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.
Your statement, "Spending cuts will not happen, so GROWTH of our Economy will be the only way" really got me to thinking, and although it is true that growth in the economy would yield greater tax revenue, and offset the spending, it is not true that it would fix the problem. With socalist friendly tax systems in place, the government will grow right along with the economy, just making the problem worse. Big government THRIVES in good economies. The most socialist local governments in the US are in the states and cities with the biggest economies. When leeches find blood they latch on and get fat. Growing the economy is not going to restrict the federal government from metastacizing further into areas it does not belong. Something must be done to restrict government expansion aside from simply bettering the economy.
In fact, I would assert that independently improving the economic conditions without independently reducing the socialist conditions, would result in worsening the socialist conditions. However, independently reducing the socialist conditions will result directly in improving the economic conditions.
Revenue Neutral, I don't like that word...
I think I understand and agree with your position on this. I used it only to clarify a point of comparing different plans. You had made the statement "I just find the APT so much more spread out and less of a bite than a HUGE NRST", and I was aware it was possible you were making an apples to oranges comparison here, comparing a LOW apt tax to a HIGH sales tax. That comparison is appropriate if they both yield the same revenue, but if you are comparing a NRST which is revenue neutral to our existing sytem, to an APT TAX rate which is not revenue neutral, then the "Less bite" is not an effect of the form of taxation, but an effect of less revenue being collected. So for purposes of comparison, revenue neutrality is a necessity.