Posted on 02/22/2005 4:22:02 PM PST by groanup
Your arguments about other countries are phony because they all have been added on top of other taxes, and account for such a small amount of total tax revenue, that any effect on the national economies had to be based on other factors.
The Australian tax was state based and diffrent between states. The rates in many South American countries were way too high and where they are low, Brazil, the debit tax is successful albeit a very small part of their total tax revenue.
Agincourt, I really like your screen name. I'm not really a big fan of Shakespeare, but Henry the V is just such an awesome story. I have a copy of Brannaugh's movie version. I can almost always enjoy watching it, and I'm not one to watch the same movie over and over... and certainly not Shakespeare. That movie got me interested enough to research the historical battle.
Geezer, thanks for your posts. Your examples affirmed my initial objections.
Empirical evidence and theoretical underpinnings of the failure of APT type taxes in numerous countries in history as well as current era suggest strongly the best that can be said for an APT on an experiential basis is what was indicated by Tanzi as a result of empirical evaluation of Latin American versions of the APT:AG, can you post some empirical evidence of a country implementing a high-rate NRST, please?
There's also a lot of embedded taxes you don't catch by adding up the average fed, state, and local rates. Hotel taxes. Road tax on gasoline. Prepared food taxes. "User" fees. And on, and on... and on.I didn't add up the averages, I took the amount of revenues collected (that includes hotel taxes, etc.) and divided it by the GDP.
Please, particularly if it eliminated other forms of taxation as well... if there is such a case.
Actually, I always liked the story, (have Branagh Version on DVD) the battle, the famous speech of Henry V before the battle, its probably the most inspirational pre battle speech ever given (Shakespeare may have embellished it, but so what)its a classic.
If you researched, you probably already have this book, but if you don't, you might find it interesting, Title: Agincourt 1415: Triumph against the Odds, by Matthew Bennett.
But getting back to the apttax.com, I looked at NRST and APT TAX, and I just find the APT so much more spread out and less of a bite than a HUGE NRST.
But neither has a chance unless someone with HUGE stature like a RUSH LIMBAUGH comes out for it.
Please, particularly if it eliminated other forms of taxation as well... if there is such a case.
There has never been a case of NRST alone, low or high rate that I have been able to find.
There are several examples of high sales tax rates in conjunction with numerous other forms of taxation including income and payroll taxes.
Most cases of retail sales taxes along with their co-tax structures have generally had a VAT imposed either by IMF actions requiring a VAT be instituted or as a requirement of Eurpean Union membership in which national level sales taxes and all levels were generally removed as being replaced by the VAT while general income and payroll type taxes were kept in place.
The primary reason given by the EU for requiring the VAT implementation was to replace turnover taxes on business to business sales that were distorting trade between EU member states. It was left as an option to the members of the EU whether or not the kept retail sales taxes in place. Most do allow provincial and local retail sales taxes in addition to the national VATs. Some still retain a separate retail sales tax plus a VAT upto the wholesale level as allowed under the EU requirements.
Refer:
| http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/pdf/1967/en_1967L0227_do_001.pdf FIRST COUNCIL DIRECTIVE |
Most cases of retail sales taxes along with their co-tax structures have generally had a VAT imposed either by IMF actions requiring a VAT be instituted or as a requirement of Eurpean Union membership in which national level sales taxes and all levels were generally removed as being replaced by the VAT while general income and payroll type taxes were kept in place.Over 120 countries have a VAT. How many countries are there in the EU?
Most of my "research" is just reading about it on the internet. I'll likely look for the Bennett book. It really is an inspiring piece of history.
But getting back to the apttax.com, I looked at NRST and APT TAX, and I just find the APT so much more spread out and less of a bite than a HUGE NRST.
I'm not sure it would be less of a bite if it were revenue neutral. It would be more hidden, and in that sense may seem less "painfull" to the general public, but it would still be embedded in prices. I consider the "visible" quality to be a significant factor in prefering a NRST. The reason for that is that I think the REAL problem is government spending. The more hidden the tax burden, the more it enables government to grow without popular reproof.
