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 ...
You're absolutely right - that's what this is all about, and why there are 50+ consponsors of the proposed legislation RIGHT NOW in the House. They'll listen if they think we care.
But hurrying in to change a successful system because we've got a theory on how to make it better seems like a bad idea on it's face.
On it's face? Most change is met with resistance. That's a given.
The left had great sounding theories on socialisim that never worked.
The regressive income tax is rooted in socialism/fascism. The NRST is rooted in capitalism. It doesn't get implemented as pure capitalism, despite eliminating the IRS, but that is the direction it will be pushed towards and eventually, sooner rather than later will evolve to user/service fees. That comes along with downsizing government due to tax transparency and a booming economy. Other countries will have to follow suit to remain competitive.
Are you seriously saying that if a state does not send in it's full sales tax receipts (and who is to know how much they actually collected, who is to say what percentage they should send in, and who will audit them?) that you will send in the military to shoot up the place?
The NST is a loser of an idea is that is your plan.
They currently keep it because it's theirs to keep. I don't seriously think we're going to have states trying to hijack federal taxes. The feds will still have enforcement teeth with a NST. They might have to bite a state employee here and there, but it would work fine.
If you don't like the idea of abolishing the IRS consider this:
The code consists of 7.5 Million words.
That means that if you ignore, don't understand or mis interpert just one one hundred thousanth of the code, just 75 words, you can go to jail, loose your house or be utterly financially devastated.
The IRS rules are so complex they are arbitrarily applied. Your "degree of guilt" is up to the opinion of a beaurocrat and you will have hell to pay if you want to argue. They decide if you "did this on purpose" or were "just ignorant".
The IRS has already set itself up as a church, determining what can and can not be said in a religious meeting. And they will punish your religious organization by taking your money if they don't like what you say in your church.
It is only going to get worse. The IRS needs to be disbanded and sent packing. And the government needs to come up with a different mechanism for tax revenue.
So Texas will keep 20% of their NST receipts as a administrative fee to cover the cost of collection, but Massachussets will keep 85% because they have a bigger bureaucracy and need to pay more government salaries. Who will audit them? Who will check that their admin costs are correct? What if they don't pay?
HA, ha, ha! My sides are hurting from laughing at your naivete.
The feds will still have enforcement teeth with a NST.
You will bring back the IRS to enforce this?
Resisting the urge to reply in kind ...... but are you implying that the USA of 2004 is ANYTHING like the USA of - what - 1780 or thereabouts?
I suggest you look at www.fairtax.org for more information on the National Sales Tax. It seems to be win-win to me. Consider:
1) every item you buy today has a built-in cost for complying with the 40 volumes of income tax regulations even if the corporation producing or transporting or selling the item paid no corporate income tax at all. This is simply waste. Eliminating the income tax eliminates this waste. This waste, combined with the cost of employment taxes, totals approximately 22% of every item you buy. Eliminate these taxes, the cost of all items goes down about 22%. If the sales tax is at about 22%, at worst you break even, even if you pay no income tax.
2) Moderate income workers will get an immediate 15% increase in their pay - they don't pay FICA, their employers don't pay FICA and so can increase their pay. Higher income workers don't pay income tax.
3) Everybody pays national sales tax, including the very rich, illegals and people who earn money illegally. This will reduce the overall tax rate because more people will be paying than pay now.
4) More jobs will be created - US companies will have their costs reduced by 22%, so can sell stuff overseas cheaper. Moreover, overseas companys will be enticed to build new plants here because their profits will not be taxed by the US any more.
5) The poor will gain big time - they get more money when they work, they pay lower prices, and they get a rebate of taxes paid on the first $20,000 of stuff they buy.
6) It screws the Democrats big time by taking away 2 of their biggest scare issues - the "tax cuts for the rich" class warfare rhetoric, and the "Republicans will take away social security" issue.
7) Since everyone pays taxes, it provides incentive for everyone to be interested in what is actually being done with all that tax money -- encourages an informed and interested electorate.
What is not to like??
Fair Tax plug.
So why not institute a flat tax instead?
Before anyone goes all screwy against the "Fair tax" check out the web site and get informed about it.
http://www.fairtax.org
It`s got it`s shortcomings, but it is still a work in progress. For example
"Everyone pays their fair share of taxes, and with the FairTax rebate, spending up to the poverty level is tax free. The Federal government is fully funded, including Social Security and Medicare, and you don't need an expert to determine your Federal taxes."
I'm in favor of a National sales tax.
As a small business i now collect sales tax for the state and it is so simple to fill out the report and pay it quarterly it only takes about a 1/2 hour. I would be happy to to do the same for the federal government. I hate the income tax and the government would collect much more with the sales tax and it would expose the underground economy.
Are YOU implying that states will simply fork over 100% of billions of dollars they collect on behalf of the feds without any shenanigans?
Do you have any examples of this being successfully carried out?
Umm... Did I miss the "State Governments Steal The Federal Government Blind All The Time" segment of U.S. History in college? Where does your assertion that the revenues wouldn't end up in the right hands come from? Did your overwhelming cynicism tackle you and type that in while it held you down on the floor?
The bureaucracy required to administer the probate checks and be watchdog over states remitting tax receipts would be less than one percent of what the IRS now costs to fund. And the right to privacy regained is absolutely enormous.
I have lived in Britain where they have a VAT, and I'm telling you there are lots of businesses that sell goods "off the books" to avoid the VAT. There is a large bureaucracy there involved in making sure people in the retail trade actually remit their taxes.
At least there's a thoughtful discussion going about a controversial topic that is NOT the election - which is a good thing, and why I started this thread in the first place.
I guess you did if you missed the part of U.S. history from 1776 to 1789.
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.