APT: A Tiny, Flat Transaction Tax - Far Better for the Nation than the National Sales Tax

www.apttax.com ^ | 11/1/04 | Edgar L Feige, PhD

[socialismisinsidious]

"....will require several years and CAREFUL government management...."

you have got to be kidding...what an oxymoron that is!


...."The tax would be automatically deducted from SPECIAL taxpayer accounts..."


george orwell call your office

[kevkrom]

APT deserves a seat at the "Tax reform table". Our country does not need to be sold down the NST river thinking it's the only way to end the IRS and the Code.

Feel free to propose and discuss it, but an APT is a bad idea -- it takes the worst aspects of an income tax and of a VAT, and only offers simplicity in return.

As a NRST supporter, I'd rather go with a flat income tax than an APT because it at least has some measure of visibility in it, and is at least as simple as the APT.

[phil_will1]

"Investors would simply stop, and I mean STOP as in totally and quickly, trading securities on US stock exchanges. Capital formation would CEASE, and jobs would disappear QUICKLY as investment would halt."

Not at the tiny rates they are quoting. My biggest concern is as follows. Using their own numbers, we are talking about a huge decrease in the taxes that individuals would pay (at least directly to the fed govt). And yet, they claim that the proposal is revenue neutral. That means a huge increase in taxes that businesses would pay. That, in turn, means that an even greater proportion of our tax burden gets buried in the prices of the goods that are produced in the USA. The end result would be that US producers are even less competitive in the increasingly global world economic market that we are faced with today.

My conclusion is therefore that, although the poster may be right about the transaction tax accomplishing some of the goals of the FairTax, in this crucal respect, it would make the current situation worse, rather than better.

I am more than willing to give the transaction tax a seat at the tax reform debate, as well as any other legitimate proposal. A friend of mine who is a strong FairTax supporter told me that he supported the flat tax when it first came out, then switched to Tauzin's sales tax proposal, because he thought that it was better, then later to the FairTax. He said that if someone came out with a better plan tomorrow, he would support it. I agree totally with that sentiment. I am just not convinced that the transaction tax represents a better approach.

[phil_will1]

"....is any argument reason for everyone to continue to pay 70 TIMES more tax than they have to."

That confirms my concern posted above. If you are selling this based on a huge decrease in taxes that individuals will pay, then I would say that concern is very legitimate. In the end, consumers pay all taxes.

[phil_will1]

"Sure there well be some past throughto the individual but most will not. Because the tax is relatively so small much of it will be taken up by the market forces and bidding process."

I assume that you have an economic study that backs that claim up?

[balrog666]

would an internationally known Professor of Economics not have considered these thing before putting his name on the line?

Yes. Obviously. Indubitably. Buy a clue, will ya?

and finally, does this or that argument mean that we should all continue to pay 70 TIMES more tax than we have to?

You can't seriously believe this horsesh!t, can you?

If the same amount of money (that's what "revenue neutral" means) will be collected, and our taxes "fall" under this proposal, just who do you think will be paying the difference?

[Sarastro]

There seems to be a misunderstanding about the 70 Times figure. This comes form [sic] the fact that the APT tax base is approximately 70 times the current individual and corporate adjusted groo [sic] income tax base. Sure there well [sic] be some past [sic] throughto [sic] the individual but most will not. Because the tax is relatively so small much of it will be taken up by the market forces and bidding process.

Thank you for posting this. It is the clearest possible statement in support of my earlier post that this is a crackpot idea and -- now established -- you, sir or madam, are a crackpot. Your attempt to wave away the many cogent counterarguments on this thread are laughable! Even you must know that ALL of the tax burden falls ultimately on the people and that the people are not going to get a 70-times reduction in taxes while still getting a government, bloated as it is.

[EternalVigilance]

Frankly, I'll be surprised if he ever posts here again, after what SAJ did to his position in #62. ;-)

The guy might never show his face in public ANYWHERE ever again! LOL...

[ancient_geezer]

It is one thing to write a paper, article or book to sell a plan without the light free and open public debate and dissenting opinion.

Anything can be sold to people in a vacuum where only one side can be presented.

That is the essence of what has been lacking with Mainstream Media and traditional modes of communicating for decades.


It is another to engage in free debate and be exposed to light of opposing information.

Public forums such as FR, open up the procress of critical review of all ideas that they may be tested in the fire of public discourse instead of the academic hothouse where even the weakest concepts can grab hold and grow like a fungus.

[PTBarnum]

I would if there wasn't anything better. I wish you the best with your efforts.

[kevkrom]

You gotta know the APT proposal stinks when the typically tooth-and-nails pro-NRST and anti-NRST folks are both agreeing about how bad it is...

:)

[aShepard]

...."ask yourself - would an internationally known Professor of Economics not have considered these thing before putting his name on the line?"....

So what's so special about an internationally known economist??

The name Jack Krugman comes to mind, poisioning the minds of his Princeton students, and his RAT readers.

[ovrtaxt]

It would give the bastards yet another way to hide their rapacious ways.

Amen to that. That's the same problem with a VAT. By the time the product or service makes it to the consumer, the control freaks are getting rich and the consumer is getting raped.

[balrog666]

You gotta know the APT proposal stinks when the typically tooth-and-nails pro-NRST and anti-NRST folks are both agreeing about how bad it is...

D@mn right! ;^)

[PTBarnum]

Your comments are jeuvenile. Grow up. No tax proposal is perfect, and all have their merits. Let's have some intelligent civil discourse here. OK?

[PTBarnum]

SAJ is the one who shouldn't show his face in public. APT Project Director is earnestly engaging Freepers in high level discourse. I guess some lack the maturity to pick up on that.

[PTBarnum]

The incidence of APT tax falls lightly on the inividual. If revenue neutral, APT shouldn't increase any "hidden" tax burden. P.S. Please watch the name calling. OK?

[kevkrom]

SAJ is dead-on correct, and barely scratches the surface. You can't counter his arguments, so you resort to calling him "juvenile".

As for the incidence falling on individuals, all taxes fall on individuals at some point. You can't raise the same amount of revenue and claim that individuals aren't paying it. The only thing you can say, under most tax reform proposals, is that simplification of the system reduces compliance costs.

[jrfaug06]

Hi,

I was just using 1% as an example. But I think using the banks is a novel idea when you consider they already have the infrastructure in place to adminster it.

John

[jrfaug06]

There would have to be some tweaks to the system, and 1% is way too high number. I was just using it as any example.

John