Posted on 02/26/2008 3:57:18 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Actually, it can be important to differentiate between flat taxes. One flat tax is an income tax on all income at a flat rate. The Hall-Rabushka flat tax is a consumption tax, with different properties. I've seen the two mixed on many threads, although from what I've read it seems that most people are talking about Hall-Rabushka when in support.
“Maybe you would like to explain what co-sponsorship of a bill means to the legislative process.”
Co-sponsorship of the bill means that there are some members of congress who see the merits of the proposed legislation and/or they believe that it is a net positive for them politically. It isn’t a perfect measure by any means, but it is a rough guage.
“(While you’re at it, maybe you could explain why more Republicans cosponsor the FairTax bill when they are out of power than when they are in.)”
The FairTax has been growing in support for some years now. That was taking place before Republicans lost control of both houses and it is continuing since that occurrence. I see very little cause and effect, as you are implying.
“Please. Your first response when the Flat Tax is mentioned is always ‘which bill do you support.’ That’s your attempt at stifling discussion about the idea of Flat Tax and make it more about the current bills in Congress...”
Let me see if I have this straight. The opponents have the right to examine every word of the FT bill and play “gotcha” games at every opportunity, but when we ask for specific bill language to examine, it is an attempt to stifle debate? I consider it an attempt to put the debate on a level playing field.
“....which is totally irrelevant at this stage in the game. The bill that is going to replace our current system hasn’t been written.”
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. However, you do not have the right to impose that opinion on me or other posters.
Personally, I think there are advantages and disadvantages to the main three alternative tax systems being discussed (Fair, Flat income, and Flat consumption), but all three systems are by far better than what we've got. But when discussing between the different alternatives, people need to define terms. (Economists are notorious for loose terms and switching definitions.)
Let me see if I have this straight. The opponents have the right to examine every word of the FT bill and play “gotcha” games at every opportunity, but when we ask for specific bill language to examine, it is an attempt to stifle debate? I consider it an attempt to put the debate on a level playing field.Maybe you should figure out the general concept before you start asking about the details. You don't seem to even understand that it's a consumption tax. If you can't get that concept - what are the details going to do for you?
That being the case, then you do not have the right to express the FT is terms outside of "Could", "Might", "Should", "Maybe", "In theory", etc. etc.
One flat tax is an income tax on all income at a flat rate. The Hall-Rabushka flat tax is a consumption tax, with different properties. I've seen the two mixed on many threads, although from what I've read it seems that most people are talking about Hall-Rabushka when in support.The Flat Tax is the Hall-Rabushka Flat Tax. Removing the graduated rates from the current system doesn't make it the Flat Tax or even a "flat tax." It's just an income tax with a single rate. This misunderstanding is propagated by FairTaxers when they claim that our current system started out as a flat tax (the implication is that if we go with the Flat Tax we'll just end up right back where we are). It may have had a single rate (in fact, it didn't), but that doesn't make it a flat tax as is commonly understood in today's tax reform world any more than someone saying a tax is a "fair tax" makes it the FairTax.
FT idiots.
And it is disruptors like you that pollute these threads with statements that show no comprehension of the concept whatsoever.
The statement above is abject ignorance.
So a company would have to locate its headquarters in America to take advantage.
You are painting with an economist's broad brush. Both are called consumption taxes because what is left over is savings.
Wikipedia saysGive me a second and it will say something different.
So a company would have to locate its headquarters in America to take advantage.The foreign owners of that business would still not be able to get any personal income from their business without it being taxed.
I concede your point about companies. However, investment money would seek out the U.S. since it is specifically exempt by the legislation. AND corporate pools of money that are here would earn a return tax exempt. Much like the US pharmaceutical companies' pools that are/were domiciled in the Caribbean.
So, in that sense, the US would still be a tax haven.
I just ran accross an interesting tidbit - The US has the lowest tax collection costs per capita of any of the G8.
“I just ran across an interesting tidbit - The US has the lowest tax collection costs per capita of any of the G8.”
A few comments
1. I noted that you did not cite your source. That makes me highly suspicious that it is one that most on here would not find credible. Either that, or (more likely) there is other data in there which does not support the point you are trying to make. In fact, I have looked for some comparative data on the complexity/compliance costs of various countries’ tax systems previously and have not found anything.
2. For someone who takes humbrage at the acronymn “SQL”, that sounds remarkably close to a defense of the status quo to me.
3. According to Dr. Arthur P. Hall (hardly a FairTax zealot), the cost of complying with the income tax system was $140 B per year back in the mid 90s. The cost of the entire federal tax system was estimated at $200B back then. I’m not sure what taxes account for the $60B difference, but the estate and gift tax would clearly be a significant component. The article was dated in June of 1995, but he didn’t make it clear (unless I missed it) which year he was referring to. I don’t think it is debatable that whatever the number was in the mid 90s, it is much larger today. At any rate, Dr. Hall estimates that moving to the Armey flat tax would save 94% of that and moving to NRST (with a rebate) would save 92%. I have a hard time believing that the Armey flat tax (which has now morphed into the Burgess flat tax option) could have saved more in compliance costs than than a sales tax, but that isn’t germane to this discussion. The fact of the matter is, if the opportunity to save more than $126 B in waste existed in the mid 90s and the number has gotten substantially larger today, that that does not constitute a significant benefit.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/8de6cd34cce32e3493b0d9a87d8bf90c.pdf
Centralization of practically all functions of government has made it easy for the lobbyist to buy the country.
Washington needs to be reduced to its Constitutional foundation:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
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.