CAVUTO REPORTS THAT BUSH CONSIDERING SCRAPPING THE IRS CODE!!!

Fox News Channel | November 6, 2002 | n/a

[Principled]

The amount of the check is exactly the amount spent on necessities AS DEFINED BY THE INDIVIDUAL, not the government.

When did you stop beating our wife.?

Your reply did not address the post to which you replied. Again, under then nrst hr2525, the individual defines necessities, not the governemnt.

My post was not about any check of any kind. It was an assertion that under HR2525, the individual decides what is necessary, not the government.

I further assert that you are opposed to this individual decision making. Likely you oppose it b/c you are a leftist who believes that we need government to decide for us what is necessary for our lives.

[ancient_geezer]

Technogeeb: Robert Reich, Clinton's secretary of labor, "has admitted that the administration didn't adjust the poverty level" during the Clinton administration for fear that it would make the poverty rate would look worse. Check out the May 26, 2001 issue of the New York times for proof of his statement. 942

Perhaps Technogeeb will be kind enough point out a year in which the proverty threshold value did not change, the changes of value are upward infact, during the Clinton administration, and consistent with the trend of prior years as well as those following the Clinton administration.

If there is an exception I can't seem to find one.

refer: the published values of poverty threshold since 1983: http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/threshld.html

refer: also the publish values of poverty guidline values since1982 (the second simplified measure for legislative implementation): http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/figures-fed-reg.htm

 

Obviously Clinton did not allow HHS and the Census bureau to change the methodology(i.e definition), as many liberals want to to expand the definition of poverty through changing the method by which poverty is measured to expand welfare benefits to a broader group of potential constituents.

The evidence is precisely opposite of what technogeep claims, there is no evidence of a manipulation of the definition or value of the poverty level at the arbitrary whim of bureaucrats in the manner Technogeeb suggests happened.

[Principled]

The evidence is precisely opposite of what technogeep claims...

As we have learned to expect from it.

[rolling_stone]

Why have a rebate for consumption at all? Eliminate more paperwork and rebate checks, which would eliminate much of the administrative cost and bureacracy. What does it cost to administer the rebates? How much could the tax be lowered by eliminating the rebate?

It seems so simple to have escaped the legislators...Of course then everyone will pay some tax, what a unique thought, everyone that benefits from the government pays for it. Ah yes reminds me of that old bumper sticker, A$$ Gas (Grass)or Cash, no one rides for free.....

[rolling_stone]

I hate to jump into this skirmish, but you stated:

The amount of the check is exactly the amount spent on necessities AS DEFINED BY THE INDIVIDUAL, not the government.

As I see it the individual does determine what they spend on necessities, but the government determines how much the check should be by multiplying the poverty level times the tax rate and dividing by 12 for each month, thus an individual or family may be rebated more or less than they spend on necessities.

[Technogeeb]

When did you stop beating our wife.?

So now your lies have stooped to this level? Just out of curiousity, did you mean "your" or are you a polygamist as well as a socialist?

Your reply did not address the post to which you replied. Again, under then nrst hr2525, the individual defines necessities, not the governemnt

No, under hr2525 the government sends a government check to every american. The amount of that handout has nothing to do with "necessities", it is value based on the poverty level as defined by a government bureaucracy.

My post was not about any check of any kind. It was an assertion that under HR2525, the individual decides what is necessary, not the government

More lies. Your post was about supporting the government handout scheme in the bill. If you were really interested in removing the hand of government, you would suggest the removal of the government handout. Without it, a NRST as a replacement for the income tax wouldn't be a bad thing. But with it, it is tainted by socialism. But that's what you want. You can't stand the idea of not getting your government check and losing your ability to leech off the taxes paid by other people.

