First, why are these the only two options -
why not a national sales tax at a much lower rate and all participate.
The NRST is set for a revenue neutral tax with the broadest participation, where all persons spending consumption dollars in goods and service sectors in the United States participate.
Revenue neutrality, meaning capacity to generate the same revenue into the Treasury as the tax law it replaces (i.e. all federal income, payroll, and gift/estate taxes; individual and business)
Revenue neutrality is required by the Budget Enforcement Act, without revenue neutrality, the must be no challenge to the proposed legislation questioning revenue neutrality as measured by CBO.
The other options are merely the the alternative indirect tax systems that can be implemented that are broad enough to meet the revenue neutrality reqirement of law.
Now there is just no way the 'starving babies- elderly in the streets' scenario should even be mentioned. I know it would be by the democrats - but certainly not by a Republican or a conservative - not necessarily the same animals these days.
You answer your own question, it just takes one Congress Critter's challenge to enforce the revenue neutrality mandated under the Budget Enforcement Act.
First I have to know who you think will be deprived of their very survival if an across the board tax is instituted.
The NRST is a cross the board tax. Your question is irrelavent and not germane. Everyone pays the same tax rate at the retail cash register for all goods and services purchased. Every legal resident requesting it recieves the same amount of FCA.
We don't starve people in this country - the spector just gets resurrected often for political gain.
The remark is totally irrelevant.
Now we were discussing an across the board - no rebate system. You have said if there was no rebate that people would be deprived of their very survival - life even. I want to know what people that would be - what income I suppose is what I mean. I am trying to ascertain what group you think would be deprived of their survival for an across the board - NO REBATE TAXATION OF 10 to 15%?
We don't starve people in this country - the spector just gets resurrected often for political gain.
The remark is totally irrelevant.
No it is not irrelevant to this debate since you brought up the spectre of people being deprived of their survival - didn't you mention something about having to change the constitution and taking out the inalienable righ to life - if a tax and no rebate was imposed on some people? Or was that the other person who was debating? I can look it up - but would rather not. So when someone tells me a tax would deprive people of their survival and other dire predictions - I have to respond with the fact that we do no starve people in this country. The dire threat of non-survival of people is the irrelevancy. But it is assinine to even be discussing that. NO one will starve - no one will be deprived of their right to life - the pursuit of happiness - could be.