Posted on 01/31/2005 7:12:16 AM PST by bmweezer
Correct and that is the reason they have not instituted both. If they do institute the National Sales Tax, then it would only be prudent to remove the option for income tax at the time of its enactment, since that is when we would have the most leverage to do so. It would be the quid pro quo, so to speak.
I'm against that plan. Too complex.
And the plan that is now before Congress fleshed out to the point where it can be debated and is less complex is what?
Since you seem to only care about published papers, we'll just stick to that. But if you are so concerned about the other economists and think tanks, perhaps you'd care to contact them and ask if AFFT is misreprenting their work? I'm sure they'd put out some form of statement to that effect if indeed these studies are bogus. Or maybe, AFFT doesn't publish these studies because they simply just don't have the rights to do so?
if they impose a NRST it will create an underground and barter economy like that in Canada. When your local sales tax is now 9% and the govt adds on 32% (oh wait- its ONLY 23%,TAX-INCLUSIVE ha ha)
When you have to add 30% (or more) at the register you will think twice about working and buying things 'off the books'
Believe me, I'm seeing the differences.
I thank you and others for your patience in explaining those differences to me.
No, dear, life called.
That is exactly what I'm seeing this proposal being able to accomplish..........and anything that assists American companies, even the ones I don't like, is a great idea in my book.
Any plan that's going to cost bureaucrats their jobs will never pass. You can't get rid of Federal employees!
You've got a good point.
I also notice the poster hasn't returned..........
Incorrect. Two points:
A. The income tax invites constant tinkering by Congress for special interests or socially "desirable" outcomes.
Consider why terms like: capital gains, "inventory wash", ITC, accelerated depreciation, REIT, 401K, IRA, ATM, etc. entered the lexicon.
B. The gross level of personal consumption is a more stable base for taxation than income (as defined at any given moment).
Oh yes you can. Reagan did.
Since you're intent to drag that discussion over here, let me repeat that statement for everyone else to enjoy:
I love tort caps. Its like a special tax imposed on victims, with the benefits passed on to the tortfeasors. After all, life is so rough for them - I hear that some of them have had to buy their teenaged kids 2 year old used H2s and Benzes because malpractice premiums have risen so high, especially those with a claim history. Lord knows those evil victims are just greedy.
The real bottom line is that the doc lobby has managed to socialize the payment end of medical care, and have no constraints on what they charge - all while limiting out competition through their draconian setup to get into the club.
BTW, tort caps don't make premiums go down, nor do they give insurers any motivation to settle faster - in fact, the effect is the opposite, and forces more cases into court (with more attendant expense in defense firm fees).
After all, if your exposure is capped, why not roll the dice and chance getting lucky?
"corporate" taxes are paid by the people who buy the goods from that corporation. The corporation does not pay anything, it merely passes on the costs.
Stupid people think this is 'mean' but they dont realize the company has to make a profit on what they sell or they go out of business, so they have to add the taxes into the 'cost' or producing an item.
But for the REALLY stupid... lets say a company agreed to have NO profit- they would still have to charge enough for the product to pay their employees and raw materials AND TAXES. See how that cost goes into the price of the product?
The spending of all funds from whatever source saved or invested with after-(income) tax dollars should be exempt from NRST.
Now what government bureaucracy are you willing to allow to audit your books and and investigate your accounts and private holdings to establish the facts of whether or not a particular dollar you spend comes from after-(income) tax dollars?
Are you prepared to provide the government a full personal and real property inventory from which that can be determined?
(BTW, there is nothing on the FAQ page about the FCA.)
Well it is still alive. I'm getting off this thread.
Catch you on another one somewhere!
Later.
I'll find it on the site.........that link is not working either.
But thanks for you help and info!!!!
It is as stupid in its entirety as it was excerpted. Thanks for sharing.
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.