I further assert that you are opposed to this individual decision making. Likely you oppose it b/c you are a leftist who believes that we need government to decide for us what is necessary for our lives

I've already stated my views multiple times. Eliminate the bureaucracy and just charge a lower flat rate, and if someone complains about taxing "necessities", then just don't collect a tax on those items (food, clothing, shelter, and possibly medicine) in the first place. But you aren't satisfied with this simply, non-intrusive solution. Instead, you want a system where there is a government bureaucracy sending handouts to every household in the U.S. of an amount that has nothing to do with the amount of taxes those individuals paid. In other words, you can't stand the idea of losing your government check and being able to leech off the taxes paid by others.

[Havoc]

Is there any possible way you can try to make your case without being obtuse? Point of fact: If you pay 200 in taxes for the year (arbitrary number) and you recieve what you call a "refund" for 400 dollars, you have just taken a 200 dollar government handout. That is redistribution of wealth and by definition is socialistic. No matter how you try to wiggle around in imprecise verbage to obfuscate that fact. This is a Republic, not a Socialist dictatorship.
And I'm a taxpayer. I'm not paying taxes so that you can enjoy the benifit of my hard work. Nor am I going to vote for a candidate that sees fit to play redistribution games.
If you want socialist policies, go to a socialist country.
Otherwise, stop playing games with words and try joining the conversation.

[Technogeeb]

Perhaps Technogeeb will be kind enough point out a year in which the proverty threshold value did not change, the changes of value are upward infact

The values used to calculate poverty are usually manipulated every year. Instead of being a discrete calculation based on some fixed equation as you claim, the "methodology" includes arbitrary weighting factors whose values can be adjusted by the bureaucrats as desired. To suggest that the values are meaningful (other than as an arbitrary number agreed upon by bureaucrats) and should be used for policy purposes is insane. The only reason the "values are upward infact" is that some of the factors of the calculation, such as inflation, do change regardless of the actions or inaction of the bureaucrats to change the other values. In the case of the Clinton administration, they deliberately used values for the "weighting factors" to minimize the appearance of poverty, but even they admit that the numbers are meaningless.

[Zon]

For The Record

I see that you have not corrected your errors despite the ample evidence that contradicts your claims. It is always wise to correct ones own errors as it is how a person can most benefit despite having made an error in the first place. Every person makes errors. It's part of life. Correcting ones own errors is an integral and critical component of honest character development.

Conversely, to willingly neglect correcting ones own errors compounds the error into a bigger loss and bigger problem. To treat ones own self with such disrespect is irrational and dishonest. It is serves no other means than self-destructiveness. It's to live a contradiction.

The above two paragraphs is precisely why I encouraged you in posts 1006 and 1010 to post the article yourself and take the initiative to correct your errors. That's why I encouraged you. I didn't tell the reason why I encouraged you, but I did tell you that it would be good for your credibility in the eyes of others. Frankly, IMO, you definitely should have corrected your own errors and reaped the rewards rather than chose self-abuse. Tis a truly a shame you passed up the opportunity.

* * *

Zon: The New York Times articles can be posted in their entirety on FreeRepublic without violating The New York Times copyright. But you already know that because everyday there's a half dozen or more full New York Times Articles Posted on FreeRepublic -- usually with internal links placed in one or more of the side bar categories for easy access and to attract attention to the NYT articles. 1010

I think you are lying again (not surprising). I have seen several comments pulled for supposedly violating that restriction. Is there a moderator that can verify this one way or another?

Your opinion that I lied has zero credibility. You've known all along that if you were sincerely worried about violating the NYT copyright you could have posted just the quote.

I see that you have finally posted the quote in your post 1015. Yet you still stand by your false claims since you didn't correct your errors despite the fact that the quote contradicts your claims.

Six complete articles posted on FreeRepublic -- all of them linked internally from the side bar. Ten hours from I now I could probably pull six more NYT article links off the side bar.

