Posted on 08/10/2004 7:08:18 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
NICEVILLE, Fla. (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) said on Tuesday that abolishing the U.S. income tax system and replacing it with a national sales tax was an idea worth considering.
"It's an interesting idea," Bush told an "Ask President Bush" campaign forum here. "You know, I'm not exactly sure how big the national sales tax is going to have to be, but it's the kind of interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously."
Republican economists who speak regularly to the White House have said that the Bush campaign has been mulling the idea of an overhaul of the tax code as part of an agenda for a second term should Bush win reelection.
Some lawmakers have floated ideas of simplifying the tax code by putting in place a "flat" income tax rate or a national sales tax. But those ideas have so far not gained much traction in Congress. Opponents say such a system would not be in the best interests of the poor and the middle class who would pay the same tax rate as the wealthy even though they have less disposable income.
" "You know, I'm not exactly sure how big the national sales tax is going to have to be, but it's the kind of interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously."
-- WooHoo! NRSTers, we've crossed the tipping point for FairTax support: Hastert, DeLay, Cheney (he said it was a good idea a year or two ago), and now maybe Bush. 4/5ths of GOP leadership is now on board.
Paging Dr. Frist....
All businesses which turn a profit (unlike Amazon), have to pay corporate taxes. The cost of doing business includes all expenses incurred when running a business. In that respect, there is no advantage to conducting business over the internet. There is an inherent advantage though gained by saving the customer the transaction taxes they would otherwise incur if they bought locally. Another advantage would be the ability to locate the "storefront" in inexpensive warehouse real estate.
With respect to your point about the disparate treatment among the states regarding their citizens, that is a consequence of where one chooses to live. That a state might allow a citizen the option of declaring his taxable purchases and to voluntarily remit the payment is like asking the speeder to assess himself for his infraction. I dare say that with the exception of those who might find themselves in the revenuer's gunsights, few people who owe the taxes actually pay them.
I am not at all against the notion of consolidating all taxes into a single form. But I simply do not trust the government to behave so benignly. I don't smoke, but I doubt there would be any reduction in cigarette taxes. I surely don't expect to see the government sacrifice its massive taxes on distilled spirits or gasoline.
There was a time, long ago when the government financed its operation by taxing the products of those manufacturers from abroad, fortunate enough to be allowed to peddle their wares in this country. Free trade has disabled that option.
My preferred method would be a bit simpler and even more controlling on the taxing capacities of the states as well. The federal government should establish a budget of exactly how much money they want to spend next year. That amount would be apportioned among the states by the same method we use for electing the president, by the size of their federal delegation. California would pay 52/535 of the total, Maryland would pay 10/535 of the total, Wyoming would pay 3/535 and so on. The states then could raise the money in any way they see fit.
That would allow for the proper incentives to be in play. Those representatives who lobbied for additional taxes would have to pay proportionally more for that luxury. Those states which heavily taxed their business would see them leave. Those states which taxed sinners would find more teatotalers in the future. The idea is to have the taxes assessed as closely as possible to the local district - there your vote counts the most. You can always remedy your predicament by selecting among the remaining 49 states.
The more equal taxes become nationally, the less free you are to move around to gain the tax situation which best fits your life. If all states end up being treated the same, where are the 50 micro experiments? Where are the incentives to economized? Why would somebody advocate frugality if all the other states decide otherwise?
"A national sales tax would be the death of the tax-free internet and it would usher in state sales taxes being assessed on out of state purchases. Once the federal government established the national sales tax architecture, the states would be able to piggyback quickly."
-- So what? All we would need to do is transition to a origin-based interstate sales tax system. Economist at the ultra-conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) have been clamoring for this for years.
What it an "origin-based interstate sales tax system"?
Instead of basing the tax on where buyer is located, how it is now, it would be based on where the seller is! And what's the result??? Businesses flock to set up shop in whichever state has the lowest sales tax!!! That's called tax competition, my FRiend.
Thoughts???
