Types of Taxes

[AGStacker]

And, if that were the case that the "Divine Constitution" wasn't supposed to be a living document, shouldn't the latter-day saints be opposed to the nullification of the three-fifths compromise?

Personally, I think President Benson did a disservice by using the term "Divine Constitution." There's nothing more divine about the Constitution than there is about the Church Handbook of Instructions.

From Wiki - Divinity and divine (sometimes "the Divinity" or "the Divine" ) are broadly applied but loosely defined terms, used variously within different faiths and belief systems — and even by different individuals within a given faith — to refer to some transcendent or transcendental power or deity, or its attributes or manifestations in the world. The root of the words is literally "godlike" (from the Latin deus, cf. Dyaus, closely related to Greek zeus, div in Persian and deva in Sanskrit), but the use varies significantly depending on which god is being discussed. This article outlines the major distinctions in the conventional use of the terms.

So something that refers to deity or "godlike"

Doctrine and Covenants 101

80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

I suppose Joseph Smith was acting as a false prophet when he wrote this part.

George Albert Smith

"If there is any doubt in your minds about this being a blessed land in which you live, and that an all-powerful hand directs its destinies, remember that it was the Lord himself who raised up wise men to give to us our Constitution [D&C 101:80]—the greatest palladium of human rights that any people have ever known. . . .

. . . He [the Lord] watched over them [the Pilgrims] and safeguarded their descendants and those who followed them to America, and in due time, there came an opportunity to establish liberty such as humankind had not known before. The Lord raised up Washington, and with him that body of men who fought valiantly to establish for us in this land a government for which surely we are all grateful. . . .

The Lord has watched over his land: He directed Columbus to these shores: he led the Pilgrims here; he established the Constitution of the United States, and through the Prophet Joseph Smith restored the everlasting gospel to bless the children of men. If they will accept it and obey it, it will result in the salvation of the human family."

"No nation in the world has a constitution that was given to it by our Heavenly Father except the United States of America. I wonder if we appreciate that. The Lord gave us a rule of life for this great nation, and as far as we have lived up to it and taken advantage of it, the nation has grown, and the people have been blessed. But there are many people who prefer, or at least they seem to prefer, something else.

As one man said to me, “Why not try what Russia has tried and Germany has tried?” And my answer to him was, “Why try something that has already failed? Why not hold on to what the Lord has given?” The Constitution of the United States was written, it is true, by men, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and others who were their associates, but we have in this book that I have in my hand, the book of Doctrine and Covenants, a revelation in which the Lord tells us that the Constitution of the United States was prepared by men raised up by him for this very purpose.

As Latter-day Saints we ought to know that there is nothing better anywhere else. And so we should cleave to the Constitution of the United States and in doing so, earn the blessings of our Heavenly Father."

[AGStacker]

There is no doubt that the Constitution was inspired by God. If inspired by God, we should try to honor and obey it as much as possible.

[Dravin]

I never said whether it should be a living document or not. I just want to follow it. We hardly honor or follow the Constitution here in America.

Okay, I thought you were trying to make some sort of counter to my comment.

[MarginOfError]

Nope. Still not seeing the Constitution as divine. You can persuade me that those men who wrote it had divine qualities, but the document itself is another matter.

Now if you want to go down the route of "inspired," you'll get no argument from me. But bear in mind that many inspired documents of the Church have been revised, edited, and corrected over time in order to suit the changing needs and culture of the saints.

[AGStacker]

Nope. Still not seeing the Constitution as divine. You can persuade me that those men who wrote it had divine qualities, but the document itself is another matter.

Now if you want to go down the route of "inspired," you'll get no argument from me. But bear in mind that many inspired documents of the Church have been revised, edited, and corrected over time in order to suit the changing needs and culture of the saints.

I am not saying the actual piece of paper is divine and should be worshiped but it did come from the divine.

[MarginOfError]

So is your argument that it is no longer comes from the divine?

And on that note, if President Benson said that the Constitution was Divine in 1987, wouldn't that suggest that all of the amendments up to that point in time were also divine?

[AGStacker]

So is your argument that it is no longer comes from the divine?

And on that note, if President Benson said that the Constitution was Divine in 1987, wouldn't that suggest that all of the amendments up to that point in time were also divine?

That it no longer comes from the divine? I am not trying to argue about where it came from but you keep bringing it up. I simply think the Constitution should be honored and obeyed. Why would a people establish a law only to disobey it? Seems stupid to me.