Bush and G.O.P. to Push for Medicare Drug Benefit (Socialists What rights will you give up

Iraq Said to Try to Buy Antidote Against Nerve Gas

Stung by Losses, Party Buzzes About Its Leader (Terry McAuliffe)

Where Winning Breeds Criticism

The Saudis' Brand of Islam and Its Place in History

A job for the De Facto Democrats

Plus three more complete articles posted on FreeRepublic:

Immigrants Facing Strict New Controls on Cash Sent Home

Lawmakers Move Toward Compromise Curbing Worker Rights in New Department

Stung by Losses, Party Buzzes About Its Leader

* * *

Technogeeb: Robert Reich, Clinton's secretary of labor, has admitted that the administration didn't adjust the poverty level during the Clinton administration for fear that it would make the poverty rate would look worse. Check out the May 26, 2001 issue of the New York times for proof of his statement. 942

Robert Reich admitted that the administration didn't adjust the poverty level??? Hmmm...

Technogeeb: If "falsifying poverty level" numbers were really a crime capable of being prosecuted, then show me a conviction. There is more than enough evidence (and even a "confession" by Robert Reich in the New York Times that the Clinton administration did that specifically) 973

More than enough evidence??? Hmmm...

Why have you shown no evidence??? Hmmm...

Claiming there's an article in The New York Times that backs up your claim is not evidence. It's a second claim -- a claim on top of a claim. Hmmm...

Technogeeb: I've already mentioned statements by Clinton administration officials (and where those statements can be found) admitting to manipulation of the numbers for political purposes. What more evidence do you need that the "poverty level" is subject to manipulation by the bureaucracy? 986

You keep saying things like "there is more than enough evidence" and "what more evidence do you need" -- yet you haven't posted a 'lick' of evidence to support your claim. Hmmm...

If there's supposedly an abundance of evidence available how come you haven't posted any of it??? Hmmm...

What more evidence does a person need??? Hmmm...

More than zero. Hmmm...

With that one May 21, 2001 New York Times article being your only claim of evidence you assert that that's more than enough evidence to prove that "the administration didn't adjust the poverty level during the Clinton administration" and  further assert that it's more than enough evidence for the reader to base his or her decision on??? Hmmm....

Technogeeb: Until you can show me a picture of Robert Reich in prison (or indeed, suffering any punishment whatsoever) for committing the "crime" to which he confessed (May 26, 2001, New York Times) 974

You want Robert Reich imprisoned or to suffer punishment for committing the "crime"??? Hmmm...

Why is crime in quotes??? Hmmm..

Wouldn't it be an inversion of justice -- an injustice -- to imprison a person that didn't commit a crime??? Hmmm...

Robert Reich went on the record with The New York Times and confessed that he committed a crime -- a federal crime??? Hmmm...

Is the NYT the laughing stock of failed credibility that doesn't warrant the government arresting Robert Reich for the crime he openly confessed to and put on record at the NYT??? Hmmm...

Could it be that Robert Reich never confessed to the NYT that he committed a crime??? Hmmm...

* * *

Technogeeb: Robert Reich, Clinton's secretary of labor, has admitted that the administration didn't adjust the poverty level during the Clinton administration for fear that it would make the poverty rate would look worse. Check out the May 26, 2001 issue of the New York times for proof of his statement. 942

Technogeeb: Until you can show me a picture of Robert Reich in prison (or indeed, suffering any punishment whatsoever) for committing the "crime" to which he confessed (May 26, 2001, New York Times) 974

Pertinent section from May 26, 2001 New York Times article:

How to Define Poverty? Let Us Count the Ways

By LOUIS UCHITELLE
How to Define Poverty Let Us Count the Ways

"Since 1995 the bureau has been developing a new measure, one pegged more closely to the actual cost of getting by. A progress report is due in July, but building the new income and expenditure procedures and testing them take time, Census Bureau officials say. A final proposal is not likely to reach the White House for approval in President Bush's current term.

"Not that he minds. His predecessor didn't. ''Whenever the question of the poverty data came up informally,'' said Robert B. Reich, who was President Bill Clinton's first secretary of labor, ''the consensus was not to change the standard for fear the poverty rate would look worse'' -- although the present poverty figures, as Mr. Reich put it, ''are almost meaningless.''

The Clinton Administration did adjust the poverty level numbers/guidelines.

Robert Reich did not confess to committing a crime.

