Posted on 06/02/2005 7:06:10 AM PDT by Your Nightmare
No one in Washington is going to hand over the administration of thier cash cow to 50 different states...Would the people administering the federal tax be state or federal employee's? Where does a state employee's jurisdiction begin and end when auditing?...Mob rule comes to mind.
If they can hand over their administration of federal taxes to the states why not India or Juarez?
Oh yea, and those states who are already collecting sales taxes aren't collecting the same sales tax as the fairtax. To say they are already setup to administer the fairtax is naive if not a lie.
Being that a national sales tax would force pimps, whores, drug dealers and dishonest businessmen into the tax system, it is little wonder this leftist is against the national sales tax.
Geez, they tried to do the same kind of slam on Steve Forbes & his flat tax idea. Call it dumb, crazy and the like without ever saying why.
This article is like a baloon. There is definitely a shell, but nothing inside.
Well, you ARE a bit of a one note piano. Posting this article and trying to defend it is an ample example.
All of which would be fine, were it not for the lost opportunity it represents: We could be having a much better debate about the tax base, and those Fair Tax folks could be leading the charge. The Fair Tax rank and file are a valuable and scarce resource: They are voters who think seriously about taxes. And while there is plenty of vapid, antitax rhetoric surrounding the Fair Tax, many of its supporters are well-intentioned, well-informed citizens. They are the same public- spirited people we should seek to mobilize in a more serious debate over consumption taxes.
Bingo! You hit the reason I'll never, ever support a national sales tax. "Fair Tax" protestations to the contrary, such a tax would not replace the income tax, but merely supplement it.
Here's my meager reasoning: Even if the 16th Amendment were to be repealed, Congress can always claim some "National Emergency" and try to impose an income tax, anyway. It was tried before the Amendment, and it took a trip to the Supreme Court to stop it.
That means, if the 16th amendment weren't there, we're one court decision away from having the income tax reimposed. Does anybody here think this Supreme Court would make the same findings as the pre-16th amendment Court?
He said fairtax is bad, because it's simple and people understand it.
Can you quote the part where he says that?
How about the title!
The title doesn't say the FairTax is bad because it's simple and people understand it.
I see you don't have an open mind about we the people being able to change our laws...so therefore we must give up and subject ourselves to more of this madness called an income tax with its myriad of rules and loopholes and lobbyist supported changes....have some faith, this country was founded on no taxation without representation, and its time we get back there.....I suspect if there was an attempt to have two taxes after eliminating one that we would have another revolution and the politicians would be first to go...Have some faith in the American people...please....
There's nothing to stop the feds from levying a sales tax on top of the income tax as it stands. At least the NRST bill legislatively eliminates income (and payroll, gift, and estate) taxes.
Any law is subject to future changes by Congress. With the attitude you're taking, there'd be no point in passing any laws at all, ever, because Congress could just change them later.
My sales tax ("Fair Tax") = 2 taxes argument stands unrefuted.
Oh, he tries:
the Fair Tax would raise too little revenue
But I think this would be a big plus, myself.
YN's "idea" is a flat income tax with savings exempt (withdraws from savings would be taxable, a point I had to get a clarification on). Academics call this a "consumption tax" despite the fact that is is a straight income tax with certain income having deferred tax liability.
I'd call it an improvement over the current code in terms of simplicity (as any flat tax would be), but it still has all of the same anti-freedom elements of any income tax (requiring individuals to report their finances to the government) and all of the VAT-like properties of any corporate income tax.
That is an innacurate representation of my "attitude". I recognize the fact that Congress, White House and Courts are filled with political animals.
They know they'll never get away with adding the sales tax to the income tax, so they'll go "back door" with this bait-and-switch. I'd bet a month's salary (which I won't be able afford if this tax passes) that a few decades after the 16th Amendment is repealed, there will be both a sales tax and an income tax.
I'd have to disagree with you on this, and as it's a matter of personal opinion, neither of us will ever know unless/until it happens. However, I'd make the same bet (if I gambled) that without dropping the income tax for a sales tax, we will see some form of VAT or general sales tax added to the income tax in the next 10 years.
"... legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children,...But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state."
-- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Oct. 28, 1785 -- PROPERTY AND NATURAL RIGHT
The NRST is an inherently regressive form of taxation that is truly despotic.
Long term, it would result in a two-tiered socio-economic stratification of our society.
It is not disimilar to a 21st Century eco-feudal system where the corporate aristocracy invest and expand their property holdings completely tax-free, while the serfs are overburdened with the excessive taxation on consumption and persuaded that it's supposedly "fair" because the consumption taxes are redistributed through the formal social welfare system.
There little of substance to refute in this article.
He complains about how the numbers are presented.
I think it's a valid complain, but it's hardly addressing the merrits or deficiencies of a national sales tax.
He talks down to people, and at the same time he doesn't seem to grasp that taxpayer want to be able to understand what they are paying and what they are getting for it.
At no point in the article does he make any real argument as to why a national sales tax would be bad.
After talking down to his readers he simply goes on to assuming that they share his opinion that a consumption tax is worse than an income tax.
I particularly like this comment, "Among tax experts, proposals for expanded, tax-free personal savings accounts may seem like an obvious step toward consumption taxation. I suspect, however, that few voters understand that process of incremental reform."
We don't want incremental reform in a tax system with confusing rule and loopholes that no one truely fully understands.
The current tax system is a politically motivated monster created by corrupt politics. It needs to be scrapped completely, and replaced with a simple and transparant tax system.
Anyone should be skeptical of the input of tax expers who make their livings by leading people through the mire of the current tax system, and would likely find themselves unemployed if a sensible tax system were actually implemented.
His big issue is that the Fair Tax people are showing the numbers in the best light.
I doubt that really surprises anyone, and I doubt that there are many people that really expect those numbers to be solid numbers that won't change.
In general, people don't trust politicians and activists when they talk about such numbers. What the do trust is that a sales tax is simple, and something they can understand.
They can grasp the fact that while the government will likely not shrink due to a national sales tax, the huge waste of resources that our current tax system causes would be hugely lessened allowing us to be more productive.
The legions of tax lawyers are parasites on society that are necessisary due to the tax system. They may be good, dedicated, hard working people, but they produce nothing of value to our economy. Their serviced add no value to the produces that we make.
If we want to prosper, we need to cut out the waste that the tax system is creating.
So why are liberals so opposed to a national sales tax?
A national sales tax would involve everyone in the system. Even though low income earners wouldn't consume large ammounts of items, and therefore wouldn't pay a large chunck of the taxes, they would see that a big chunk of everything that is bought and sold goes to pay for the government.
Right now politicians can bribe voters with benefits that almost half of them don't pay for through income taxes. They're telling voters that if they vote for them, they'll get someone else's money at no cost to themselves.
The liberals need that power to continue to grow the government. They need that power to maintain control over the poor.
The efforts by politicians to keep our current tax system, or at least not make meaningful reforms, isn't about fairness. It's about power. It's definately not about giving power to the people. It's not about helping people. It's about manipulating people.
So, YN... are you going to chastise WG for his "cut and paste" tactics, or do you only reserve that invective for AG?
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.