Posted on 11/25/2004 11:35:38 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
When liberals in the media or in politics start being alarmed about the national debt, it means just one thing: They want higher taxes. The thought of reducing spending would never cross their minds.
As we are endlessly reminded, the federal government's debt has reached record levels during the Bush administration. That enables the liberal media to use their favorite word -- "crisis" -- and adds urgency to doing their favorite thing, raising taxes.
Since we have a larger population than ever and a larger national income than ever, it should hardly be surprising that we also have a larger national debt than ever. But what does it mean?
Donald Trump probably has a bigger debt than I do -- and less reason to worry about it. Debt means nothing unless you compare it to your income or wealth.
How does our national debt today compare to our national income? It is lower than it was a decade ago, during the Clinton administration, when liberals did not seem nearly as panicked as they seem today.
As a percentage of the national income, the national debt today is less than half of what it was in 1950 and about where it was in 1940 -- back in those "earlier and simpler times."
If someone were to produce a political dictionary, "crisis" would be defined as a desire to pass a law and "national debt" would be defined as a desire to raise taxes. And the two in combination would mean a desire to discredit the existing administration.
If it seems that raising taxes is the only way to reduce the national debt, at least when so much spending is mandated by "entitlement" programs, that only shows the need for an economic dictionary. "Taxes" is one of those treacherous words with more than one meaning, enabling politicians to shift back and forth between meanings when they talk.
Unless spending is reduced, then of course more tax revenues are necessary in order to reduce a deficit or bring down a debt. But tax revenues and tax rates are two different things, even though the same word -- "taxes" -- is used to refer to both.
What "tax cuts" cut is the tax rate. But tax revenues can rise, fall, or stay the same when tax rates are cut. Everything depends on what happens to income.
Tax revenues rose after the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s and the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s because incomes rose. Incomes are likewise rising during the Bush administration today.
If Congress can just reduce the rate of increase in spending, rising tax revenues can reduce the deficit and eventually eliminate it. But of course that will not give liberals an excuse to raise tax rates or even to denounce "tax cuts for the rich."
There was a time when the purpose of taxes was to pay for the inevitable costs of government. To the political left, however, taxes have long been seen as a way to redistribute income and finance other social experiments based on liberal ideology.
Given that agenda, it is hardly surprising that some of the biggest spending liberals can go into hysterics over the national debt, especially when that debt exists under a conservative administration of the opposite party.
This does not mean that nothing needs to be done about the national debt or about our tax system. A lot could be done about both -- but it would not be what liberals want done.
Promoting the growth of the national economy would be one of the fastest and best ways of reducing the national debt. We could, for example, stop letting little bands of self-righteous activists stifle the building of homes or businesses under "open space" laws or stop the drilling of oil off-shore, on-shore, or anywhere else.
As for taxes, we could stop taxing productivity and start taxing consumption. After all, productivity is what makes a society more prosperous.
Someone who is adding to the total wealth of this country is not depriving you of anything. But someone who is consuming the nation's wealth, without contributing anything to it, is. Yet our tax system penalizes those who are producing wealth in order to subsidize those who are only consuming it.
Tax reform is overdue, national debt or no national debt.
Does tax reform mean cutting subsidies for large corporations? I would hope so. I would like to see spending pared down immensely as well as across the board tax cuts if not a flat tax rate.
If you would like to be added to this ping list let me know.
John Linder in the House & Saxby Chambliss Senate, offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and payroll taxes outright, and provide a IRS free replacement in the form of a retail sales tax:
H.R.25, S.1493
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.Refer for additional information: http://www.fairtax.org, http://www.salestax.org & http://www.geocities.com/cmcofer/ftax.html
Someone who is adding to the total wealth of this country is not depriving you of anything. But someone who is consuming the nation's wealth, without contributing anything to it, is. Yet our tax system penalizes those who are producing wealth in order to subsidize those who are only consuming it.
Out of Thomas Hobbes', Leviathan, it is fairer to tax people on what they extract from the economy, as roughly measured by their consumption, than to tax them on what they produce for the economy, as roughly measured by their income.
[Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, XIII,c.14:]
Reformation is an enormous project yet timing is essential.
"Tax reform is overdue, national debt or no national debt."
All the talk about changing taxation methods makes me nervous.
In Britain they have a national sales tax (VAT) but they ALSO have regular income taxes.
That is what scares me. That we would adopt a national flat tax, or consumption tax, or vat type tax, and KEEP the federal income tax.
I don't understand why taxation should be "progressive."
The Kerry family paid a lower percent than the Bush family, on a much higher income. Obviously the system of graduated federal income taxation has loopholes.
Let's finally get the IRS out of our personal lives!
This is an untruthful sentence you posted. A NST is NOT a VAT.