The Clinton administration reached an informal consensus to not change the standard (methodology). Yet the Census Bureau since 1995 has been developing a new measure that's more closely pegged to the actual cost of getting by. Apparently, or obviously the Census Bureau doesn't act on informal consensus. As the below table shows, the Clinton administration did in fact adjust the poverty level numbers/guidelines.

Department of Health and Human Services Poverty Level
Guidelines for the Eight Years Bill Clinton was President

 

Year	First Person	Each Additional Person	(Four-Person Family)
20001/	8,350	2,900	( 17,050)
19991/	8,240	2,820	( 16,700)
1998	8,050	2,800	( 16,450)
1997	7,890	2,720	( 16,050)
1996	7,740	2,620	( 15,600)
1995	7,470	2,560	( 15,150)
1994	7,360	2,480	( 14,800)
1993	6,970	2,460	( 14,350)
1.  Note that 1999 and 2000 poverty guidelines figures should NOT be used in connection with determining poverty population figures from 2000 Decennial Census data.  Poverty population figures are calculated using the Census Bureau poverty thresholds, not the poverty guidelines.

Summary Historical Figures

* * *

Technogeeb: Robert Reich, Clinton's secretary of labor, has admitted that the administration didn't adjust the poverty level during the Clinton administration for fear that it would make the poverty rate would look worse. Check out the May 26, 2001 issue of the New York times for proof of his statement. 942

Technogeeb: Until you can show me a picture of Robert Reich in prison (or indeed, suffering any punishment whatsoever) for committing the "crime" to which he confessed (May 26, 2001, New York Times) 974

As the reader can see Technogeeb is willing, hopeful and would perhaps be gleeful to see an innocent man imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit -- a fraud perpetrated by Technogeeb's wherein he knowingly accuses an innocent man of a crime which he did not commit.

The tables below show that the Clinton administration did adjust the poverty levels.

The Federal Register

Poverty Level Guidelines the Department of Health and Human Services put on the Federal Register for Seven of Eight Years Bill Clinton was President

Size of family unit  ----------- Poverty level guideline for 1994 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1........................................................... $7,360 2........................................................... 9,840 3........................................................... 12,320 4........................................................... 14,800 5........................................................... 17,280 6........................................................... 19,760 7........................................................... 22,240 8........................................................... 24,720 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAIS Document Retrieval

Size of family unit  ----------- Poverty level guideline for 1995 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1............................................................ $7,470 2............................................................ 10,030 3............................................................ 12,590 4............................................................ 15,150 5............................................................ 17,710 6............................................................ 20,270 7............................................................ 22,830 8............................................................ 25,390 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAIS Document Retrieval

Size of family unit  ----------- Poverty level guideline for 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1............................................................ $7,740 2............................................................ 10,360 3............................................................ 12,980 4............................................................ 15,600 5............................................................ 18,220 6............................................................ 20,840 7............................................................ 23,460 8............................................................ 26,080
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAIS Document Retrieval

Size of family unit  ----------- Poverty level guideline for 1997 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1............................................................ $7,890 2............................................................ 10,610 3............................................................ 13,330 4............................................................ 16,050 5............................................................ 18,770 6............................................................ 21,490 7............................................................ 24,210 8............................................................ 26,930 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAIS Document Retrieval

Size of family unit  ----------- Poverty level guideline for  1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.......................................................... $8,050 2.......................................................... 10,850 3.......................................................... 13,650 4.......................................................... 16,450 5.......................................................... 19,250 6.......................................................... 22,050 7.......................................................... 24,850 8.......................................................... 27,650 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAIS Document Retrieval

Size of family unit  ----------- Poverty level guideline for 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1....................................................... $8,240
2....................................................... 11,060
3....................................................... 13,880
4....................................................... 16,700
5....................................................... 19,520
6....................................................... 22,340
7....................................................... 25,160
8....................................................... 27,980 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAIS Document Retrieval

 Size of family unit  ----------- Poverty level guideline for 2000  ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1........................................................... $ 8,350 2........................................................... 11,250 3........................................................... 14,150 4........................................................... 17,050 5........................................................... 19,950 6........................................................... 22,850 7........................................................... 25,750 8........................................................... 28,650 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
waisgate

[Technogeeb]

I see that you have not corrected your errors

There are no "errors" to correct, other than the ones you continue to spew.