He is referring to when it was created. He was openly against income taxes and the welfare state.

[MarginOfError]

I get it. The Constitution is divine up until the point that we disagree with it. That makes sense to me.

[AGStacker]

I get it. The Constitution is divine up until the point that we disagree with it. That makes sense to me.

Not disagree with it but dishonor it.

[mordorbund]

It looks like the collective has already started discussing where I wanted to go next with this. Given your preferred form of taxation, what do you think should be done to overcome its unfavorable shortcomings (moral undesirables, not lack of revenue)?

Income tax (a tax on all incoming funds, whether it be from your paycheck, interest received, dividends, or inheritance) - below a certain threshold, the tax will deny you of some necessities. This can be overcome by a graduated income tax. How many grades would you consider? Is just one sufficient? Or would you have several grades from $x-y income of 0-n% so that any raises you receive is actually worthwhile (and everyone pays n% with income above $y)?

Sales tax - a tax on necessities raises the minimum cost of living, which is unfair to those living only on necessities. Not taxing necessities (such as food) would address this. Would you also consider not taxing the first n gallons of water? and m units of power (electric or gas)? Would you consider getting even more granular about exempt necessities and tax non-fruits/vegetables to encourage certain food choices? If you found out you could measure where the electricity was going, would you consider taxing the amount going to the tv, vcr, cell charger, etc?

Property tax - man, this is not very popular, is it. The failure with this one has been stated that the value of your home can go up to the point where you can no longer afford it only because of taxes (even if it's owned free and clear). I don't know that I necessarily agree with this. If the value of the home goes up, it's because there was some improvement made. The other two taxes do tax improvements, either on the consumer or the producer end. A property tax is a direct tax on the improvement itself. This then illustrates a downside. Taxing property discourages improvement. Don't build a park next to my home; I won't add another room; etc. Is there a way around this?

[MarginOfError]

It looks like the collective has already started discussing where I wanted to go next with this. Given your preferred form of taxation, what do you think should be done to overcome its unfavorable shortcomings (moral undesirables, not lack of revenue)?

Income tax (a tax on all incoming funds, whether it be from your paycheck, interest received, dividends, or inheritance) - below a certain threshold, the tax will deny you of some necessities. This can be overcome by a graduated income tax. How many grades would you consider? Is just one sufficient? Or would you have several grades from $x-y income of 0-n% so that any raises you receive is actually worthwhile (and everyone pays n% with income above $y)?

This is my preferred form. I'd go with 20 brackets corresponding with the 5th, 10th, 15th, ..., 95th percentiles of the income distribution. That is, taxes would be adjusted every ten years based on the results of the census. All tax increases would be marginal.

I know some will vehemently disagree, but I have no problem marginally taxing 50% on any income over say, $50 million per year

Sales tax - a tax on necessities raises the minimum cost of living, which is unfair to those living only on necessities. Not taxing necessities (such as food) would address this. Would you also consider not taxing the first n gallons of water? and m units of power (electric or gas)? Would you consider getting even more granular about exempt necessities and tax non-fruits/vegetables to encourage certain food choices? If you found out you could measure where the electricity was going, would you consider taxing the amount going to the tv, vcr, cell charger, etc?

Excluding food would work here. Although I would hesitate toward a tax on usage for things like water, electricity, etc.

One of the issues we're having in my area is water rates are going up. Part of the reason they are going up is because water use is going down. You might think that is counter intuitive, but to run the regional water system requires the same infrastructure and staff regardless of what the throughput of the system is in gallons.

One of the effects this is having is that it is hitting the poverty-dwelling people particularly hard. Water use is falling because the wealthier people in the suburbs are replacing their toilets and washers and dryers with water efficient models. Those living in poverty can't afford these improvements, and certainly won't be able to afford them with the increased water rates.

Fortunately, the tax on water use is flat rate. If you own a dwelling, you pay the surcharge. This makes sense in a water system, since the cost of maintaining the system is independent of the throughput of the system.

In the end, an income tax would circumvent these problems.

Property tax - man, this is not very popular, is it. The failure with this one has been stated that the value of your home can go up to the point where you can no longer afford it only because of taxes (even if it's owned free and clear). I don't know that I necessarily agree with this. If the value of the home goes up, it's because there was some improvement made. The other two taxes do tax improvements, either on the consumer or the producer end. A property tax is a direct tax on the improvement itself. This then illustrates a downside. Taxing property discourages improvement. Don't build a park next to my home; I won't add another room; etc. Is there a way around this?

