Posted on 09/17/2006 8:03:05 AM PDT by Principled
A Battlefield for Tax Reform
There are a few significant battlefields in the war for tax reform. One of them is Free Republic. What makes the Free Republic battlefield significant is that the debate is at the cutting edge. The debate on Free Republic is the most current and most knowledgeable. It is a year ahead of other significant battlefields (radio talk shows, political town-hall meetings, conversations among neighbors and coworkers.)
The trend on Free Republic with respect to tax reform is going to show up in the real world. Free Republic is a tiny segment of the world, albeit a more educated, more politically motivated, more affluent segment than most. Perhaps those are a few of the reasons that Free Republic predicts what will happen in the real world – the world of radio, newspapers, network television, and most importantly - elections.
The choices are
Keep the status quo and continue with our graduated income tax
Eliminate the income tax and implement a flat income tax (although this option has negligible support)
Eliminate the income tax and implement a national sales tax
There are no other options. We are going to have taxes. The only choice is deciding the best way to have them.
Whichever choice you prefer, one thing is clear. The opponents of tax reform on Free Republic will stop at nothing to protect the status quo. Here’s what’s happening on Free Republic (remember it’s a predictor of what will happen in the real world.)
Opponents of reform randomly select perceived problems, however insignificant, and say that’s the reason this reform cannot work. For example, attackers of HR 25 (the “Fair Tax”) have alternately said the rate is too high and then the rate is too low. Whatever seems to get traction is what they stick with. Is it no wonder the perception is that these anti-reformers are not being honest with the reason(s) they oppose the reform. This is why so many question the motives of the anti-reformers. What are they hiding?
The anti-reformers try to make the reform threads so unpleasant that people choose not to participate in them (what does this predict about the real world?)
An anti-reformer may be taking advantage of the positions he he was entrusted with by the site (modertor). By taking sides in threads, berating and belittling pro-nrst posters, by deleting threads, by locking threads, and by moving threads from news/ACTIVISM to “Bloggers and Personal” and to “Smokey Backroom”, the mod(s) in question are taking away from the greatest site on the internet. Sometimes, threads are moved to bloggers and then moved to SBR or vica versa.
Pro-nrst posters are suspended for things that don’t make sense. Anti nrst posters are not suspended for things that should require it - comes to mind the picture of a dog copulating with a pig with the comment “screw you pigdog”… “I found a picture of your parents”. Noteworthy is that the poster of said graphic and phrase were not suspended but rather the recipient of it was suspended for complaining about it.
What does this predict about the real world?
Suffice to say that the debate about tax reform is won by the reformers. The proof is that when educated about the three reform options, the general public chooses the nrst over 70% of the time.
The only question is whether the dishonesty of the anti-reformers will slow the progress of reform in the real world. This is NOT to say that all anti reformers are dishonest - but it is the dishonest ones who are tainting the others.
The good thing about the debate is that the nrst is the most thoroughly investigated alternative - each and every point is debated in complete detail. Problems have been identified and some changes have been made. That's a good thing. And as debate continues, the level of knowledge of any lurkers continues. As I said, I predict over 70% will choose the nrst.
"... Name one obstacle ..."Simple enough ... VOTERS!!! With enough votes coming from the grassroots movement to pass the FairTax into law there will certainly be enough to keep the income tax from returning by a rhetorical snap of the fingers as you suggest.
Not only is the tax code removed by the FairTax, but the IRS is defunded and disbanded and the income tax records will have been destroyed. Attempting, then, to restart that from scratch against what is sure to be massive taxpayer opposition since voters will greatly like the FairTax (in comparison to the prior income tax) and realize that it benefits both them AND their country it is HUGELY unlikely that they would tell their Congressman "... sure, I like having the higher effective tax rate under the income tax so I can pay more in taxes than I've been doing under the FairTax while saving and investing tax-free ...".
SURE!!!
If they made it only an income surtax on the "evil" rich, it would be a piece of cake if the situation required it-- like everyone realizing the FairTax caused all prices to go WAY up, and the economy to tank...
Probably just a flat 25% on everything above $50,000 or $75,000 to fix the emergency. What other choice would they have?
