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
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.
There are no tweaks to be made to any system that is patently designed to hide the cost of government from the eyes of the American people on whom the tax must fall in their consumption expenditure.
Your system is a hoax to be perpetrated on the electorate and nothing more. There ain't no free lunches friend.
The following chart says it all, as the effective tax burden laid on the American people will always be a function of the retail commerce they engage in. Only people can pay taxes.
from Tax Freedom Day 2004 PDF http://www.taxfoundation.org/sr129.pdf
|
Total Effective Tax Rates by Level of Government |
|||
| Year | Federal | State | Total |
| 1998 | 22.4% | 10.4% | 32.8% |
| 1999 | 22.5% | 10.4% | 32.9% |
| 2000 | 23.1% | 10.4% | 33.5% |
| 2001 | 22.2% | 10.5% | 32.7% |
| 2002 1 | 19.7% | 10.2% | 29.2% |
| 2003 2 | 18.5% | 10.1% | 28.6% |
| 2004 3 | 17.9% | 10.0% | 27.9% |
| Notes: Leap day is omitted to make dates comparable over time. Positive and negative percentages in parentheses after legislation indicate the first-year fiscal impact of the bill,measured as a percentage of NNP. Since depreciation is not available to pay taxes, GDP is an overstatement of spendable income for the purpose of measuring tax burdens. Depreciation is netted out of NNP. 1 Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of 2001 Sources: Office of Management and Budget; Internal Revenue Service; Congressional Research Service; National Bureau of Economic Research; Treasury Department; and Tax Foundation calculations. |
|||