Posted on 06/10/2005 10:07:47 AM PDT by Sprite518
Note that when Texas first put in a sales tax in 1961, this exact thing happened. It was funnier though; sugar bought for the baking of cookies wasn't taxed, but sugar bought for makeing candy was. I expect the same micro-management is what will happen. There at least as many types of purchases as incomes; it will allowe even more fine tuning of the social engineering of tax structures.
Thus subsidizing having children. Social engineering at its best.
If the country gets crowded, there could be an upper limit; thus encouraging having children to the limit and encouraging birth control for those over the limit.
Social engineering is built in at the inception.
Finally, look at Brevard County, Florida who twice resoundingly turned back an attempt to trigger the local 1% sales tax adder that was to fund an amazing array of pet projects. The last time we voted, it had a spending list of every possible bell and whistle any county or city agency could dream up. Essentially they tried to fund their 5-year wish lists but it would take more than 5 years of taxation to pay off the bonds that would be used. I wonder what they planned to do in year 6?
Oh but you say, the voters turned that aside. Yes and how has the Florida legislature responded? This year they tried to kill the voter approval part and let the county governments simply impose the tax.
Sources? You will find articles on the very subject right here on FR and probably with my comments posted on them. I'm not going to bother with posting links since I'm so pissed off about that "you gotta have a source" to post a comment. Who died and made them the FEC?
And as to your next post about no one debating? I am NOT defending the current system but my attempts at debate are met with "what's your source? what's your source" Like I need Boortz to say something first before I can make that point? I've painted a scenario that is very plausible. Tell me how the "fair tax" plan prevents that from happening.
Huh? Income is not taxed at all!Not even if you provide a taxable service?
I believe that there are about 45 states which currently have a sales tax and none have been added within the past 15 or so years, if memory serves. So how many of the state sales taxes have morphed into the kind of monstrosity that you have forecast for a national sales tax?How many of those 45 states have a sales tax plan structured like the Fairtax? Such as a tax on the gross payment rather than price? Or mail out "rebate checks" before any taxes are paid, or even if NO taxes are paid...Why not?
Even Texas says they'd have to hire more people/ "expand" and educate their employees as well as even more businesses not previously subject to their state sales tax to understand the NEW fair(?) tax. Not to mention the sizable costs for new infrastucture.That sounds like a monstrosity in the making times 50 to me.
C'mon Lewis. Even you know that invoiced is not net income.
(Unless of course, you're a prostitute.)
Billy Hamilton, Deputy Comptroller for the State of Texas doesn't seem to share your fear:
... "As long as the administrative fee paid to the state is adequate in relation to the costs of collection, I see no reason that the State of Texas could not effectively administer the Fair Tax."
"Note that when Texas first put in a sales tax in 1961, this exact thing happened. It was funnier though; sugar bought for the baking of cookies wasn't taxed, but sugar bought for makeing candy was. I expect the same micro-management is what will happen. There at least as many types of purchases as incomes; it will allowe even more fine tuning of the social engineering of tax structures."
There are about 45 states which have sales taxes and I don't think any of those have been added in the past 15 years. If the kind of complexity that you describe is inevitable with a sales tax, can you explain why not a single one of those 45 states have a tax structure anywhere near as comples as the federal income tax?
"The rebate varies by family size, NOT by income level."
"Thus subsidizing having children. Social engineering at its best."
So you think that implementing a consumption tax with a rebate that excludes children would make sense? The last time I checked, children consume, also. Why wouldn't the exclusion of children be considered "social engineering"?
"I've painted a scenario that is very plausible. Tell me how the 'fair tax' plan prevents that from happening."
You haven't answered my question. If your scenario is so plausible, why hasn't it played out in ANY of the states which have had a sales tax for some time now? To the best of my knowledge and understanding, the states are 0 for 45 in validating your concerns.
Neal has some good points, but it is hard to beat Dennis Calabrese for a good economic comparison of the flat vs fair taxes. Calabrese was Dick Armey's Chief of Staff when he was developing his flat tax proposal.
Interestingly enough, Rep. Armey's proposal under Rep. Burgess has morphed into a flat tax option, meaning that we would still keep the current system (including, presumably, the AMT), but taxpayers would be able to elect to pay under a separate additional flat tax calculation. When asked if his proposal was revenue-neutral at last fall's budget committee hearings, Mr. Burgess said that he didn't know; they hadn't had a chance to run the numbers yet. I haven't had a chance to run the numbers yet, either, but I can answer the Chairman's question. Duh!!
Anyway, here is the link to Mr. Calabrese's comparison, for those who are interested.
http://www.geocities.com/cmcofer/confess.html
No, but it is a tax on gross income which is worse than on net income..even you know that.
Billy Hamilton, Deputy Comptroller for the State of Texas doesn't seem to share your fear:Spoken like a true Bureaucrat. Why would he have any fear? He's reassured If it's not enough all he has to do is get more. What's to fear?... "As long as the administrative fee paid to the state is adequate in relation to the costs of collection, I see no reason that the State of Texas could not effectively administer the Fair Tax."
I'm for the fair tax. Taxation of income is a monstrosity.
I have read that retail companies are against it. I am sure advertising agents and others are as well. With a tendency of "buy this, it's cool" in marketing, they may have to state a products purpose and durability if people spend in a less frivolous manner.
But congress loses it's tax weapon. To bad we let them have the spend weapon.
This tax, that tax. Unless and until the fedgov *and* the states CUT THEIR FREAKING SPENDING it's all just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
A 50% cut would be a good start.
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.