Kasz you are misfiguring the Prebate. The Prebate is not even $200 monthly. To figure the monthly Prebate every year you would take the [(official Poverty Level) * 23%] / 12. Currently it is (10250*.23)/12=196.46. Over the entire year that means you only get 2357.50.

@Eomund

No Im not, but I have been at many places througout the country.

What I tried to get to is that - among other things - the higher socioeconomic classes are allowed to be higher socioeconomic classes because of state intervention.

 Read "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread." again and hopefully you'll get what I mean.

On bums: Have you been to Central LA in the early morning when the bums still have their festivities around the shelters? How many of them do you think are able to work at Mcdonalds?

@Kasz216

I though that most studies pointed toward an increase of the gini-coefficient when flat taxes were introduced.

Final-Fan said: Eomund said: Kasz you are misfiguring the Prebate. The Prebate is not even $200 monthly. To figure the monthly Prebate every year you would take the [(official Poverty Level) * 23%] / 12. Currently it is (10250*.23)/12=196.46. Over the entire year that means you only get 2357.50. That is correct IF you are single with no children. Here's a chart of prebate rates: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/FTRebate.png [edit: it's a lot uglier now but you can see all the numbers...] [edit2: Kasz216, is it correct to say that you were thinking of the $10,210 that the lowest prebate is calculated off of?]

 Yeah, misread the chart.  Even at about 198 dollars per person a month would make it the largest welfare system in the history of the united states.

Also find it odd though that the chart actually gives less for a child then a regular person.  It's been my expierence that children are MORE expensive then adults.  They eat less food, however there medical bills and schooling are quite expensive.  Both of which i'd consider "essential life" things.

@ Copycon

I'd just spell out what you mean.  Laws don't effect everyone equally, a law that prevents the poor to sleep under bridges etc. doesn't effect the Rich equally as the Poor as they rich have no reason to sleep under bridges, beg for money or steal instead of starve.

Just how say, the "sin" tax on cigarrettes while applied to everyone doesn't apply to a non-smoker like me.  As I don't smoke.   

I'd say the horse was taxes, without them, you'd have to pull the cart yourself (IE: make your own money.)

 Not alot (health reasons), but they can definately work in a warehouse doing parts sorting or some other "uneducated" tasks that don't require much thought or training.  Unfortunately, these people are either unwilling to accept a menial job or the factories are unwilling to hire someone that hasn't bathed in months.  Either way, there is a way out of being a bum, work.

I would guess that it is to encourage "pairing" or having more than one parent supporting the children.

The prebate is not welfare. It's compensation for money that the individual will pay in taxes. Think of it as tax forgiveness for essentials. Everyone will get this tax forgiveness no matter what their income is. Welfare on the other hand is government giving an individual money they did not earn. Usually the money comes from public funds that were taxed by working individuals. I believe sincerely that the ideaology and reasons behind the prebate are very different than those of welfare.

@Final Fan

final fan quote: 

" 2) Your entire post was laced with namecalling, including "loon", "Marxist", "socialist", "fascist", and "communist" (this may not be a complete list, I didn't bother to check thoroughly for this purpose).  Trying to deny it just means that you weren't namecalling but foaming at the (metaphorical) mouth. 

3) If you think that's what I desire you haven't understood my posts.  Or perhaps we have wildly different definitions of what constitutes maltreatment, yours being "taxes". 

4) No, it really doesn't. 

5) I see.  [edit: How very black-and-white your world is.]  And anyone who wants to regulate any little thing is for total government control of everything.  Your understanding of this subject is sadly twisted, but I know that any educational effort would be wasted. 

You're an idiot who's been fed twisted ideology until he can't tell the difference between progressivism and communism.  I'd say "be a man and embrace your beliefs", but you'd probably agree with the second half of that last sentence."

2) I apologize if you feel that I was name-calling. I don’t use words and ideologies as name calling. I'm a person that uses words for their definition, not their emotional impact. "Marxist", "Socialist", and "Communist", and "Fascist" are all political and economic theories. And In a forum that is debating political and economic theory I thought their mention would be appropriate. But name calling was not the intention of their use and I didn’t use those words because, as you eloquently put it, I am rabid. Just look at what I said.

"If someone cannot pay their share, it is not the government's business to find someone who can and rob them to cover the deficient person's debt. That is wrong, and that’s not from an opinion stand point, all forms of Marxism including socialism, fascism, and communism have historical proof of being fallacious theories."