In addition, the issue here is not about taxpayer compliance since that's done when the taxpayer purchases the taxable thing and gets the receipt. What you're really discussing is theft of government tax money by merchants who have agreed in writing to collect and forward the funds - and are paid to do so. the state sales tax authorities certainly have sufficient third party sources to rely upon ... and they do so now.
Please show us your "snowball" survey that shows any reasonable basis for your opinion since I've seen none.
"Studies paid for by the FairTax organization."
Is it your position, then, that the government does not "pay for" studies such as the President's tax Panel ... and don't they do so with tax funds???
Perhaps you're attempting to say that something paid for is somehow invalid in content because of that???
Then again, perhaps you have no real point at all.
The FairTax needs to realize that they need to include the 16th Amendment as part of what they are selling, and not some separate thing to be handled later
You are certainly welcome to that opinion, and you may certainly reject the FairTax bill for not being a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the constitution to prohibit taxation of income.
I prefer take the road that hasn't been tried over the road that has repeatedly proved to end up in nowhere everytime.
There is a term for one who continually insists on doing the same thing over and over again always expecting a different result this time.
like they do with spending control, end entitlement reform
Nothing to prevent you or me for that matter from supporting those bills in congress addressing those issues. The FairTax legislations happens to address tax refrom. I recommend you actively get out and actually support such reforms instead of wasting so much time just fighting legislation you don't like for whatever reason. That just assures the things you do want suffer for lack of your support and of folks hearing about them to become interested in them.
I chose my battles with a priority and overall goals in mind. Tax reform I see as my priority. I am sure you have yours so support them, or not as you will.
You claim to want to reform the way taxes are collected,
As I made clear, I consider that to be a catch 22 situtation. It ain't going to happen that way as a century of trying to pass such joint resolution proposing amendments have been and continue to be a total flop and not about happen with any form of income tax whether it be individual, corporate, or payroll is in the statutes.
why would you only want to do a partial job and leave the heavy lifting of the 16th to others?
What heavy lifting of other's are you pointing out? I don't see many grassroots efforts at all supporting the one joint resolution proposing an amendment would actually abolish taxation of personal incomes,
H.J.RES.14
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.j.res.00014:
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 1/26/2005) Cosponsors (2)
Latest Major Action: 3/2/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution;
The amendment I support in working to the strategic goal of actually ending the taxation of personal incomes in all its forms. Personally even then I wish Ron Paul had limited his joint resolution to just addressing the tax system rather than trying to fix more than one ill per amendment.
Many FairTaxers claim that they would not support the FairTax if the 16th is left standing.
I'm an individual with my own prognosis of what must of necessity come first.
I see it necessary to have a new shoe on my feet and not walking barefoot with no shoes, thereby allowing me to toss the old one out to the garbage in good order.
Most FairTaxers I've communicated with see that distinction and necessity.
Two-thirds of the House (290 votes) and two-thirds of the Senate(67 votes) have to approve the amendment proposal, then three-quarters of the states (38) have to ratify it.
You;ve been able to get 59, 3 and 0 on board for the FairTax in over ten years trying. I'd say the gap is very wide. "Snowball's chance" wide, but you're not even close to the majorities of the House and Senate needed to pass your radical tax scheme, so the 16th repeal/rewrite is a moot point.
Well then, it is a valid criticism of the FairTax bill that it could lead to the imposition of both an income tax and a sales tax...
No sale.
The reasons are many to have it the way it is. THere must be a viable replacement before anyone will ever consider eliminating the first.
Well then, it is a valid criticism of the FairTax bill that it could lead to the imposition of both an income tax and a sales tax...
A criticism, for those looking for anything at all to hang their hat on certainly.
Considering that such has been possible for the last century and not happened, one can even more readily and validly state the unlikelyhood of it happening anytime in the foreseeable future and have history and established track record to back one's opinion in the matter up.
"If the NRST is passed, the 16th Amendment will not be repealed. Why buy the cow when the milk is free?"
That's not too hard to understand ... because the cow (income tax) will have been put out to pasture and serves no useful purpose but merely takes up space on our pastureland (our legislative space). It will have become an anachronism like the Prohibition amendment before it and should be made into shoe leather or sold to the next country that thinks it needs one. No point of letting if feast on our pastureland since it can't even be milked anymore.