Your opinion that I lied has zero credibility. You've known all along that if you were sincerely worried about violating the NYT copyright you could have posted just the quote

I did post the quote, you liar, in post 1015.

I see that you have finally posted the quote in your post 1015. Yet you still stand by your false claims since you didn't correct your errors despite the fact that the quote contradicts your claims

"finally"? A reference to the article was provided even before you demanded it, and someone else had already provided a link. And far from "contradicting" my claims, it makes them. The author of the quote admits to using inaccurate numbers that "meaningless" simply because using correct numbers would not be politically advantageous.

That quote was referenced in response to your claims that the government bureaucracies could be trusted (you insisted that the HHS was "honest" when the evidence shows otherwise). Your continued attempts to change the subject do nothing to back up your claims; compared to your level of dishonesty it isn't surprising that you would consider the bureaucracies honest when even they themselves admit using meaningless numbers.

[Zon]

The evidence is precisely opposite of what technogeep claims, there is no evidence of a manipulation of the definition or value of the poverty level at the arbitrary whim of bureaucrats in the manner Technogeeb suggests happened.

Sigh!

There, I'm over it now. Thanks for the link to the Census Bureau tables. I couldn't get onto the site last night/early morning. Servers were down or something.

[Zon]

As I see it the individual does determine what they spend on necessities, but the government determines how much the check should be by multiplying the poverty level times the tax rate and dividing by 12 for each month, thus an individual or family may be rebated more or less than they spend on necessities.

Here's how I see it:

The prebate check for a one person household is $170. At the NRST rate of 23% how many purchasing dollars does that cover? The person can purchase $739.10 worth of new goods and services a month. The 23% retail sales tax paid on the purchase of $738.10 worth of new goods and services is $170.

Only the individual knows what is a necessity for himself or herself. It may be groceries; it maybe restaurant meals; it may be tobacco products; it may be medicine; it may be a new bicycle; it may be a new Kirby vacuum cleaner; it may be booze; it may be needle point; it may be a new puppy; it may be new tires for the car; it may be car insurance; it may be lawn care service; it may be jewelry; it maybe a snowmobile suit; it may be a computer; it may be a washing machine; it may be baseball season tickets; it may be ________. Anything and everything that is sold as a new item retail a person may consider a necessity.

[Principled]

As I see it the individual does determine what they spend on necessities,

Yes.

They may decide on their own necessities.

HR2525 asserts that there is a certain level of spending that should be without taxes. Regardless of how you choose to use up your tax-free purchases, there is a defined level of purchases that are made tax free.

Similarly, it asserts that only discretionary spending should be taxed.

To synthesize these assertions, it was concluded that untaxing necessities of life (as defined by the individual) would satisfy both of these. The ned result is that necessities are not taxed while the remainder is discretionary and is taxable spending (by definition that which is not necessary is discreitonary).

THere is no question in my mind, after studying the bill for years, that the mechanism used to untax is a refund of taxes - as it is a refund, it is not an entitlement. Money does not flow from one individual to another individual. Money flows back and forth between a single individual and the government.

The level of tax-free purchase is set at the HHS poverty level. See ancient_geezer's many posts for definitions and links if desired. Contrary to the assertions of another poster, the poverty level is not arbitrarily set by a bureaucrat without oversight by elected officials. Again, see the links from ancient_geezer.

The question I still have is about changing the level of tax free spending at some point in the future.

COngress sets the actual tax rate. I want to know more about the mechanism behind the potential changes in the level of tax free spending...

From an economic and a political standpoint, the overall tax rate will have trememdous downward pressure on it. The left, however, will put upward pressure on the level of tax free spending. But if the level of tax free spending increased, so would increase the overall tax rate.