After the market collapsed, the city I live in was losing revenue because of foreclosures. Their solution--reappraise any home that hadn't been sold in the previous year and readjust the taxes due from the owners accordingly. Would you believe it that every house that was reappraised increased in value several thousand dollars?

There was a huge uproar from the community and the city relented. But this kind of speaks to my dislike of property taxes--they are arbitrary and well beyond the control of the citizen. Your taxes are influenced by the community around you, be inflation, and the whims of market bubbles. The whole system seems flawed to me.

[AGStacker]

The whole system is flawed which is why this originally was so simple. Let the people have the power and dictate their own lives. The increase of flaws in the system is directly related to bigger government and more taxes. Unfortunately we have dug ourselves so deep that only someone with high morals and a proven track record could actually save the system. America entered a depression in 07 or 08 and wont recover from it until many years down the road.

Many of the signs are here even though it isn't accepted by the majority.

[Guest]

What do you think I meant when I said "overstep their bounds"?

You said:

Right but the Federal government is to make sure the state governments don't overstep their bounds. Meaning the Federal government could rule that property tax is not Constitutional and abolish the property tax.

You are saying here that the Federal Government should make sure that the State governments don't overstep their bounds.

This is backwards. It is the STATE governments that make sure that the Federal government doesn't overstep its bounds. The Federal Government has no say in State Affairs unless it contradicts a Federal Law. Therefore, the Federal Government CANNOT at any time say that a State overstepped its bounds... because, the States grants the Federal Government its powers. So that, the Federal Government cannot tell a state to abolish property tax.

This is repeating what I originally said.

It is not.

[AGStacker]

You said:

You are saying here that the Federal Government should make sure that the State governments don't overstep their bounds.

This is backwards. It is the STATE governments that make sure that the Federal government doesn't overstep its bounds. The Federal Government has no say in State Affairs unless it contradicts a Federal Law. Therefore, the Federal Government CANNOT at any time say that a State overstepped its bounds... because, the States grants the Federal Government its powers. So that, the Federal Government cannot tell a state to abolish property tax.

It is not.

The state governments make laws as the please that don't go against the Constitution. The federal government can say hey "New York, that law is against the Constitution." The states do not need the go ahead from the federal government to make a law.

Here's a perfect example we all should be aware of. Governor Boggs signs an executive order saying that the Mormons can be killed or driven out. The federal government was obligated under the Constitution to do something. They did nothing.

[Guest]

This is my preferred form. I'd go with 20 brackets corresponding with the 5th, 10th, 15th, ..., 95th percentiles of the income distribution. That is, taxes would be adjusted every ten years based on the results of the census. All tax increases would be marginal.

I know some will vehemently disagree, but I have no problem marginally taxing 50% on any income over say, $50 million per year.

It's easy to say, tax those who make $50 million a year 50% of their income. The problem with that is... those who make only $49.99 million a year is taxed at what... 45%? So that... you make more money making 49.99million than you would 50 million. So, why would somebody try to work their butts off for 50 million?

Sure, we're talking millions - who cares? Well, that's still true at 50 thousand and 100 thousand.

A progressive income tax is a barrier to economic growth.

[Vort]

It's easy to say, tax those who make $50 million a year 50% of their income. The problem with that is... those who make only $49.99 million a year is taxed at what... 45%? So that... you make more money making 49.99million than you would 50 million. So, why would somebody try to work their butts off for 50 million?

Sure, we're talking millions - who cares? Well, that's still true at 50 thousand and 100 thousand.

A progressive income tax is a barrier to economic growth.

All such taxes that I'm aware of tax the marginal amounts, so that you only pay (using the example above) 50% of your earnings above $50 million.

Not that I'm trying to defend such tax schemes, but they ought to be understood and criticized for what they are rather than for what they aren't.

[Guest]

The state governments make laws as the please that don't go against the Constitution. The federal government can say hey "New York, that law is against the Constitution." The states do not need the go ahead from the federal government to make a law.

Here's a perfect example we all should be aware of. Governor Boggs signs an executive order saying that the Mormons can be killed or driven out. The federal government was obligated under the Constitution to do something. They did nothing.