And no tax reformers I know of support either a VAT or an income tax in addition to the NRST.
We support the NRST alone, with no additions, and the permanent end to all other forms, especially insidious hidden taxes such as a VAT or the income tax.
That we would adopt a national flat tax, or consumption tax, or vat type tax, and KEEP the federal income tax.
The primary goal is to eliminate the income tax. For the last hundered years, the income tax has been the dominate tax on the federal level, with proposals introduced to Congress to repeal the 16th amendment nearly every session form its ratification.
That hundred years of experience makes it very clear the only route to prohibiting taxation of income is repeal the income and payroll tax provisions of the tax code completely, replace them with a viable consumption tax, then proceed with repeal of the amendment on the basis of that income tax is not necessary and is obsolete.
The key sucess is to replace the existing income/payroll tax system with a viable alternative to achieve the remainder.
The Fair Tax Act:
H.R.25, S.1493
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.Refer for additional information: http://www.fairtax.org, http://www.salestax.org & http://www.geocities.com/cmcofer/ftax.html
, accomplishes that with provisions removing all income and payroll taxes with destructio of taxpayer records and the administrative infra-structure of the income tax, starting us on the road to repeal of the 16th.
Followthough is up to us to push through the sister bill to HR25 Sam Johnson's amendment to the constitution for enactment & ratification:
H.J.RES.61
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the Federal income tax.
Sponsor: Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] (introduced 6/24/2003) Cosponsors: 5
Latest Major Action: 9/4/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution
"This is an untruthful sentence you posted. A NST is NOT a VAT."
So very sorry. I am not at your level, as far as the terminoly of tax changes.
I was in Britain and paid VAT on a purchase. It LOOKED like a sales tax, to me, at that time.
Same in Canada.
But if you prefer more precise terminology, I will defer to you.
My point is the RISK of adding a federal consumption/value-added tax scheme, but not eliminating federal income taxes.
That is what they have in Britain and Canada (probably elsewhere, too).
Just because the advocates of NST don't intend leaving federal income taxes in place, use eternal vigilance to not get an unintended consequence from the guys & gals that bring us government and taxes.
They will find it a politically acceptable compromise; a "transition" device.
Then the change to eliminate income taxes could be "delayed" to deal with a revenue shortage, or some other "crisis."
Social Security reform, tax reform is geared to kick in gradually with the current system in place for a period of time. Result, more taxes rather than less. The largest tax the average American faces is his loss in earning power because his dollar is deteriorating in value. There was a time when the public realized that spending and keeping government in check was the most important thing in conserving their wealth. Since income distribution, the emphasis has shifted to let the other guy or future generations carry the burden.
Any "entitlement" program that was enacted into law by Congress can be repealed by Congress or if we could get a Supreme Court that would interpret the Constitution as written every social program could be eliminated as illegal!!!!
"I don't understand why taxation should be "progressive.""
One of the 10 planks to destroy the US by the communists is the progressive income tax.
Do you understand now?
I would suggest you read the FairTax bill.
It deals with all of your fears in detail.
These are things that were debated on and agreed upon by tax reformers years ago.
"These are things that were debated on and agreed upon by tax reformers years ago."
I don't have time or interest in reading bills.
I need a 3 to 6 point summary, for a lay person, like a 30 second television campaign ad.
Can you make the points, executive summary style?
If you can't do that, I suggest the ideas debated by tax reformers are not yet ready for the voters.
Like it or not, that is how decisions get made by voters.
Then why isn't it the law of the land?
The truth is, they can't even be honest about the rate. They claim it's 23% but in real sales tax terms it's actually 30%.
AFFT, the "sales tax" advocate, already had an economist write an article about using the sales tax only for Social Security...which, if passed, would mean what many of us fear, we'd have both.
Untill the bill EternalVigilance refers to is debated, passed, then signed into law it's nothing more than a dangling carrot..
I was in Britain and paid VAT on a purchase. It LOOKED like a sales tax, to me, at that time.
The difference between a retail sales tax and a VAT, is that a VAT is collected on purchased made by business, throughout the chain of production.
The retail sales tax is only levied at the retail level on sale to consumers.
Definition [ http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/13330.html ]:
value-added tax
levy imposed on businesses at all levels of production of a good or service, and based on the increase in price, or value, added to the good or service by each level. Because all stages of a value-added tax are ultimately passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, it has been described as a hidden sales tax. Originally introduced in France (1954), it is now used by most W European countries.
A VAT accumulates both the tax and the overhead burdens on business in complying with the tax and it's credit voucher system.
An NRST imposes costs of collection and remittence at the retail level alone, a cost that is parallel by state and local retail taxes already in place. The NRST would be a single tax at one level remitted to the state tax agencies instead of multiple taxes be sent to remitted to multiple agencies. The differnence between the two system is a lower burden of [20-25%] lower nominal prices than exist in corportate income/payroll taxes and VATs.