So there will be competing interests, mitigated by the fact that the left will be less motivated to raise rates on themselves. As it is now, the left is desirous of raising tax rates on only SOME... but the nrst makes an increase in the rate afect ALL voters and ALL individuals.

The left is further hampered by the daily routine of individuals pulling green cash from their pockets to pay for the machine. There is a certain segment of society that, regardless if someone has told them their spending is tax free, will still perceive that they're paying tax when they pull cash from their pockets. This segment (usually the beneficiary and supporter of the left) will no longer be in the left's corner.

So while there will competing interests in setting the overall rate and the tax-free rate, the overall rate has far more power imo. But I'm open.

Geez, can you help with me understanding the mechanism employed by hr2525 in regards to changing the tax free rate?

[Technogeeb]

Here's how I see it:

The prebate check for a one person household is $170. At the NRST rate of 23% how many purchasing dollars does that cover? The person can purchase $739.10 worth of new goods and services a month. The 23% retail sales tax paid on the purchase of $738.10 worth of new goods and services is $170

So you admit that the goverment handout has nothing to do with "necessities", but is instead merely an offset to the retail tax rate. If so, then a more honest solution would be to simply adjust the rate to a lower value.

it may be tobacco products; it may be medicine; it may be a new bicycle; it may be a new Kirby vacuum cleaner; it may be booze; it may be needle point; it may be a new puppy; it may be new tires for the car; it may be car insurance; it may be lawn care service; it may be jewelry; it maybe a snowmobile suit; it may be a computer; it may be a washing machine; it may be baseball season tickets; it may be ________. Anything and everything that is sold as a new item retail a person may consider a necessity

And you want a government handout to pay for the taxes you want imposed on these "necessities".

[rolling_stone]

I see your point of view, but there is the small possibility of an individual or family being rebated more than they spend on new necessities, a self sufficent hunter/fisherman/farmer living basically offf the land and being thifty by buying as much used articles as possible....

I see there is no perfect solution, but doing away with the rebate and it's administrative costs seems the easiest way to go. Since the rebate only applies to legal residents what about illegals and tourists?

Unfortunately, the rebate seems to be a pacifier for the socialist lefts and a necessary evil to make it politically palatable. I would accept it readily over what we have now.

As you state there would be only two items to fiddle with, the amount of rebate and amount of tax, far better than the thousands of sections of tax code for special interests & resulting political payoffs.

[ancient_geezer]

Geez, can you help with me understanding the mechanism employed by hr2525 in regards to changing the tax free rate?

It is expressly the NRST rate enacted by Congress and nothing else.

HR2525: CHAPTER 3 FAMILY CONSUMPTION ALLOWANCE

`SEC. 301. FAMILY CONSUMPTION ALLOWANCE.

`Each qualified family shall be eligible to receive a sales tax rebate each month. The sales tax rebate shall be in an amount equal to the product of--

`(1) the rate of tax imposed by section 101, and
`(2) the monthly poverty level.

***

SEC. 303. MONTHLY POVERTY LEVEL.

`(a) IN GENERAL- The monthly poverty level for any particular month shall be one-twelfth of the `annual poverty level'. For purposes of this section the `annual poverty level' shall be the sum of--

`(1) the annual level determined by the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines required by section 652 and 673(2) of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 for a particular family size, and
`(2) in case of families that include a married couple, the `annual marriage penalty elimination amount'.

`(b) ANNUAL MARRIAGE PENALTY ELIMINATION AMOUNT- The annual marriage penalty elimination amount shall be the amount that is--

`(1) the amount that is two times the annual level determined by the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines required by sections 652 and 673(2) of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 for a family of one, less
`(2) the annual level determined by the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines required by section 652 and 673(2) of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 for a family of two.

`SEC. 304. REBATE MECHANISM.

