Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Replace the Income Tax System with a national sales tax? (Poll: 83% Yes)
Vote.com ^ | Dec. 2005 | Vote.com

Posted on 12/18/2005 4:46:00 PM PST by FairOpinion

YES! 83% (8832 votes) A consumption tax would be great for the American economy. Do away with complicated income taxes!

NO! 17% (1761) A consumption tax would not be fair for low-income households. Keep the current income tax system!

We'll send your vote to your congressional representative and senators.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: abjectstupidity; fairtax; shillsgetpaid; taxreform; unfairtax
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-369 last
To: phil_will1; justshutupandtakeit
There are many, many more examples of businesses reporting income taxes as an expense.
The most interesting part would be where you can use that Intel report as an example to show how they can reduce their prices 20+% by eliminating their income tax.
351 posted on 12/23/2005 8:40:24 PM PST by lewislynn (Fairtax= lies, hope, wishful thinking and conjecture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: Zon

"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."

Well said, Zon. That is one of the most lucid posts on this thread.

Globalization is sweeping the planet. It is THE economic megatrend (to borrow a phrase from best selling author Alvin Toffler) of our times - a trend which will shape all other trends. What is going on in India and China is already having a major influence on our economy and, as we say in the south "you ain't seen nothing yet". China's economy will catch up to ours in size sometime by the middle of this century. Cisco believes that China will be at the center of information technology sometime between 2020 and 2040 and they are developing strategic plans to be a Chinese company by then. NYT syndicated columnist David Brooks wrote in Nov of 04 that in 1990 there were about 473 MM people living in extreme poverty ($1 per day or less)in Asia and the Pacific rim. By 2001 that number had dropped to about 272 MM and by 2015 it will be reduced to about 39 MM (I am going from memery here, but the overall thrust is correct). That is about a 96% reduction in extreme poverty in that part of the world during a 25 year period that we are right in the middle of. Amazing stuff. Brooks attributes it to trade liberalization and strengthening of property laws.

The point is that globalization is sweeping the planet like a tidal wave. I personally don't think that the FairTax will bring our manufacturing sector back to where it was 15 years ago. I do think it is crazy to continue into this environment with a tax system which impairs our ability to compete in the global marketplace. The challenge that we face is enormous. We have a massive trade deficit that something has to be done about. If foreign banks lose their confidence in the USD as the safest and most stable currency in the world, the implications of that are horrendous for our economy.

I agree that we have to go with a consumption tax sooner or later. I just hope that it is before we have an economic armageddon, rather than afterwards.


352 posted on 12/23/2005 9:07:47 PM PST by phil_will1 (My posts are in no way limited or restricted by previously expressed SQL opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: Badray; phil_will1; Man50D; Kellis91789
Again...and Again I repeat: I have no problem transitioning to the so called "Fair Tax" as described at FairTax.org. Again I say, I don't want a "S.N.A.F.U." in which I end up paying BOTH taxes.

And Again I say, unless we can convince (with a 2 by 4) our Congress Critters to STOP their apparently insatiable appetite to spend and spend and spend, it won't matter how the tax money is collected, there won't be enough. How the taxes are collected is a side-show which could be argured until the cows return. Center-Ring is spending. "Bridge to Nowhere" type projects and just pure socialism have gotten us to this point, NOT how we collect taxes. If we had listened to Ronaldous Magnus, we wouldn't be in this shape, but alas, we didn't and we are here. It's arguing about side-shows that gets out minds off of the real problem.

I read one Freeper's tagline that says it very well..."Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?" Changing the tax collection method does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to get us out of that handbasket and going in the opposite direction. I don't know about you, but it's getting mighty hot in this damned thing (in spite of the weather outside.)

Merry Christmas!!!
353 posted on 12/24/2005 6:47:23 AM PST by gooleyman ( What about the baby's "RIGHT TO CHOOSE"?????? I bet the baby would chose LIFE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason

WOW! Unbelievable.

Who made you the arbitor to decide any of this?

You should seek professional help to get over your anger.


354 posted on 12/24/2005 9:10:44 AM PST by Badray (Limited constitutional government means protection for all, but favor for none.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason

Do you care to name those whom you want to divest of their ill-gotten gain? Or is it anyone above a certain level of wealth?


355 posted on 12/24/2005 9:16:21 AM PST by Badray (Limited constitutional government means protection for all, but favor for none.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: phil_will1

I agree that we have to go with a consumption tax sooner or later. I just hope that it is before we have an economic armageddon, rather than afterwards.

Who would most benefit from economic armageddon?

Free market dynamics aside, US government has the most influence on the international politics of tax competition. 

