If pigs could fly,,,,,
They do when enuff folks get behind and push.
Posted on 03/04/2004 10:31:36 PM PST by scripter
Should that be "ensures"?
A National Revenue Tariff uniformly applied on all imports would be vastly preferrable to the NST. Tariffs, the CONSTITUTIONAL tax.
The NRST is a national revenue duty and excise applied on all imports, so what's the problem?
Constitution for the United States of America:
- Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.
If pigs could fly,,,,,
They do when enuff folks get behind and push.
I see the cut and paste machine is still in full operation. LOL
Same question or remark, you figure the facts change from one day to the next or something?
Taxes of any kind = communism
No taxes = Anarchy.
James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #12:
Constitution for the United States of America:
Actually both of those are stalking horses that can be dismissed. First, the other countries are already imposing tariffs right and left right against the U.S. under the bleeping nose of the WTO. China for example, even after the latest bilateral treaty on automobiles with the U.S., has the 'right' to impose 10 times higher tariff than the U.S. duties on Chinese exports. This means they are now imposing a 25% tariff...which is down from the 70% tariff. Whoo Whooo! Such negotiating progress. Anyways, I just learned that China has been routinely imposing a 15% extra VAT that punishes non-Chinese-made semiconductors...right in the face of the WTO....daring them, and us, to do anything about it.
Anyways, neutral non-selective , i.e., general import duties for revenues are permitted by the WTO. What China is doing is "in-your face" trade war. And our Cato-Chickens run around like their heads are cut off....saying WE don't want to start a trade war! B'waaahahaa!
What we need to do is fire the McLellanite Cato-ists, and get in some real 'generals' who will fight this war.
Sir I never said it doesn't I am not going to hold my breath until this idea of fair taxes grabs these morons in washington by the short hairs. When I become pissed (the idea is slow to anger)and the rest of the working stiffs realize that our ruling class in this country are not for America then we will have real change one way or another.
it would not have the disadvantages of a tariff. Those are (1) it would invite retaliation by other countries, and (2) create WTO violations.
Actually both of those are stalking horses that can be dismissed.
There are just as good if not better reasons to not put control of the source of our national tax revenues into the hands of foriegn governments. National Defense being primary. Imagine relying on a tariff on Chinese or Franch products in a war.
"Suppose, as has been contended for, the federal power of taxation were to be confined to duties on imports, it is evident that the government, for want of being able to command other resources, would frequently be tempted to extend these duties to an injurious excess. There are persons who imagine that they can never be carried to too great a length; since the higher they are, the more it is alleged they will tend to discourage an extravagant consumption, to produce a favorable balance of trade, and to promote domestic manufactures. But all extremes are pernicious in various ways. Exorbitant duties on imported articles would beget a general spirit of smuggling; which is always prejudicial to the fair trader, and eventually to the revenue itself: they tend to render other classes of the community tributary, in an improper degree, to the manufacturing classes, to whom they give a premature monopoly of the markets; they sometimes force industry out of its more natural channels into others in which it flows with less advantage; and in the last place, they oppress the merchant, who is often obliged to pay them himself without any retribution from the consumer. When the demand is equal to the quantity of goods at market, the consumer generally pays the duty; but when the markets happen to be overstocked, a great proportion falls upon the merchant, and sometimes not only exhausts his profits, but breaks in upon his capital."
"The more intelligent adversaries of the new Constitution ...qualify ... by a distinction between what they call INTERNAL and EXTERNAL taxation. The former they would reserve to the State governments; the latter, which they explain into commercial imposts, or rather duties on imported articles, they declare themselves willing to concede to the federal head. This distinction, however, would violate the maxim of good sense and sound policy, which dictates that every POWER ought to be in proportion to its OBJECT; and would still leave the general government in a kind of tutelage to the State governments, inconsistent with every idea of vigor or efficiency. Who can pretend that commercial imposts are, or would be, alone equal to the present and future exigencies of the Union? Taking into the account the existing debt, foreign and domestic, upon any plan of extinguishment which a man moderately impressed with the importance of public justice and public credit could approve, in addition to the establishments which all parties will acknowledge to be necessary, we could not reasonably flatter ourselves, that this resource alone, upon the most improved scale, would even suffice for its present necessities.
You are missing the point. This is a proposed broad revenue tariff. It would not depend on China or India selling us stuff. It's anybody. And, historically, tariffs have generated more than we need for the Federal government's operations. In fact the biggest problem all through the late 1800's was the embarassing surplusses being run due to our tariffs....
The only reason I can see the prices of goods an service droping from this is if the tax paid employees is cut from their salary. Our take home pay will not change, but we will pay %5.00 more for "things".
Corporate income tax repealed, withit 65 cents for every tax dollar collected will be saved in cost of compliance.
All Payroll excises are repealed (employer half of FICA, to name the major one) accounting, reporting and remittence costs will dissappear as well.
See reply #40 for detailed verification. 20-25% of personal consumption are hidden burdens on price that are relieved with the repeal of all income and payroll taxes.
This is a proposed broad revenue tariff.
So is the NRST, every import would be fully taxed with a retail sales tax. Today, imports come in with VATs removed by the nations the come from. Putting our products at disadvantage to foreign goods.
Furthermore, our products have embedded tax cost that should not be their except that we impose income and payroll taxes on our companies. Those products are exported with those embedded taxes making them much less competitive in foreign markets.
With repeal of all income and payroll taxes, domestic product prices are relieved of 20-25% of the burden artificially pushing domestic businesses prices up in all markets.
With imposition of the NRST imported products sold in this nation will be burdened with the full federal tax that the escape from today.
The result our products become more competitive foriegn goods are fully taxed, a full leveling of the playing field and trade burdens truly equalized for the first time in a hundred years.
So your object is?
Yeah, that could happen.
They do when enuff folks get behind and push.
My old management professor (an amateur pilot) always liked to tell us that with enough thrust, you could get a brick to fly. So why not a pig, eh?
In fact the biggest problem all through the late 1800's was the embarassing surplusses being run due to our tariffs....
Sorry this is not the 1800's, we are no longer an agricultural based economy essentiall isolated from the world.
This is the year 21st century with all its complications and people's fixation on their bennies. Until the people of this nation change in fundament ways that encourage smaller government and an economy backtracking to 1800's living standards, you can forget "the embarassing surplusses being run due to our tariffs."
with enough thrust, you could get a brick to fly. So why not a pig, eh?
This is the spaceage is it not? Tie a rocket to its tail.
Ain't it neat to be out of that old agricultural economy, we can do neat stuff hi-tech now ;O)
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.