No, you aren't misunderstanding my post. You just aren't as informed about the nst as you think you are.
Isn't your position that compliance cost would still be high because income, for SS purposes, would still be required to be reported to the Feds by the employer?
Yes, not only reported by the employer but paid to the employee.
Given the fact that a person's income while working doesn't determine the benefit they receive, why would the income of any employer need to be reported?
So the bureaucrats at SS can detrmine the tax rate as required by the bill to fund their scam...
Get informed, be careful what you wish for.
The reason that I am asking you for clarification is because I am trying to "get informed". If you would prefer that I not ask for clarification, then by all means let me know.
Now, your point is still not clear to me. If the funding of the program is shifted to a consumption tax, why is there a need for the employee or employer to declare the income of any individual?
You already stated that the benefits paid are not based on the individual's historical income, therefore, your point about declaring income is not clear to me. Wouldn't the "budget" or total benefits to be paid be figured as a percentage of "consumable goods" or GDP (or some other function of figuring total amount of goods purchased) and a percentage tax rate be figured from that total?