Posted on 12/18/2005 4:46:00 PM PST by FairOpinion
Rep. Bill Archer, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee:
"A recent survey was done, in Europe and Japan, of the major corporations and I was astounded at the results. They were asked, 'If the US abolished its income tax and went to a sales tax, would that have any impact on your decisions?' Eighty percent of the corporations said they would build their factories in the United States of America. Twenty percent said they would move their international headquarters to the United States of America."
The large influx of new jobs, among other things, means the current trade imbalance (deficit) will balance out and likely tip to USA advantage. In other words, a greater percentage of products and services will be made in USA, thereby foreign governments will see their tax receipts decrease.
In order for foreign governments to retain their present level of tax receipts they'll have to replace their outdated, economy-draining tax systems with a consumption based sales tax.
The USA can lead the way to honest economic freedom and financial privacy the world over -- beginning with it's own citizens.
With outsourcing by American based companies, many of which are also building new manufacturing plants in foreign countries it would only deepen the trade deficit if a major first world country beats USA to the punch by implementing a consumption based sales tax first. That country would get the new jobs and USAs trade imbalance would widen.
It's not a matter of if consumption-based sales tax will gain dominance the world over, but when, and which country will lead the charge and which countries will play catch up.
The United States must take the lead.
That's the short list. For more information see fairtax.org
Keep in mind that the main impediments to the FT are
the people that stand in its way, the politicians.
They have two main objections:
1. Emasculates the IRS as a political weapon.
2. Eliminates the ability to grant [sell] tax favors,
as well as enforce public policy by tax incentives.
So when you write yer congresscritter, tell 'em you
know about the above, and kill the IRS anyway. The
survival of the country (and the pol's job) depend on it.
I doubt VERY much it would take 23 cents on the dollar to equal what the feds presently rake in through the income tax.
The problem is not the IRS, the problem is the tax code.
And to repeat what I said earlier, paying taxes SHOULD HURT! It should make you wake up and ask what you're paying for.
I'm not sure it would a "deal" for everyone, but it would definately simplify how Americans pays taxes, and those people who are in situations with endless tax loopholes would find themselves paying taxes just like everyone else.
The way I view it is that if I don't have much money I'm not making many (taxable) purchases anyway, so it will benefit middle and low income people. It will also ensure that 'undergroud commerce' (such at the multi-billion dollar illegal drug industry (growers/producers/dealers/drug lords, etc) will have to pay taxes as well.
First off, it will be percieved as regressive and so there will be a complicated series of negotiations over the rates on "necessities" versus "luxuries" with all of the political pork barrel politics which goes with that.
With the FairTax only new goods and services sold at retail level (ie., for consumption) will be taxed and all at the same rate.
Second, there will be a move to hide the tax by moving toward an "all taxes included" pricing (as is the case with sales of gasoline now in the US).
Each sales receipt will have a line items showing the amount of tax.
Lastly, paying taxes should "hurt". It shouldn't be painless.
The tax is visible with every retail purchase.
For more information see: FairTax.
Geez, can you post the graphic of effective rates by spending levels?
Government will never buy into this. It is their promises of more tax money to specific programs that make up their voter base. How could they ever again make a promise of an increase in taxes to fund their pet projects and voter base projects when they are limited to a certain amount of money that is not based on THEIR personal bill?
Ask Johnny Isakson too - although he won with lukewarm support, a political nobody made it a race based solely on his support of the nrst (Hermann Cain).
At least this is how it is in Georgia. Then again Georia is the most aware state in the nation WRT the nrst.
However, we need to make absolutely certain that anything new is instead of not in addition to the income tax. Let that nest of vipers in DC work a few shell games and we'll be paying income tax, VAT, and a flax tax at once.
Exactly. Taxes would reflect the economy. If it roars, government gets big bucks. If it tanks, government has to suffer like the rest of us.
That's why government can't stand the idea.
You have obviously never lived in Europe. Europe has 20+% consumption taxes. They HAVE taken the lead, and in so doing, showed us what is wrong with the idea.
You obviously haven't read HR25 or the FairTax web site or Fair Tax FAQ's. The FairTax is not a VAT/income tax. You have erroneously assumed that the FairTax is something it is not.
Ask yourself why gas prices in the US (and any good for that matter which contains a US excise tax e.g. tires) are priced "all taxes included"... Any VAT-like prices would soon follow.
Your scheme would also create an entire industry of "phony" corporations which would purchase consumption items "wholesale" to avoid paying the taxes.
Again, the arguments against VAT are not entirely economic, but they ARE based on how human beings will respond to such a scheme.
Okay. I read #39 but it did not address what I was saying and seems more like a sales pitch than an explanation. I really do understand the concept and proposal, I'm just not satisfied with the results or the application.
My concern is more complicated than the usual sound bites. I want to understand if and whether or not society has a responsibility or duty to provide for the less fortunate in society. I am not talking about many of the unemployed or homeless or people who are voluntarily alienated from society. I am thinking about the people who, by little fault of their own, are outside of our society as we perceive it.
Does a, or any, society have an obligation or duty to help and provide for those members who are less fortunate in our society. If so, to what degree? If not, what are the consequences?
Another aspect. We have tried various proposals over the years, and I ask if there are "unintended consequences" with this one?
This Fair Tax sounds wonderful, but I remain unconvinced it's either workable or the best policy for society.
Milk, bread, and baby formula are already "taxed" at similar rates. It's the income taxes, payroll taxes, and tax costs of every bisiness in the chain of production. Some people are not aware of it though.
The nrst wouldn't change the amount of tax costs in goods, just make them visible - so that a buyer of milk or formula pereives he pays an extra $5 for the formula - when it's the same overall price as always.
This nrst taxes goods once and only once at the retail counter. Hit thomos.loc.gove and search HR 25.
Your scheme would also create an entire industry of "phony" corporations which would purchase consumption items "wholesale" to avoid paying the taxes.
No, those criminals already exist. The nrst won't make criminals straight.
THe reasons people cheat are perceived unfairness, complex and arbitrary rules, or they are criminals. THe nrst removes two of those three. It is perceived as fair and is simple and easy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.