Yes, AGStacker, the federal government can act on States that defy the law of the US Constitution. Unfortunately, there is NO LAW in the US Constitution that prohibits taxation. Therefore, the States can do what they please with it. If your State wants to tax you everytime you fart, they can. The most that the Federal Government can do about your property is to guarantee under the 4th Ammendment that your property is not seized without probable cause to prove that a crime has not been committed. Non-payment of property taxes is a crime and therefore subject to property seizure and would pass the 4th Amendment.

And, interestingly, there is NO LAW in the US Constitution that prohibits the States from killing its citizens. That is why there is capital punishment in most States. The only thing that the Federal Government can do about it is the Fourth Amendment whereby a State cannot arrest, and therefore kill, anybody without "probable cause". But, the Federal Government has to first prove that there was no probable cause. During the time that the Missouri law was enacted, Mormons were considered a rebel faction and was deemed a danger to the State of Missouri. Wrong or not, that was their probable cause, signed into law by the Missouri Congress by which the Federal Government at the time couldn't overturn.

Edited December 2, 2011 by anatess

[Guest]

All such taxes that I'm aware of tax the marginal amounts, so that you only pay (using the example above) 50% of your earnings above $50 million.

Not that I'm trying to defend such tax schemes, but they ought to be understood and criticized for what they are rather than for what they aren't.

Good point, Vort!

What it is really is not the net income as a percentage of gross income but the net income commensurate to productive worth.

[AGStacker]

Yes, AGStacker, the federal government can act on States that defy the law of the US Constitution. Unfortunately, there is NO LAW in the US Constitution that prohibits taxation. Therefore, the States can do what they please with it. If your State wants to tax you everytime you fart, they can.

And, interestingly, there is NO LAW in the US Constitution that prohibits the States from killing its citizens. That is why there is capital punishment in most States. The only thing that the Federal Government can do about the Mormons being killed is the Fourth Amendment whereby a State cannot arrest, and therefore kill, anybody without "probable cause". But, the Federal Government has to first prove that there was no probable cause. During the time that the Missouri law was enacted, Mormons were considered a rebel faction and was deemed a danger to the State of Missouri. Wrong or not, that was their probable cause, signed into law by the Missouri Congress by which the Federal Government at the time couldn't overturn.

Haha! You just don't understand do you! According to your logic, we might as well as had Satan as the savior so that he could tell us everything we can and cannot do. That is the big difference between Christ and Satan right? Christ promotes free choice and not being commanded in all things whereas Satan would force/tell people EVERYTHING they can and cannot do.

God never intended to tell us all things from cradle to grave. He wants us to exercise our agency intelligently only asking Him for help with more important matters.

The 16th Amendment had to slither its way in so that the government could tax people on their income. If you think it is OK for big brother to take from the poor and middle class to give to the lazy and hopeless than by all means vote for Obama or Romney or Hunstman or Gingrich etc.

America's reign is over. The politicians overburdened us with so much debt it cannot be serviced. This happened because we didn't follow the Constitution and not because we were following it.

[mordorbund]

The whole system is flawed which is why this originally was so simple. Let the people have the power and dictate their own lives.

Do you mean a voluntary tax? I thought about adding that to my list of 3, but found it impractical. As much as we may like it to be otherwise, people aren't going to send money en masse to say "job well done". We experimented a bit with it under the Articles of Confederation and found that a powerless government may as well not exist.

The constitution states that the President is to be paid for his time in office. Where does that money come from? The federal government can pass that on to the states, but then the states need to generate revenue. Where does that money come from?

So there still has to be some source of revenue for the government (remember I framed this initially such that there was a government - the whole discussion is pointless without it).

[Guest]

It looks like the collective has already started discussing where I wanted to go next with this. Given your preferred form of taxation, what do you think should be done to overcome its unfavorable shortcomings (moral undesirables, not lack of revenue)?

Sales tax - a tax on necessities raises the minimum cost of living, which is unfair to those living only on necessities. Not taxing necessities (such as food) would address this. Would you also consider not taxing the first n gallons of water? and m units of power (electric or gas)? Would you consider getting even more granular about exempt necessities and tax non-fruits/vegetables to encourage certain food choices? If you found out you could measure where the electricity was going, would you consider taxing the amount going to the tv, vcr, cell charger, etc?

I don't agree with all the other forms of taxation so I'm only going to address this as it pertains to the Fair Tax.