From the subject and context, I think it is obvious that I mentioned those ideologies in connection with the ideas in the first sentence; taxing someone to cover someone else. All 3 theories have that belief.

"That notion is crazy, but you are trying to preach that it is perfectly sane for the government to do. That's pretty loony, but then again you seem to love loony things like the fascist democratic congress passing fascist legislation like a min wage increase."

Again, by subject and context, it is obvious that I was calling the idea in the preceding sentence loony, not you personally. Even though I did mention I think you embrace the loony idea. If that offended you, I am sorry. And my use of the word fascist in that sentence is referring not to you personally, but the democratic congress, which is factual, and to the min wage legislation, which is factual. 

3) This is what the debate of this forum centers around. I feel that taxing someone unfairly is maltreatment. You feel that if they can afford and absorb the unfair tax then it is fair to the poor. Different people feel differently about taxes. Some embrace the idea of taxation, other reject it completely, start a revolution and create a new nation.

4) You have to explain why you think it doesn’t.

5) Again with the slippery slope. I never said a person who wants to regulate something wants total regulation. My personal career (pharmaceutical drug research and development) is all about regulation, nationally and internationally. I believe sincerely that regulation in my field is important, because people could die if there were not appropriate checks and oversights. However regulation of private business by government is an idea that has a name. It is by definition fascist. Don’t delude yourself. In my career, I am working from a fascist standpoint, that is necessary and many things on the progressive platform are fascist. Just because the word sounds horrible doesn’t mean it is horrible.

I really like your final point there. I disagree with you on some fundamental level so logically I'm an idiot. And to compound it, I'm an idiot that must have been spoon fed my ideas. Classic tactic. I'm sure if you were running for president you'd win easily. However, I can assure you that it is not the case; I have sufficient education and logical thinking ability. 

It isn't compensation for money that the individual will pay in taxes. If it were, you would measure what the individual spent on essentials, and give them 23% of that back. Instead, the government gives each person an "allowance" of what they think covers essential expenses, and pays them back for the taxes on those expenses whether or not the person spends that much (they could spend less or more on essentials, depending on their living conditions).

Something I see a lot in this discussion are the FairTax supporters saying "think of it as _____." You have to realize there are different ways of looking at something, and at the end of the day, it is what it is, no matter what you call it, and no matter what kind of ideology is behind it. Wouldn't it be easier to just not tax essential products and skip the prebate? That way, no one is paying tax on essential products, and no one is getting welfare checks even if they didn't pay that much in taxes on essentials. The prebate doesn't account for different costs of goods in different areas, it doesn't account for bums who spend their money on alcohol instead of food and clothing, and it requires an address which prevents the homeless from being compensated.

The sponsors of the FairTax are big on getting rid of the complex Income Tax system and replacing it with something simple without loopholes and exceptions and what not. So why do we need this prebate system if we can just not tax essentials from the get go? Why bother setting up another government agency to track whether you're single or married or have kids to print all the prebate checks? Again, I really like the idea of a consumption tax vs. an income tax, but the prebate is exactly the kind of political ridiculousness that we're trying to get rid of.

^^ Great review Sensei. Glad to know that I was not wrong about where you stood.

Again Kasz, The FairTax doesn't tax education (college or otherwise). That is considered an Investment, and therefore isn't taxed as consumption. The reason kids don't have a full payment under the Prebate is because they don't have to pay rent, or anything like that. I understand that because you have kids you might need to get a bigger place, but ultimately whose responsible for having the kid (and I am not suggesting they get an abortion)?

If a person cannot afford kids, they shouldn't have them. If a person has them anyway I consider that a form of abuse and neglect stemming from that person's inability to be responsible for their own reproductive system. If they cannot be responsible with that through easy means, birth control pills, etc., then how are they going to be responsible for a kid?

Anyways, my whole platform is personal responsibility. Should we the people (or government) lend a helping hand to those people who are not doing well? Yes, there should be some form of a safety net system. It should not be a life long support for those people however.

The Prebate only is refunded for the essential goods needed to survive, hence why it is based on the poverty level. Therefore the Prebate is not a welfare program, but a tax refund on the essentials of living. If we were to not apply the FairTax on those essential goods already, the rate on goods the FairTax would apply to would be very high.