Posted on 11/03/2004 10:42:24 AM PST by tgusa
"I'm not exactly sure how big the national sales tax is going to have to be, but it's kind of an interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously," the president said. The next day administration officials said Bush was not considering such a reform.
John Kerry's campaign quickly condemned a national sales tax, and Bush for potentially supporting it.
“If [Bush] has his way, every trip to the supermarket will feel like a visit to H&R Block and every day will be April 15. And now that this plan has been exposed, George W. Bush is trying to mislead the public into thinking it was just an off-the-cuff comment," Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said in an Aug. 12 statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Are you talking about the same IRS I have to deal with????
Not broke???
Well, maybe not. It's so limber and convoluted, it doesn't break, just wraps around ya like a serpent and strangles ya to death
What about the money I've alraedy saved and have already paid taxes on when I go to spend it under the NST? That's not pre-tax money.
Ahhh - do you have state sales tax? If so, how do you pay it?
(go ahead, take a minute)
Oh yeah, pay as you go...no one watching over you. pay at the register...no income tax taken out of your paycheck...
It will be taxed at the same clip under the nrst as it is today when spent.
1) Overall taxation would be the same as it is now - it equals what the government spends plus or minus surplus or deficit spending. This plan in no way cuts spending, it only changes the method of paying for government. It may cut compliance costs and increase privacy which are good things in and of themselves. 2) It does increase the amount of taxes on my existing stock of capital since under the present method of collecting taxes, the rate of taxation on the goods and services purchased is lower than it would otherwise be because income and capital gains are taxed (and make up revenue to the government which would need to be offset). 3) I do take seriously the history of the income tax and am quite aware that the founders did not want this method of taxation (which required a constitutional amendment to legalize). 4) I heartily support putting CPAs and tax attorneys out of work and redirecting their energies to useful things like cost accounting. 6) Lets take a simple example. Joe Citizen is retired and has $1000 in the bank. He needs $100 per year to live on. When purchasing the goods and services he needs to live, he pays some corporate tax and some sales/excise taxes. Under a national sales tax, the tax on those goods must go up to cover the lost revenue to the government caused by the loss of income taxes (paid for by other persons since Joe is retired) which pays for government services (assuming the gov doesn't run a deficit). Other persons than Joe paid those taxes in the prior state. Now Joe has to pay a share of them. Joe appears to me to be worse off.
And another upside is that it turns all of your disposable income into a potential IRA. If you save money then no tax on that money (or its growth) - until you spend it. Will effectively do away with the (ridiculously low) $3000 limits on IRA contributions. Anything the gov't can do to encourage people to save for the future is good IMO.
It's not an NST. It's an NRST.
The money already saved will be treated the same under the NRST as it is today with respect to taxation.
What about the money I've alraedy saved and have already paid taxes on when I go to spend it under the NST? That's not pre-tax money.
I have explained it to you twice on this thread and to one other person on this thread. I suggest you put forth the effort to pay attention.
How so? Where is this "hidden tax" on a $50 microwave oven that was made in China that I buy at Wal-Mart? There's no income tax paid to feds from the Chinese factory workers. There's a little bit for the Wal-Mart employees, but it in no way reaches the amount being argued here.
I've had it ALREADY taxed. Perhaps you people have a hard time understanding this because you have no savings -- but I do. It's already been taxed and now you want to tax it again when I spend it.
I take a very conservative view on taxes. An individual should be able to save "x" and not be punished for it. (so I guess I agree with you)
Don't worry, it's a quite typical reaction at FR, - whenever facts interfere with emotion.
In short, I agree with Denny Hastert's comments on the subject (MTP, August 2004)
"...We don't lose jobs in this country because our salaries are higher, because our salaries are commensurate with the Italians, with the Germans and the Japanese and the Dutch or whoever. This problem is because with litigation costs, taxation costs and regulation costs.
A big part that of is taxation costs. We can be a more vibrant country. I'm looking into the future, the next 10 or 15 years. We can double our economy. If we double our economy, all the deficits we have today, all those mountains become molehills."
That's the spirit! Why not dare to dream how fast this economy can grow under such circumstances? That's the kind of thinking that first tuned me in to Jack Kemp, the second Republican (after Reagan) to really capture my heart, so to speak.
Why settle for, say, 3% GNP growth in this country being classified as "healthy"? Why not 6? Why not more?
The time, the political will...all the pieces are in place to make a real, serious, honest effort at overhauling the tax system in this country.
Can't wait to get to work on this.
(PS-A little sports-politics did ya know: One reason why the Houston Texans are my favorite NFL team, asides from being my hometown's team, is owner Bob McNair. Bob's also a founder of Americans for Fair Taxation (FR thread on topic here) )
How so? Where is this "hidden tax" on a $50 microwave oven that was made in China that I buy at Wal-Mart?
Sigh. --- No american company can even profitably ~make~ [in the USA] a microwave that Walmart can sell for 50 bucks, -- because of our tax/welfare structure.
There's no income tax paid to feds from the Chinese factory workers. There's a little bit for the Wal-Mart employees, but it in no way reaches the amount being argued here.
You've just outlined another good reason why we should revamp our tax structure with the Fair Tax. Thanks.
Replacing all this unfairness with a one-time, you will now pay federal sales taxes on money you have already been taxed on, is still unfair, but much less so in the grand scheme of things.
Denny Hastert's comments on the subject (MTP, August 2004):
"...We don't lose jobs in this country because our salaries are higher, because our salaries are commensurate with the Italians, with the Germans and the Japanese and the Dutch or whoever. This problem is because with litigation costs, taxation costs and regulation costs.
A big part that of is taxation costs. We can be a more vibrant country. I'm looking into the future, the next 10 or 15 years. We can double our economy. If we double our economy, all the deficits we have today, all those mountains become molehills."
______________________________________
That's the spirit! Why not dare to dream how fast this economy can grow under such circumstances?
-LL-
______________________________________
Well said.. Now all we have to convince are some self described 'freedom' FReekers, --- and umpteen million socialist welfare lovers of the statist quo income tax system.
Understood and agreed that it is better to tax once than many times. LOL, I have an MBA, so I know a bit about economics. I am not naysaying the proposition (NRST). What I am concerned about is what happens to retired people of fixed means. I am not one of them, but I do have parents who are. I hope to be one myself someday. Several here have either missed the point of my question all together or said they answered it when they had not.
I support a national sales tax, but I have to disagree with you here. Of course the feds are taxing money twice if it was saved before the sales tax went into place:
Person A pays $25 on his earned $100 and saves it. After the NST, he spends his $100 on a widget costing $100 and pays another $25 in taxes. The widget costs $25 less than it used to. Person A has paid $50 in taxes but has saved $25 because of the lower widget cost.
Person B saves $100 without paying taxes. He spends his $100 on the same widget Person A bought and pays $25 in taxes. He enjoys the same lower widget cost but has paid half as much in taxes.
Any sales tax scheme will need to account for these differences. There are a ton of people with substantial Roth IRA (and other post-tax) savings that will be screwed (in relation to people without savings) under this scenario.
I should clarify one thing re my above post: It is clear that Person A is no worse off than he would have been otherwise - but Person B gets to enjoy the benefit of the new tax system while Person A does not.
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.