The OCED under the guise of thwarting money laundering is an end-run means to pressure/squeeze tax havens to undermine their financial privacy laws. Almost all tax haven financial-services providers (banks, trade brokerage houses, etc.) have strict identification requirements a person or business must meet in order to open an account. 

All financial service providers, mostly banks, that I have researched will break their privacy protections when a solid case for terrorist or drug money laundering is presented. Most clearly state that tax avoidance or evasion issues brought to them by a foreign government will not penetrate the privacy protection measures. United States government is viewed by offshore financial service companies as the most demanding and threatening to their privacy protections and some will not accept new accounts from US citizens. Many offshore centers are blacklisted by OCED member countries. 

Get this. United States and Lebabon are the only two countries that tax their respective citizens wherever the citizens resides in the world and wherever in the world the citizen or business's income is derived. The United States going one step further, any person that relinquishes their US citizenship has to pay federal income tax for the following ten years. It is the law. Doubtful that any person that has given up their citizenship has ever complied. But just the arogance to create the law in the first place speaks voulmes.

But that's not the main point being made. The French government, this goes back a few years, wanted to tax their citizens and businesses whose income was derived from inside the United States. The French government thought the US government, with it's iron fist income tax would help France "spy" on it's citizens and businesses toward that end. Wrong. The US government refused. 

Most OCED member countries will comply with IRS demands to investigate US based companies operating in the OCED member country's borders. Yet the US government refused to help France.

Akin to many, if not most, politicians and bureaucrats that want to maintain the income tax control over US citizens and businesses, foreign countries that aren't considered tax havens, especially the OCED member countries, have no desire to give up their ability to control their respective citizens and businesses to an unobtrusive consumption-based tax system.

What's The Point?

It's this... foreign governments, like K street lobbyists have considerable reasons to pressure/influence US tax policy. As shown above with France and OCED pressure on non-member tax havens, the US government has the strongest hand in the arena of international tax competition. But there's reason to think that will go into decline if a major industrialized country is first to replace their tax system with a consumption-based tax system.

US government may be able to successfully pressure a foreign government to not replace their tax system with a NRST, but it's not likely to happen in reverse. Just as the FairTax grass roots must be more persuasive than K street, it must be more persuasive than foreign governments.

With much US influence on global market competition and international tax competition, the underlying policies that negate economic freedom will flip to foster economic freedom here and abroad. Sending the US economy into orbit (to barrow a phrase from CG) will impact the global market as the invisible hand of free market competition, thus aligned with intelligence and brute forces fighting terrorism overcomes and obsoletes the penultimate enemy, kill-em-all terrorists.

Juxtaposition of pros and cons of a consumption-based tax replacing the income tax is a mountain of positives to a molehill of negatives. 

356 posted on 12/24/2005 9:41:42 AM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: gooleyman

"How the taxes are collected is a side-show which could be argured until the cows return. Center-Ring is spending."

I think we disagree on this one. As Ancient Geezer has posted on many occasions, as long as most Americans don't perceive the tax burden that they are under, chances for getting real reductions in spending and taxation levels are remote.

By making the taxes that we all pay more visible, the FairTax will serve to exert downward pressure. Some consider it a weakness of the FairTax that there will be "sticker shock" when Americans see their tax burden for the first time. Supporters of the FairTax consider that a benefit.


357 posted on 12/24/2005 9:41:59 AM PST by phil_will1 (My posts are in no way limited or restricted by previously expressed SQL opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: phil_will1; RobFromGa
Some consider it a weakness of the FairTax that there will be "sticker shock" when Americans see their tax burden for the first time. Supporters of the FairTax consider that a benefit.
When did Fairtax supporters switch from price reductions and paycheck increases to "sticker shock" prices being a benefit?
358 posted on 12/24/2005 9:52:58 AM PST by lewislynn (Fairtax= lies, hope, wishful thinking and conjecture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: Badray

I've already posted at least twice my formula as a starting point for when someone's annual earnings become unfairly large.

My formula uses as its base the average annual earnings in America, so it rises and falls as the average earnings.

Roughly, the unfair amount is around more than a million a year.

The idea is that no one is so much better than average to be able to earn that much fairly--which doesn't mean necessarily that he cheats, it could simply be that the laws unfairly benefit such high earners (at the very least by not taxing them enough)


359 posted on 12/24/2005 9:53:57 AM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason

Do you consider yourself to be a conservative?

You sound more like a Marxist.

How did you get here and why do you stay here with economic theories like yours?


360 posted on 12/24/2005 12:00:15 PM PST by Badray (Limited constitutional government means protection for all, but favor for none.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: phil_will1
I think we disagree on this one....