Prebate would answer all of those questions. A PRE-bate is different from a rebate in the sense that you get money before you pay taxes every month. Everybody pays the tax at the cash register but they can use their prebate money that they receive at the beginning of each month to pay for the tax incurred for basic necessities. Of course, if you use your prebate to buy an xbox instead, that's up to you. Now, if we're going to do rich versus poor discussion, the prebate would then be a bigger percentage of the poor's income than the rich's income, so you can say it's "backward regressive" and favors the poor. But, that doesn't matter in the Fair Tax because the only consideration is that we don't tax poverty.

The amount of prebate you receive each month is determined by the DHHS Poverty Guidelines published by the Federal Register. All citizens and legal residents of the US get it. And they all get the same amount regardless of income. So, for example: In 2009, the DHHS published that the Poverty Line for a single adult in a conglomeration of all 50 States is $10,830. Basically, it costs one adult $10,830 per year (or $903 a month) to live above the poverty line spending every single penny of that money on basic necessities. So, if you set a national sales tax of 23%, you can get a monthly prebate equal to 23% of $903 a month, or $208 a month... basically making your first $903 worth of purchases a month tax-free.

Each prebate composition is, therefore, determined per person and number of children regardless of income. For example - if you and your spouse both work, you get the same prebate as those couples with only one spouse working. Each child has a prebate as well so that if you have 1 child you get x dollars (equal to the cost of basic necessities for 1 child), if you have 2 children, you get 2 times X dollars, etc. If your grandmother is living with you, you can add her to your prebate. If your child is living outside of your home he needs to apply for his own prebate unless he's in school and you're paying for over 50% of his expenses, then you can get his prebate as he can still be considered part of your family. If a member of your family is incarcerated, you don't get his prebate because the prison system is providing for his basic necessities. If you're not a citizen or legal resident of the US, then you can't apply for prebate because there is no record of you in the legal system (yes, yes, some of them are sneaky enough to get in the system and receive welfare now... but that calls for a different process to eliminate them from these systems).

The prebate doesn't care what you do with the money. So it doesn't have to determine if you eat gummy bears for dinner versus chicken and spinach. Or if you buy a gallon of soda instead of a gallon of water. Or if you used electricity for your xbox instead of your lights. The advantage to that? You can't put a company pushing for the health benefit of earthworms to get rich off of lobbying Congress to manipulate the tax system.

I don't believe it is the job of the government to tell me what to eat, what car to drive, what liquid to drink as long as I don't put a burden on society. And, so that I can eat gummy bears for dinner every single day without being a burden on society, I therefore, do not agree that my healthcare should be funded by society's money.

So, you might ask, but the cost of basic necessities in California is more than Florida! That's fine. The cost of basic necessities may be higher in California but California also has a higher minimum wage than Florida. It evens out. The advantage? You can't have some guy in Congress say to the Congressman from California - hey, if you vote for this bill, we'll give you more prebate.

But really? You're going to give Bill Gates $208 a month in Prebate? REALLY? Uhm, yes, really. Everybody gets a prebate including Bill Gates. The advantage? Bill Gates can't lobby Congress to give him more prebate money even if he thinks $208 is not enough to shine his shoes. And, meth addict down the street can't vote himself more prebate money asking Bill Gates to fund his meth addiction.

So, why would I buy the stuff in the US? I could just go to Mexico and buy my stuff there! Okay, if it is cheaper for you to pay the 23% tax on gas to drive to Tijuana to get your basic necessities than to pay the 23% tax to buy it in San Diego, that's just fine.

Yes, it's called Fair Tax for a reason.

Edited December 3, 2011 by anatess

[Saldrin]

I got to thinking about the different taxes states have, and they tend to have 2 of the 3:

• Income tax - you're taxed on incoming money
• Sales tax - you're taxed on outgoing money
• Property tax - you're taxed on assets still possessed (usually land and real estate)

I'm wondering what the best form of taxation is while taking into consideration fairness, what behaviors are being encouraged/discouraged, and how it maps to the spending (funds for fire stations, roads, etc can be raised via a property tax, since anyone with property there is taking advantage of it, but if there's liquor laws regulating the sale of liquor, does that make more sense has a sales tax - things like that).

So I guess the question is, which tax (or combination of taxes) would you prefer for your state (or even ideal society*, if it will make it easier) to have?

* I'm assuming there is a government structure in place providing services, so there needs to be some form of revenue for said services.