I consider the hidden aspect, as well as the unfairly progressive nature of our current system, to be the primary factors that have allowed the socialists to move our constitutionally limited federal government into the out of control socialist buracracy we have today. So, what you percieve as a benefit, I perceive as a detriment. I would prefer the FairTax without the prebate, but with a return to the limited federal government that was intended by our country's founders, which would allow for a more affordable rate. However, that will not realistically happen unless we reduce the progressivity of our tax system, and increase the visibility of the cost of government to EVERYONE.
There are some other issues that make me favor the FairTax as well. I have been vocal about some of them on other threads, most notably the effect of embedding the tax burden into the price of American made products. I've termed that dynamic as a "loophole" around the constitutional prohibition on export tarrifs. Only a TRUE consumption tax can remedy that to the maximum effect.
But neither has a chance unless someone with HUGE stature like a RUSH LIMBAUGH comes out for it.
You're absolutely right. Which brings up another issue: salability. I might rate the salablity of the APTTAX higher than the FAIRTAX, at least to the less educated, who is who you really have to sell it to. However, I think a skilled communicator could effectively educate people on the advantages of a NRST over the APTTAX. So, the FairTax MIGHT be more salable than the APTTAX, IF influential people get behind it. The illusion of hidden embedded taxes is that "someone else" is paying, and is not only deceptive, but also, unfortunately, an effective salespitch... but has yielded the out of control socialist federal government we have now and now want to reform. So, like you said, unless there is INFLUENCIAL support, there will not be POPULAR support. I hope that these threads are influential to influential people.
Quick googling suggests 25.
Over 120 countries have a VAT.
Gee that's all? There's reportedly 141 supporting KYOTO too, with the EU and the VAT folks all out for that one too.
If we want to start making idiotic connections to idiotic things, Jorgenson, the economist you like to trot out as your fairtax expert also supports KYOTO....and carbon taxes.
Didn't knonw you were a proponent of VATs lewislynn.
You're getting more delusional by the day
Jorgenson, the economist you like to trot out as your fairtax expert
Yes he does a fair job at analysis regardless of the tax system. Presenting his findings on the basis of his econometric models rather than any particular bias.
also supports KYOTO....and carbon taxes.
Actually Jorgenson advocates the income tax over consumption taxes, with wrinkles added for his own tax plan he pushes. Jorgenson would tax earned income at a flat 11%, and property income such as rent, dividends, capital gains and interest at 30%, leaving payroll tax structure as is and business taxes the same with a few kinks in the form of tax credits for the business purchase of new investment assets and structures.
See PDF ===> Jorgenson's Efficient Taxation
And Stock Brokers and Traders have embedded Fees, NASD fees, SEC fees and such. Hidden doesn't bother me, let the Government get money without 200 Billion in total compliance costs per year. And I just don't like adding a 30% NRST, its just TOO HIGH, now if was 10% or lower I might go along.
I don't care to have a Tax AT ALL, there's another theory the Fed could run on Leases, Muni Bonds, and Printing and Loaning Money out.
JUST FIND A SYSTEM that works.
Revenue Neutral, I don't like that word, its code word for if we do away with a percentage tax, we have to ad another percentage somewhere else to make up for it. Its not true. Stop Taxing us and turn lose GROWTH to Increase the economy, and through that increase the governments income.
Spending cuts will not happen, so GROWTH of our Economy will be the only way.
"Phil_Will1 actually did post that using a curve he can prove that 'well over 99%' of everything is tax."
Incorrect as usual. You left out a very important point that I made, which is that even though the mathematical model would eventually create a calculation of extremely high percentages if you carried it out to thousands of levels in the supply chain, in fact supply chains thousands of levels deep do not exist in the real world.
Since you made it clear that you don't really understand the concept of levels in a supply chain, your confusion is probably unavoidable. I can assure you that most of the participants on this thread don't share your confusion.
I'm sitting here with a pancake on my head!
Bob,
FYI, Neal is one of those libertarians you despise so much.
This will be the first year wife and I have received a return. All it took was for me to be laid-off and unable to find steady work in my field for almost 18 months. Next year we're screwed unless we crank out some kids.
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.