At least we agree on something finally....that we disagree. I was beginning to think we'd never agree on anything...smile.
-----
Some consider it a weakness of the FairTax that there will be "sticker shock" when Americans see their tax burden for the first time. Supporters of the FairTax consider that a benefit.

Sticker Shock??? Are you kidding. I think everyone knows that taxes are too high. Tell me...do you know anyone personally who truly believes that taxes are too low? I highly doubt it. That's why Republicans have held on to the House, Senate and now the Presidency for so long. The problem is, they didn't control SPENDING like we thought they would. Now the "not a dimes worth of difference" people have a spending history to point at in spite of the fact that they've held the line on tax rates and have done many other good things.

-----
I can't join you in your all out quest for the so called "Fair Tax." I just don't believe it's the panacea that you think it is. Figures lie and liars figure, I've always heard.

I can be and often am proven wrong, but this one just doesn't pass my smell test. I believe it to be spinning wheels and wasting valuable rubber on something that won't make one bit of difference in the long run. Just MHO.
361 posted on 12/24/2005 6:58:11 PM PST by gooleyman ( What about the baby's "RIGHT TO CHOOSE"?????? I bet the baby would chose LIFE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: gooleyman

"Sticker Shock??? Are you kidding. I think everyone knows that taxes are too high."

Not at all true. Have you ever heard anyone respond when asked how much taxes they paid last year "oh, I didn't pay, I got a refund"? Even on FR, you can hear objections that we will never get this passed because of all those who pay little, if any, income taxes and they will have little reason to support it for that reason. That ignores the fact that many on the lower end of the income ladder pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes and that much of our tax burden is hidden in the price of the goods that we pay.


If all the FairTax did was ........

eliminate several hundred billion per year in compliance costs ..... that alone would make it worthwhile.

make US produced goods more competitive in the global marketplace .... that alone would make it worthwhile.

eliminate the most abusive and un-American federal agency in existence, the IRS ..... that alone would make it worthwhile.

The fact that it also makes the federal taxes we pay more visible and would therefore exert downward pressure on tax and spending rates is frosting on the cake.

As you say, we simply disagree. FairTaxers see a major benefit in making the tax burden more visible to all Americans who pay it; you don't.


362 posted on 12/25/2005 7:23:05 AM PST by phil_will1 (My posts are in no way limited or restricted by previously expressed SQL opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: phil_will1

Correction
".....the price of the goods that we pay."

S/B
"..... the prices of the goods we buy."


363 posted on 12/25/2005 7:29:29 AM PST by phil_will1 (My posts are in no way limited or restricted by previously expressed SQL opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: phil_will1
If all the FairTax did was ........

-----
To bad it won't do any of those things. It's a pig in a poke. It's a sideshow as I said before. It's a distraction. It will make absolutely NO positive difference at all. The initial difference will be a negative one. From there...we'll see.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a Good Night.
364 posted on 12/25/2005 1:37:50 PM PST by gooleyman ( What about the baby's "RIGHT TO CHOOSE"?????? I bet the baby would chose LIFE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: phil_will1

Don't forget my personal favorite:

If all it did was cripple the K Street lobbyists because business would no longer have an interest in taxes ... that alone would make it worthwhile.

What would Congress Critters do with all their time if they didn't have a line of lobbyists at their door ready to buy favors ? Do you suppose they'd actually find time for good legislation and listening to their constituents ? Maybe not, but more likely than today, anyway.


365 posted on 12/25/2005 10:28:23 PM PST by Kellis91789 (Rome didn't build a great Empire by having meetings. It did it by killing all who opposed it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: gooleyman

"To bad it won't do any of those things. It's a pig in a poke. It's a sideshow as I said before. It's a distraction."

Ok, you have certainly convinced me with your logic and persuasive powers. If the FairTax is a sideshow, where is the main event? Can you point me to a bill that would restore the government to its Constitutional boundaries? How many co-sponsors does it have? Where is the organization that one can join to advance this effort, in spite of the fact that a large portion of the taxes that we pay are hidden from the view of the taxpayers who shoulder the burden? You obviously have given this a lot of thought. Can you help me understand the strategy of getting something done about what you perceive as the primary problem with government finances?


366 posted on 12/26/2005 7:26:06 AM PST by phil_will1 (My posts are in no way limited or restricted by previously expressed SQL opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: phil_will1
Can you help me understand the strategy of getting something done about what you perceive as the primary problem with government finances?