Issue: What Is the Best Way to Collect a Value Added Tax?
A value-added tax (VAT) generally is a tax imposed and collected on the value added at every stage in the production and distribution process of a good or service. Although a VAT may be computed in any of several ways, the amount of value added generally can be thought of as the difference between the value of sales and purchases of a business.
Several administrative systems could be used for a VAT: the credit-invoice method, the subtraction method, and the addition method. The credit-invoice method has been the system of choice in nearly all countries that have adopted a VAT. A subtraction-method VAT is also known as a business-transfer tax. The addition method is a mirror image of the subtraction method and will not be discussed here.
Credit-Invoice Method VAT. Under the credit-invoice method, a tax is imposed on the seller for all of its sales. The tax is calculated by applying the tax rate to the sales price of the good or service, and the amount of tax generally is disclosed on the sales invoice. A business credit is provided for all VAT taxpayers on all purchases of taxable goods and services (that is, on inputs) used in the seller's business. The ultimate nonbusiness consumer does not receive a credit for his or her purchases. The VAT credit for inputs prevents the imposition of multiple layers of tax on the total final purchase price. As a result, the net tax paid at a particular stage of production or distribution is based on the value added by that taxpayer at that stage of production or distribution. In theory, the total amount of tax paid with respect to a good or service from all levels of production and distribution should equal the sales price of the good or service to the ultimate consumer multiplied by the VAT rate.
To receive an input credit, a business purchaser generally is required to have an invoice from a seller containing the name of the purchaser and the amount of tax collected. At the end of a reporting period, a taxpayer may calculate its tax liability by subtracting the cumulative amount of tax stated on its purchase invoices from the cumulative amount of tax stated on its sales invoices.
Subtraction-Method VAT. Under the subtraction method, value added is measured as the difference between a business's taxable sales and its purchases of taxable goods and services from other businesses. At the end of the reporting period, a rate of tax is applied to this difference in order to determine the tax liability. The subtraction method is similar to the credit-invoice method in that both methods measure value added by comparing sales to purchases that have borne the tax.
The subtraction method differs from the credit-invoice method principally in that the tax rate is applied to a net amount of value added (sales less purchases) rather than to gross sales with credits for tax on gross purchases. A business's tax liability under the credit-invoice method relies on the business's sales records and purchase invoices, while the tax liability under the subtraction method may rely on records that the taxpayer maintains for income tax or financial accounting purposes.
Doh! After 5 decades this has never crossed my mind! ; 0
Can you make the points, executive summary style?
Try reading the CRS summary of the Bill on Thomas:
| http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00025:@@@D&summ2=m& H.R.25 SUMMARY AS OF: Fair Tax Act of 2003 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to repeal subtitle A (Income Taxes), B (Estate and Gift Taxes), and C (Employment Taxes) of the Internal Revenue Code. Imposes a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services. Sets the tax rate at 23 percent for the calendar year 2005. Sets the rate, for years after 2005, at the combined sum of the general revenue rate (14.91 percent), the old-age survivors and disability rate, and the hospital insurance rate. Sets forth provisions concerning, among other things; (1) imports and exports; (2) definitions; (3) credits and refunds; (4) a "family consumption allowance"; (5) Federal and State cooperative tax administration; (6) administrative matters; (7) collections, appeals, and taxpayer rights; (8) special rules (hobbies, gaming, government purchases, non-profits, and etc.); (9) financial intermediation services; and (10) additional matters. Sets forth provisions concerning the: (1) phase-out of administration of repealed taxes; (2) administration of other taxes (establishes an Excise Tax Bureau and a Sales Tax Bureau); and (3) sales tax inclusive social security benefits indexation. |
I don't have time or interest in reading bills.
The best overview around happens to be the Congressional Findings portion of the Bill itself, which does a very good job of hitting the highlights, susinctly and completely:
H.R.25Fair Tax Act of 2003 (Introduced in House) SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.(a) FINDINGS RELATING TO FEDERAL INCOME TAX- Congress finds the Federal income tax--
(b) FINDINGS RELATING TO FEDERAL PAYROLL TAXES- Congress finds further that the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes and self-employment taxes--
(c) FINDINGS RELATING TO FEDERAL ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES- Congress finds further that the Federal estate and gift taxes--
(d) FINDINGS RELATING TO NATIONAL SALES TAX- Congress finds further that a broad-based national sales tax on goods and services purchased for final consumption--
(e) FINDINGS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION OF NATIONAL SALES TAX- Congress further finds that--
(f) FINDINGS RELATING TO REPEAL OF PRESENT FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM- Congress further finds that the 16th amendment to the United States Constitution should be repealed. |
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.