Posted on 02/03/2005 9:54:12 AM PST by EternalVigilance
CONGRESSMAN STEVE KING INTRODUCES RESOLUTION TO ELIMINATE IRS
WASHINGTON - As W-2s arrive in mailboxes this week, U.S. Congressman Steve King has introduced a resolution to repeal the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to collect income taxes.
H.J. Res. 16 would eliminate the IRS and the means for the government to collect income taxes.
"The IRS is an out-of-date, trillion-dollar-a-year drag on our economy," said King. "Instead of continuing to band-aid our complicated, leaking tax system year after year, we can choose a permanent solution and finally rid Americans of the fat leech they feed their paychecks to."
King has been a long-time supporter of the FairTax, a national sales tax placed on goods and services, which would replace the income tax.
H.J. Res. 16 must be approved by two-thirds of both the House and Senate, and then sent to the states, where three-fourths must ratify the amendment.
For information on the FairTax, visit:
http://www.fairtax.org
U.S. Congressman Steve King
Iowa's Fifth Congressional District
1432 Longworth House Office Building · Washington, DC 20515
http://www.house.gov/steveking/
Please explain what is the nature of the alleged advantage and what percent of tax revenues that amounts to.
"First, a VAT is more efficient. That means less evasion."
It is more efficient to tax at multiple (meaning hundreds, in some cases) points than to tax at a single end point?
I must have a different understanding of the word "efficient" than you do.
I agree the tax code is so bloated it takes an army of tax lawyers to figure it out. I have to study this more and see what the details are. It sounds like a scheme to tax the same thing each time it is sold.
In point of fact the intent and text of the legislation does just the opposite.
H.R.25Fair Tax Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
`SECTION 1. PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.
`SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.`(a) IN GENERAL- For purposes of this subtitle--
*** SNIP ***
|
"From the viewpoint of the producer, yes, they will require an extra column in their Excel spreadsheet. The difference is trivial."
Most manufacturing concerns don't do cost accounting on a spreadsheet. The differences are hardly trivial.
Yes, sir, you are correct. I should have stated "Not SO MUCH complicated by the record keeping as..."
I was thinking in terms of compliance costs for the whole system, which, with appropirate software, should not be dramatically more for retail companies under a VAT vs under a NRST, however the difference between how many companies must comply under a VAT vs under a NRST is, indeed, dramatic.
I did not mean to suggest the VAT did not complicate record keeping, I was just emphasize the huge difference in how many had to comply. I'm glad you made an issue of it. Someone reading could have been misled by my post.
I understand you are asserting various benefits from the FT proposal but that is not what I believe will be the result since I have fundamental disagreements on exactly how the income tax affects American industry. Should I adopt your understanding I might well agree with you.
I particularly disagree as to the benefit of VAT and believe them to be terrible for the cities particularly. Jane Jacob has written about this in, I believe, Cities and the Wealth of Nations.
Exports from the US have no sales taxes in them as do exports from Europe which is why taking them out is not an extra incentive to their exporters. They have the other taxes which are common to both like RE, payroll embedded.
Nor are exports affected by income taxes. When imports reach the consumer they face the same sales taxes which domestic production faces.
A VAT will not benefit us wrt to China. It cannot change the impact of the worldwide division of labor which China bases its policy on. We can never compete with China in the production of small value, low technology and low skill items our work force is too highly paid for that.
"Which VATs are you thinking about? To me, there is so little difference between a VAT and a sales tax as to not warrant distinction at the macroeconomic level."
The biggest difference is that, to the best of my knowledge, none of the VAT proposals currently being considered here in the USA call for the complete replacement of all payroll and income taxes. The fear that many have about the FairTax is that we would end up with BOTH a sales tax and an income tax. Since that is exactly what is being proposed by the US VAT proponents, one would say that the probability would be much greater that we would end up with a European type VAT.
I had a flashback.
Much of our disagreements are just differing opinions.
What would be interesting and maybe even productive would be some econometric studies delineating the impact of the FT proposals varying some of the inputs and with different figures.
I don't believe it to be a misperception but neither of us can prove our assertion.
Nor do I see a price impact on US exports unless you actually expect the working class will accept a decrease in wages. This it will never do since it will likely be paying more in taxes than currently since revenue neutrality is a key in the proposal.
Compliance costs are paid to specialists reducing their income will also reduce overall income which will be a negative at least in the short run. And there has been enough complexity already discussed in a FT that there will still be need for tax experts. Perhaps not as much as now but that is debatable.
I believe you overstate the free choice aspect of this perhaps for rhetorical reasons. Few would agree that sales tax expenditures are voluntary and examples of freedom. Certainly below a certain income level there is little discretion in deciding on what is to be spent since there are minimums required for food, housing, clothing and the necessities.
Now there is a degree of free choice in the spending of discretionary income but most studies show that the majority of citizens are just a serious illness away from financial disaster. And there is some flexibility in how much income tax is paid which comes from investment structure and housing choices.
I entirely disagree that I/Is will be taxed at a higher rate that the rest of us or that they will pay enough to remove much of our burden. You have to remember that most of them send money home money that is now taxed but would not be under the FT. And I disagree that out tax system puts us at a disadvantage to the rest of the world. Particularly since we are not as heavily taxed as much of it.
"Income taxes don't come into play until there is a profit and that comes at the end of a chain of calculations not at the beginning."
That is incorrect. Every company that stays in business long-term covers its costs with its sales revenue or it goes out of business. A company that doesn't sell directly to the consuming public but instead to other companies has to do this, also.
I don't think you have the casuality correct. Increased prices for old homes will be the result of fewer people being able to afford new constuction.
This raises another issue and that is what determines whether a home is a renovation or new. If you gut a building and replace 95% of it that would seem to be a renovation which gets around the new construction tax. Who will decide if a home is new? What will that decision be based upon?
Most older people who move do so because they have houses too big for them since the kids have gone etc. This will not change that tendency though it will certainly give renovation/remodeling greater incentives.
You have GOT to be kidding me!!! You cannot possibly believe that - can you?
"The flat tax, sales tax and VAT are all border neutral."
I am not aware of any flat tax proposal which is border neutral and, furthermore, I don't know how you would make a flat tax border neutral since, unlike a VAT, there is really no way to keep track of the cascading corporate income and payroll taxes.
INcome taxes are not a "cost" if there is no profit there is no income tax. But there are still all the costs of production. All unit costs can remain unchanged yet profitability and income taxes can vary wildly from year to year.
NO income taxes. Sorry I was not clear.
OHelix, the FairTax requires governments (federal, state, and local) to pay the FairTax on their purchase and the wages they pay their employees. For government it is also a wage tax. Obviously governments can't pay taxes, only their citizens can, so your state and local taxes will surely go up to pay for their federal tax burden. My understanding is that ~40% of the FairTax base is government spending.There would be a 30% (not 23%)excise tax on "any government" wages, salaries, retirement and any other benefits.I don't know what you refer to here, and I would very much appreciate an explaination if you are willing to provide one.
"But why start with a constitutional amendment, requiring a supermajority? Why not just introduce a bill to abolish the income tax, requiring only a simple majority?"
That is what the FairTax bill does and King is a co-sponsor of that bill. However, many are concerned that after we pass the FairTax (which repeals the Internal Revenue Code), some later congress could reinstate the income tax, since that would only take a simple majority. Repealing the 16th would kill the beast forever, in all likelihood.
If it isn't a direct tax, then I don't know how anyone could argue any other form of taxation is direct. Anytime I sign a check to the Dept of Treasure, I would consider it a direct tax.
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.