"AA fire"
-- From an Airmen, it's AAA fire.
"There goes the neighborhood. It'll be a phased plan.
First they'll add the national sales tax and slightly lower the income tax to offset it.
Second phase, they'll start raising both of them again.
Folks this won't change the fact we are over a barrel. It will just change the color of the barrel we are over."
-- It's an easy fix: set a deadline the income tax is eliminated for good. Even with a constitutional amendment this would have to happen.
All we do is pass a bill that says income/payroll taxes will have to be 100% gone by 2012, or something like that. Override of the deadline would require 2/3 majority.
mmm, Red Meat...
I agree.
The flat income tax concept misses the $200 billion-plus underground economy of criminals, professional tax avoiders and foreign tourists. ""
And there are serious structuring problems that would allow the same to happen with a national sales tax.
I actually think it should be a combination of the two.
Rather than say, a 20% tax on either, a 10% tax on both.
One advantage of this, aside from making it easier for the public to swallow, is that the two approaches even each other out as far as "egalitarian" concerns go.
Those who amass wealth without spending or investing it could avoid taxation with a national sales tax, but not a flat tax.
Those who are trust fund idle rich who spend a lot but earn none could avoid taxation with a flat tax, but not a national sales tax.
So I say do both at half the rate.
If repealing the 16th amendment is NOT a part of this, I want nothing to do with it. We would just be begging for living british-style, with VAT and income tax, in the future.
i vote for the "everybody but me" tax
I want a new form altogether.
I want to see the IRS castrated along with the multitudinous tax attorney corporations skimming off the working man and privately held corporations.
I want to see the social policy enforcers who look to the income tax as a way to control people's behaviors... lying in droves, locked up in prisons for the mentally insane, over the loss of their goose that laid so many of their golden eggs.
Will it happen?
no.
Would it be nice to defund the left via a revision in the way we collect and redistribute tax receipts??? heck yes.
and some of them...
are already here... pooping on the idea.
It wont work though if the PEOPLE get behind it.
Looks like we're moving a little closer, day-by-day. Taxman, the quote of President Bush says he's unsure about the tax rate that would be required. Did you notice? Actually, I'm sure you did, and are way ahead of me.
>>What if the Congress decides to "compromise" and let us pay both national sales tax and income tax under guise we have to phase it in.
Most likely.
Its very hard to believe we could ever divorce ourselves from
a system where American MUST report their individual
incomes to the government.
We'd end up with both systems.
When the gestapo IRS is disbanded permanently and the IRC is no longer used with smoke and mirrors to bully Americans and treat them like slaves, depriving life, liberty and freedom - it'll be a gargantuan step forward.
Even the teet-suckers will benefit with more opportunity, but none of them can read and carry logic past .01 steps so they'll stick with communist taxation of the rest of us - and their plantation owners in the DNC like it that way...
Good memory. That's how my scorecard reads as well...
Good point. Kerry's a fine example... 18 years in the Senate and he never had a bright idea to propose something that would win over the hearts and minds of 50 other Senators.
So now the "lazy loafer" thinks if we just elect him to a HIGHER office, he will suddenly have even BETTER ideas for proposing legislation that will get adopted???
Oh, and I agree with oceanview that a NEW TAX of any kind is a LOSER issue at this point and time. Bush should PUSH Kerry to actually PROPOSE his ideas in the Senate NOW, not just make secret promises.
why doesn't he just talk 100% of the time on how weak a leader Kerry would be in the war on terror. does anyone on the WH political team have a clue as to what will win or lose this election?
Why? If he comes out strongly for HR 25 - the FairTax Act, he will get my vote. And a lot of others.
Ripping the IRS out by the roots and eliminating the Federal Income Tax will do more to restore liberty and Constitutional government in this country than any other action except for a complete reversal of all anti gun laws.
The war on terror is not the only thing to be concerned about. Sure, the terrorists can kill you, but our own government has the power to enslave you and your children and grandchildren with the tax laws alone.
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.