A Maximum of a 10% consumption tax thats all thats fair.

[mordorbund]

All such taxes that I'm aware of tax the marginal amounts, so that you only pay (using the example above) 50% of your earnings above $50 million.

Not that I'm trying to defend such tax schemes, but they ought to be understood and criticized for what they are rather than for what they aren't.

Thanks for clarifying. When MoE said marginal increases, I assumed that meant "increased based on what Margin thinks is good". Of course detractors to his proposal would refer to it as the Error Tax instead.

[mordorbund]

I don't agree with all the other forms of taxation so I'm only going to address this as it pertains to the Fair Tax.

Prebate would answer all of those questions. A PRE-bate is different from a rebate in the sense that you get money before you pay taxes every month. Everybody pays the tax at the cash register but they can use their prebate money that they receive at the beginning of each month to pay for the tax incurred for basic necessities. Of course, if you use your prebate to buy an xbox instead, that's up to you. Now, if we're going to do rich versus poor discussion, the prebate would then be a bigger percentage of the poor's income than the rich's income, so you can say it's "backward regressive" and favors the poor. But, that doesn't matter in the Fair Tax because the only consideration is that we don't tax poverty.

The amount of prebate you receive each month is determined by the DHHS Poverty Guidelines published by the Federal Register. All citizens and legal residents of the US get it. And they all get the same amount regardless of income. So, for example: In 2009, the DHHS published that the Poverty Line for a single adult in a conglomeration of all 50 States is $10,830. Basically, it costs one adult $10,830 per year (or $903 a month) to live above the poverty line spending every single penny of that money on basic necessities. So, if you set a national sales tax of 23%, you can get a monthly prebate equal to 23% of $903 a month, or $208 a month... basically making your first $903 worth of purchases a month tax-free.

Each prebate composition is, therefore, determined per person and number of children regardless of income. For example - if you and your spouse both work, you get the same prebate as those couples with only one spouse working. Each child has a prebate as well so that if you have 1 child you get x dollars (equal to the cost of basic necessities for 1 child), if you have 2 children, you get 2 times X dollars, etc. If your grandmother is living with you, you can add her to your prebate. If your child is living outside of your home he needs to apply for his own prebate unless he's in school and you're paying for over 50% of his expenses, then you can get his prebate as he can still be considered part of your family. If a member of your family is incarcerated, you don't get his prebate because the prison system is providing for his basic necessities. If you're not a citizen or legal resident of the US, then you can't apply for prebate because there is no record of you in the legal system (yes, yes, some of them are sneaky enough to get in the system and receive welfare now... but that calls for a different process to eliminate them from these systems).

The prebate doesn't care what you do with the money. So it doesn't have to determine if you eat gummy bears for dinner versus chicken and spinach. Or if you buy a gallon of soda instead of a gallon of water. Or if you used electricity for your xbox instead of your lights. The advantage to that? You can't put a company pushing for the health benefit of earthworms to get rich off of lobbying Congress to manipulate the tax system.

I don't believe it is the job of the government to tell me what to eat, what car to drive, what liquid to drink as long as I don't put a burden on society. And, so that I can eat gummy bears for dinner every single day without being a burden on society, I therefore, do not agree that my healthcare should be funded by society's money.

So, you might ask, but the cost of basic necessities in California is more than Florida! That's fine. The cost of basic necessities may be higher in California but California also has a higher minimum wage than Florida. It evens out. The advantage? You can't have some guy in Congress say to the Congressman from California - hey, if you vote for this bill, we'll give you more prebate.

But really? You're going to give Bill Gates $208 a month in Prebate? REALLY? Uhm, yes, really. Everybody gets a prebate including Bill Gates. The advantage? Bill Gates can't lobby Congress to give him more prebate money even if he thinks $208 is not enough to shine his shoes. And, meth addict down the street can't vote himself more prebate money asking Bill Gates to fund his meth addiction.

So, why would I buy the stuff in the US? I could just go to Mexico and buy my stuff there! Okay, if it is cheaper for you to pay the 23% tax on gas to drive to Tijuana to get your basic necessities than to pay the 23% tax to buy it in San Diego, that's just fine.

Yes, it's called Fair Tax for a reason.

Does a person have to be working to receive a prebate? Or one per household? Or does the prebate also double as unemployment?

[annewandering]

Can I get a prebate just by saying I will go to work at some point in my life?