Posted on 11/04/2004 7:08:31 PM PST by MNJohnnie
Well the Dems would definitely dig their heels on the 'one rate for everybody' idea.
They do and have, it is a retail sales tax after all. Hardly something new under the sun, most people get the idea what it's about pretty easily. Hence single rate is not a thing they glom onto. They generally like to pretend that it is a tax on top of the current system demogoging the rate and cost of products and calling it regressive is there favorite tactic. In otherwords, anything a pubbie does starves childern and causes old ladies in wheelchairs to fall down stairs.
Also, you'd have to make it next to impossible for Congress to tinker with it,
otherwise the tax bureaucracy snowball would start all over again.
Sorry, the are no silver bullets. Congress has the power to do what it will with taxes under Article I Section 8 clause 1 of the Constitution.
It is up to the electorate to keep Congress in line. All a tax bill can hope to do is to provide a clean slate to begin with, and a system that resists change for the worse by its inherant characteristics, making supermajority rules to raise rates and that sort of thing.
The main thing with about a retail sales tax is that everyone experiences the same rate. Dink with one part of a retail sale tax, it changes things for everyone.
Make an exception then everyone gets the exception, increase the rate everyone gets hit with the rate increase. Not a thing that makes for an easy life for politicians dependant on keeping folks at home happy to stay in office.
I think that some type of socialism is inevitable unless civilization collapses completely
***
Maybe we need to start the long slog toward unlimited government. This would sure be a less painful road to follow, unless you can think of a way to reduce the population at the same rate that the jobs disappear.
You make that slog, I'm more interested working toward less government. That is the driving force of this forum you know.
Hmmmm! New here aren't you. Hope you have a good flame suit.
would you still need the IRS to administrate 'Fairtax'? (I'd think it could be downsized quite a bit)
The number of filers in a retail sales tax is less than 10% of the income/payroll tax. retail businesses are the only entities required to collected and remit such taxes.
The accounting required is that minimum that a business what have to track and maintain records of in any case, gross sales receipts.
In general, the FairTax Act, HR25, turns to the state tax authorities to administer the tax in parallel with state sales taxes, thus doing away with the IRS at the federal level.
All we really need to do is limit the growth of government to the same rate as the growth of the economy.
LOL, and just how do you intend to accomplish that. A hidden tax just means no brakes on demand for more government. Hiding the cost of government from view is nothing more than an open invitation to pander.
To remove perception of the tax burdens of the individual, is to remove the goad which assures accountability of government to the electorate. Federal tax rates are high and government grows ever larger because a majority of the electorate do not perceive proportionately the burden their demand for largesse imposes on the minority of citizens.
The siren call for representation without taxation is the formula that got us where we are at today. The ability to hide or disguise taxation from the view of large sectors of the electorate allows the Congress to get away with the creation of the evergrowing monster that it fosters.
The perception of free ride from the electorate's perspective under the Tobin and other transaction taxes like APT nothing more than an open check to pandering politicians.
So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?
The APT would allow short to medium term explosive economic growth, so it's really the long term we all need to consider carefully before proceeding.
Not by hitting every financial transaction out there. The APT would be worse than a VAT in its impact on the financial system. There are appoximately $40 trillion dollars flowing through multiple paths in the financial and equity markets. Every transaction getting hit with a tax like the APT would kill market liquidity and virtually destroy the trade infrastruction that is required to maintain orderly and free markets.
Sorry, I can see nothing good coming from such a tax. It is a socialist's wet dream and a capitalist's nightmare in its effects on markets.
Absolutely. Bush has done everything he's promised, even things I didn't want him to do! Like Medicare etc...
I think he will do it, or at least try.
Hmmm. Worth looking at. But I am about ready to hit the hay and it looks to complicated to read through right now! Bump for later.
Well, I did look at it again, and I agree with you. Bad idea. Fairtax much better.
Yes, better than Kerry, but if you go back ten years and itemize each tax cut, who gets it, when it starts and when it expires, I think the complexity would be self evident.
My man, Tom... Thank-you Club for Growth for pumping some cash into that race when it was critically needed.
Club for Growth..and all its members!!
We're making steady but sure progress toward our goal, my friend. Thank you for all of your hard work.
BUMP!
As others have pointed out, reducing the simple expense of dealing with our embarrassing patchwork of tax laws would be an economic boon, and I think President Bush has chosen his priorities well.
If I could suggest anything to him myself, I would suggest that we also look at reducing some spending; my modest suggestion would start with defunding the Department of Education, and work on rolling back the "drug benefit."
Looking over the "Budget Game", I whacked out $300 billion of discretionary spending in a single go. (If you are not familiar with this, it's amusing, but definitely has a marked lefty slant -- it's from UCB and its home page has a column The Progressive Populist -- and can produce quite snarky messages when you offend its liberal sensibilities about not spending enough money.) Such are the powers of play, but we have a majority in both houses, close to a super-majority in the Senate, and we have the Presidency. If we cannot reduce some spending with this fantastic position, then I don't believe that we will ever be in a position to do so. The iron is hot; let us strike.
How about just getting rid of the Tax Code 9whichis what he might have meant)...we need to get rid of the intrusiveness of this beaurocracy, the IRS...
You have the mandate, Mr. President. Let's not go "reaching out" to the likes of Teddy Kennedy again, please.
bmp^
Alot of people are going to be scared of it when they think they won't be able to deduct expenses (such as interest on house payments, having children, etc.) so how can we educate people on this?
And that is how it should be.
Bush and 51 members of congress are already on board. There will be hearings next year. I love it !!!
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.