Posted on 07/03/2004 12:59:10 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis
Ping for a paper writtem by a fellow NRSTer (Myself).
very good. I suggest that you shorten it up a bit, and post it during the day or early evening so most freepers can see it, as posting at 3AM will not be seen by many.
BFLR
Both my wife and I operate sole proprietorships. Most of our supplies are not purchased wholesale, because we are the end user. So do our small businesses get stuck with the tab?
Just roll the Fedgov back to its Constitutional limits and we won't need to pay much out in the first place. (and not that bogus interstate commerce clause bit, either.)
If this clause is part of it, I will oppose the NRST. "Taxation" as "life handicapper" is bullshit. The ONLY purpose of ANY taxation should be to finance necessary government functions. ALL citizens should pay an equal PERCENTAGE of their income. If you want to "benefit the poor", then do as the states currently do, and exempt food and medicine from the sales tax.
I hate to criticize what is obviously a labor of love, but I think you need a summary for those of us who haven't studied all the ins and outs of this issue.
I don't doubt that the tax code is a terrible mess and an opportunity for serious improvement in our economy. The only issue to me is whether those improvements, and any advantage to civil liberties as adduced by Alan Keyes, are worth the additional political capital over and above what would be required for a flat tax. Because you are proposing a constitutional amendment as part of your package; that's a lot of heavy lifting and the politics of that cannot be simply wished away.
ALL citizens should pay an equal PERCENTAGE of their income.
==
So you believe that citizens should be punished for what they produce?
>>ALL citizens should pay an equal PERCENTAGE of their income.
Why?? Why should people that make more money have to have more of it stolen by the government simply because they have earned it? Where do you get the right to claim other people's money?
"Why should people that make more money have to have more of it stolen by the government simply because they have earned it?"
So both of you prefer the current "progressive" taxation scheme in which those who make more money pay a HIGHER PERCENTAGE than those who don't???
My downtown hardware store (with it's 2% margin) will turn into a museum. The financial incentive for Lowes to bulldoze a stretch of woods 5 miles out of town will increase. There won't be any more stores selling ammo in town.
Those are all negatives or positives depending on your social philosophy.
To all you who oppose the Fair Tax, here is the summation of the core issue in a nutshell.
CONTROL.
Taxing income requires an invasion of every individual's personal records. Taxing consumption, on the other hand, requires a collection at the point of every eligible transaction. (not used items, even houses.)
The system which taxes income is the tool of intimidation which the control freaks in the government use to their advantage, and our subjugation. The IRS keeps us all in a state of perpetual jeopardy, with courts that operate completely outside the authority of the Constitution.
All things being equal, (and the FairTax is a revenue neutral plan) taxing consumption is better for our individual freedom.
We can all get bogged down in the minutiae of the competing plans, but NOBODY, even the usual gang of naysayers, has yet so much as challenged me on this point.
Have a nice day.
No, the fairtax alternative is to pay taxes on what is spent. see my post #12 for why this is better.
Huh? Since purchasers at the local hardware store and Lowe's will both pay the same tax rate, why would Lowe's have any more competitive advantage than they already have?
Sorry, that's factually incorrect. Seniors pay taxes ON 50-85% of their social security check, not taxes OF 50-85% of their SS check.
The local HW store doesn't have cash to ride out the transition, nor can they get loans. All they have is inventory which will be worth 15 or 20% less overnight. OTOH Lowes will have a much smaller relative loss since their inventory is a lot smaller percentage of their worth.
So both of you prefer the current "progressive" taxation scheme in which those who make more money pay a HIGHER PERCENTAGE than those who don't???
===
LOL.. Did you even read what I posted?
If I said people shouldn't be punished for what they produce, what in the hell would make you think that I support the current system?
Re-read each of our posts, and re-read what you posted.. You clearly aren't on the same page as us.
Huh? Since purchasers at the local hardware store and Lowe's will both pay the same tax rate, why would Lowe's have any more competitive advantage than they already have?
===
Huh?
Lowe's would have overwhelmingly more purchasing power against the local hardware store.. but would they have more purchasing power against Home Depot?
The only drawback to this plan is that in order for any new tax plan to work the gov't must stop spening money like drunken sailors on shore leave.(sorry o all you Navy vets). I have always advocated the NRST so it gets the govt out of my paycheck and kills the Gestapo like tactics of the IRS. My concern is that if you give politicians revenue they will spend all of it and more.
bump
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.