of goods and services creates classes of folks who perceive little to no cost with respect to received benefit

I don't understand how you can say this. I'm not advocating that food be "free" (i.e., that government pay for it); I'm just advocating that simply not taxing it in the first place is a far superior system than taxing it and having a bureaucracy whose purpose is supposedly to refund that amount of tax paid (whether it actually was paid or not). If they want the good or service, they still have to pay for it; they just don't pay any additional government tax in addition to the cost of the product itself.

That is the purpose of assuring that everyone pay a tax at the register on all goods

If that is the goal, then yet again the "prebate" should not be implemented. The core decision is whether or not "necessities" should be taxed. If they should be taxed, then just tax them at the same rate as any other product. But if they shouldn't be taxed, not taxing those particular goods in the first place is far superior to setting up some huge bureaucracy to give every household in the U.S. a monthly check from the government that has nothing to do with the amount of money that particular household actually paid in taxes.