-----
You can stick your condescension up your a$$. You pin-headed "intellectuals" (note the quotation marks) looking down on everybody who disagrees with you make me sick. As I said a couple of responses ago, the real problem is socialistic spending. (You were copied in that reply, so I KNOW you saw it. You're now just being an a$$hole.) I'll explain it here again in case I wasn't clear enough or didn't speak high enough to reach your cloud:

Listen carefully....Were it not for the reckless social spending, taxes would not have been raised so high. And unless that spending is checked and turned around, it won't matter how the taxes are collected, the country will continue to deficit-spend itself into oblivion on "Bridge to Nowhere" type projects.

You think the so-called "Fair Tax" is the answer. The be-all to end-all. Well, you and all your co-followers are totally deceived. While you spin your wheels with this excrement of an idea, spending is still spiraling out of control. From what I've read, there are already exclusions to this tax proposal. The Fair Tax rebate is just a tip of the iceberg. Before long, all sorts of lobbyists will get their exclusions in there and this "Fair Tax" will wind up as unfair and complex as the existing tax collection setup is. We'll be right back where we started. Dispute that!!! I say, if you're going to do this, remove that rebate. Make it just like Sales Taxes are today...no exemptions, no rebates...in other words a FLAT TAX that everyone pays no matter what. The way it's currently written, replaces a graduated/progressive income tax rate with a graduated/progressive sales tax rate. NO DIFFERENCE.

And in the meantime, you will have thrown the whole country into turmoil trying to figure out how to deal with (i.e. cheat) this new system. Take away those exemptions and deductions and the rate wouldn't have to be so high. 23% is astronomical and ripens the program for abuse, deceit and cheating. Couple that with a State Tax of 7 or 8% in most metropolitan areas and you're talking over 30%. The average income tax rate RIGHT NOW is much lower than that. How is that better for the taxpayers. Where's the pressure going to come from to reduce that rate? If the politicians keep jacking up the spending, how can the rates be reduced? Do you REALLY believe ANY State will rescind its income tax once this is instated. If so, that bridge I offered you, just quadrupled in price. I got me a real sucker on the line and I'm going to milk him for all he's got. A tax once collected is ALWAYS collected. Name me ONE, just ONE, that was rescinded. Ronald Reagan reduced tax rates, Congress spent more. National Debt went up. George H. W. Bush raised taxes. Congress spent more. National Debt went up. Slick Willie raised taxes. Congress spent more. National Debt went up. George W. Bush reduced tax rates, Congress spent more. National Debt went up. Notice a pattern? Spending... Spending... Spending ...Period.

I still say our liberal/communist friends will cog the works and we'll be stuck paying both taxes. Or some future liberal bunch of a$$hole Congress-Critters will re-institute an "emergency" income tax, thus sticking us with both. We can easily start a new tax collection scheme, but try to get rid of one after you start paying both and they start spending from both. Good luck with that one.

For the last time...IT'S SPENDING THAT NEEDS TO BE CUT, THEN TAXES CAN BE CUT. NO MATTER HOW THEY ARE COLLECTED, NO MATTER WHAT THE SOURCE, INCOME OR SALES TAX, THE RATES CAN NOT COME DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY UNLESS AND UNTIL SPENDING COMES DOWN.
367 posted on 12/26/2005 7:24:58 PM PST by gooleyman ( What about the baby's "RIGHT TO CHOOSE"?????? I bet the baby would chose LIFE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: gooleyman

"As I said a couple of responses ago, the real problem is socialistic spending."

Indeed, you have identified the problem quite clearly. What you have not done is to articulate a solution.

"For the last time...IT'S SPENDING THAT NEEDS TO BE CUT, THEN TAXES CAN BE CUT. NO MATTER HOW THEY ARE COLLECTED, NO MATTER WHAT THE SOURCE, INCOME OR SALES TAX, THE RATES CAN NOT COME DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY UNLESS AND UNTIL SPENDING COMES DOWN."

Completely absent from your emotional outburst is any strategy to address the problem of out of control spending. You have made it clear that you don't accept that making the taxes that we all pay more visible is a positive step in the right direction. However, you seem to have no clue what to do about the problem other than to vent on FR.

Good luck to you. I hope that approach works. However, I'm not holding my breath.


368 posted on 12/27/2005 3:58:53 PM PST by phil_will1 (My posts are in no way limited or restricted by previously expressed SQL opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: phil_will1
...However, I'm not holding my breath.

-----
Darn...I was hoping you would. Happy New Year!!!
369 posted on 12/28/2005 11:50:12 AM PST by gooleyman ( What about the baby's "RIGHT TO CHOOSE"?????? I bet the baby would chose LIFE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-369 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson