Posted by
SoCal FairTax on Friday, May 16, 2008 3:47:49 PM
Here is another reply to a FairTax debate with AndrewS. My reply is to his blog post HERE…
Andrew,
The prebate is really a good idea. It basically is a provision that puts family survival ahead of government. In the your posts I get the impression that there is no love of government ahead of the family so I would hope that you see the elegance of this.
The prebate is not designed as a welfare mechanism. Can it be monkeyed with? Well, with fewer dials to turn, raising the prebate amount (i.e. raising the poverty line) will have to offset by more consumption (more prosperity) or a higher FairTax rate (more than 23%) which is another feather in the cap of transparency. How many dials are there? Poverty line and FairTax rate = 2 dials. Not bad…
In fact, I would argue that the FairTax and the prebate system will help wean people off of welfare (and welfare checks). I believe that people want to have more self-reliance. Capital and Job repatriation will create greater prosperity in our lands. The FairTax and the monthly prebate basically remove obstacles from welfare recipients climbing out of poverty (i.e. lack of opportunity, complex taxation, welfare mindset, etc.). When I refer to a welfare mindset, I consider that a welfare recipient receiving “welfare” vs. all families receiving a “prebate” puts welfare folks in an entirely different category with stigma, reliance, etc. associated with it. If everyone gets the prebate there is no “welfare mindset” or stigma that is associated with it. Your statement that FairTax supporters just believe the prebate check is just a refund incorrect. Again, it is putting family survival ahead of government. Plenty of people will not need it but the fact that everyone residing here legally WILL get it should appeal to your sense of fairness.
It seems as though Andrew argues that once legal residents are used to it that they will never want to give it up I believe misses the point. In this case, it is a really good provision that should remain indefinitely. We want government to know that family survival comes first – even ahead of government funding. All families who legally reside here do have a right to survival ahead of government funding. This is a good message and this is a good provision.
Andrew claims that the prebate will take on a life of its own… there are two dials as indicated above. (1) the poverty line and (2) FairTax rate. Okay, there are some minor sub-dials in how the Dept of Health Services constructs the poverty tables (i.e. 1 adult/0 children, 2 adults/2 children) but I hope we can agree that this is insignificant. I see the poverty line being shaped by inflation – not by the politicians.
Andrew claims that the prebate could start as dealing only with taxes but then grow to an even bigger “entitlement”. What he fails to realize is that the prebate goes to everyone based on the same criteria. What political capital will a politician gain by giving the same “entitlement” to everyone? Wouldn’t that be foolish? And if we aren’t tracking income there is no way to differentiate between rich, poor, middle-class which is one of the beauties of it.
I think in Andrew’s last statements about his “general opposition to making people view the government as a source of money” he has it backward. I have opposition to making government view that its funding comes before survival of every legal family and that government only gets funded after basic family survival handled.
Peace,
YK