I also never said it was a FORMAL logical fallacy, but merely a logical fallacy. There are certainly fallacies other than formal ones.
"A constitutional amendment repealing the 16th Amendment could easily be written to provide for a date in the not-too-distant future when the authority to tax income would expire, providing the time needed to move from one system to another. "
Actually we haven't been around this particular tree before since you've now expanded the repeal activity to include things that belong in other sorts of bills as well such as revenue bills (tax bills), spending bills, etc. Each time you add such things it make it even more improbable than ever that such a so-called "repeal bill" could succeed. There would simply be too many points of debate and conflicting opinion to get it through 38 states in only 7 years - if it could even get out of Congress ... which I rather doubt. Keep in mind there is already a lot of overt support for the FairTax in Congress and more is certainly coming.
So as I've said I think the proper (and fastest) way is to pass the FairTax bill while perhaps concurrently passing the repeal bill. Keeping them separate greatly simplifies things and makes it far more likely the repeal will happen. Trying to combine too many things into what should be a repeal bill will virtually guarantee its failure. But I think that's your objective from past threads.
Take a look at most repeal bills and you'll see that they strive, rightfully, to be quite simple. Including too many issues complicates things and is self-defeating.
Hmmm. To buy that $250,000 house today under the income tax I need to earn $333,333.
Under the nrst, I'd need $275,000.
Let's see - currently I'd need $333,000, under the nrst I'd need $275,000.
Looks like the lower rates and broader base make it easier to buy that house under the nrst after all.
It's foolish to pretend that what you pay for today's stuff is paid with pre tax money. It isn't. It's paid with AFTER income tax AFTER payroll tax money.
You are omitting the effect of income/payroll taxes on eanrings. You are omitting the effect of business tax costs on prices.
Why would you do that?
"... there are a number of economists and studies who have said the same things I am saying ..."
That's good to know ... then I'm sure you'll be glad to post links to all of them here (and Forget the Tax Panel report - that's not a "study" at all but a political exercise).
We'll all look forward to seeing them quite soon!!!
You don't accept anyone's opinion that doesn't already fit your conclusions...
I'd say your whole post is confused.
I'd say your whole post is confused.
"Many FairTaxers claim that they would not support the FairTax if the 16th is left standing. "
In a word, NO, that's not true either. A few, perhaps, but certainly nothing like "many".
Also noted is your continued insistence that your own interpretation is he only one possible of what the "FairTax needs to realize" as you once again make unsupported and unsubstantiated statements about the FairTax and its supporters.
And "reforming the way taxes are collected" is not a "claim". It is in fact in bill form before both houses of Congress. That's no "claim" at all.
You always omit the fact that today's prices are paid with AFTER income tax AFTER payroll tax dollars. You omit the fact that one must earn more that the price. That is, you omit the effect of income and payroll taxes on earnings.
An example is.... an item with a $100 price tag costs more than that. It costs ME $133 (I have a 25% effective federal tax rate). So to buy the item, I'd have to earn $133. Clear enough?
Second, you always omit the reduction in prices when the income tax is gone. You say it'll be 9%. So the $100 price tag will change to $91. Clear enough?
Third, you always use the marginal rate of the nrst. But nobody pays marginal rates under the nrst any more than they pay marginal rates today. The effective rate (tax paid/earnings) is an acceptable measure of tax paid. Similarly, the nrst has effective rates that vary depending on family size and money spent. Clear enough?
I think it's you who's confused.
In your comparisons, why do you omit the effect of the income tax on earnings but remember to include the effect of the nrst on prices? Trying to mislead?
In your comparisons, why do you omit the price reductions that you yourself have stipulated? Trying to mislead?
In your comparisons, why do you use the marginal rate of the nrst even though you know it is the effective rate that is indicative of one's tax burden? Trying to mislead?
Do you not have enough to persuade people without this tactic?
"... That would be merely guaranteeing that there would be no passage of the FairTax ... "
rfg:
"... That is another big plus for doing it this way ..."
You've made i clear before that you oppose the FairTax so this is really no surprise. In fact, it's correct to say that you wish to retain the income tax.
Also, once again we see your technique of telling others what you impute to be the motives and desires of the FairTax backers. And those imputations are completely false so you may as well abandon that tactic.
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.