`(a) GENERAL RULE- The Social Security Administration shall provide a monthly sales tax rebate to duly registered qualified families in an amount determined in accordance with section 301.
`(b) PERSONS RECEIVING REBATE- The payments shall be made to the persons designated by the qualifying family in the annual or revised registration for each qualified family in effect with respect to the month for which payment is being made. Payments may only be made to persons 18 years or older. If more than 1 person is designated in a registration to receive the rebate, then the rebate payment shall be divided evenly between or among those persons designated.
`(c) WHEN REBATES MAILED- Rebates shall be mailed on or before the first business day of the month for which the rebate is being provided.
`(d) SMARTCARDS AND DIRECT ELECTRONIC DEPOSIT PERMISSIBLE- The Social Security Administration may provide rebates in the form of smartcards that carry cash balances in their memory for use in making purchases at retail establishments or by direct electronic deposit.

[k2blader]

Woooooooooohooooooooooo!!!!!!! Let's hope... :)

[ancient_geezer]

Since the rebate only applies to legal residents what about illegals and tourists?

They pay the full tax rate at the cash register same as everyone else but they receive no FCA.

A definite plus in comparison to income/payroll taxes or exemption of particular goods from taxation.

See HR2525 CHAPTER 3:

`SEC. 302. QUALIFIED FAMILY.

`(a) GENERAL RULE- For purposes of this chapter, the term `qualified family' shall mean 1 or more family members sharing a common residence. All family members sharing a common residence shall be considered as part of 1 qualified family.

`(b) FAMILY SIZE DETERMINATION-

`(1) IN GENERAL- To determine the size of a qualified family for purposes of this chapter, family members shall mean--

`(A) an individual,
`(B) the individual's spouse,
`(C) all lineal ancestors and descendants of said individual (and such individual's spouse),
`(D) all legally adopted children of such individual (and such individual's spouse), and
`(E) all children under legal guardianship of such individual (or such individual's spouse).

`(2) IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS- In order for a person to be counted as a member of the family for purposes of determining the size of the qualified family, such person must--

`(A) have a bona fide social security number; and
`(B) be a lawful resident of the United States.

`(c) CHILDREN LIVING AWAY FROM HOME-

`(1) STUDENTS LIVING AWAY FROM HOME- Any person who was a registered student during not fewer than 5 months in a calendar year while living away from the common residence of a qualified family but who receives over 50 percent of such person's support during a calendar year from members of the qualified family shall be included as part of the family unit whose members provided said support for purposes of this chapter.
`(2) CHILDREN OF DIVORCED OR SEPARATED PARENTS- If a child's parents are divorced or legally separated, a child for purposes of this chapter shall be treated as part of the qualified family of the custodial parent. In cases of joint custody, the custodial parent for purposes of this chapter shall be the parent that has custody of the child for more than one- half of the time during a given calendar year. A parent entitled to be treated as the custodial parent pursuant to this paragraph may release this claim to the other parent if said release is in writing.

`(d) ANNUAL REGISTRATION- In order to receive the family consumption allowance provided by section 301, a qualified family must register with the sales tax administering authority in a form prescribed by the Secretary. The annual registration form shall provide--

`(1) the name of each family member who shared the qualified family's residence on the family determination date,
`(2) the social security number of each family member on the family determination date who shared the qualified family's residence on the family determination date,
`(3) the family member or family members to whom the family consumption allowance should be paid,
`(4) a certification that all listed family members are lawful residents of the United States,
`(5) a certification that all family members sharing the common residence are listed,
`(6) a certification that no family members were incarcerated on the family determination date (within the meaning of subsection (l)), and
`(7) the address of the qualified family.

Said registration shall be signed by all members of the qualified family that have attained the age of 21 years as of the date of filing.

[Marysecretary]

Whoa. Good news! Hope it's true. Oust the IRS. Think of all the money we'd save in taxes if we could get rid of this big albatross around our necks.

[Principled]

...the rebate and it's administrative costs

The rebate increases the rate by, if I recall, 1.8%??? The % increase in overall rate is a trade off for:
-the tax is no longer regressive,
-the political reality is that necessities must be tax free

I too would prefer no rebate. But I'd also like to marry a young blond girl.