You guys are arguing semantics. OK, so the business is taxed upon its income at the point of sale; the consumer is imputed with the responsibility, but it’s the business that in fact receives the money and then sends a fraction to the feds. You can say the consumer pays the tax but the business collects & aggregates & submits it (making the business a tax collector).
So what? However it is done and whatever semantics apply, the feds confiscate trillions of dollars, waste most of the money in ways it is not granted power to, bill our grandchildren for >50% more spending on top of that, and do it in a manner where it may scrutinize & adjust each and every purchase made.
Sales tax, whoever is imputed as making the payment, is idiotic.
How about a different, more Constitutional, approach: reduce the IRS to a couple of guys working a couple days a year to receive, record, and deposit one large check from each state & territory. Let Congress decide what each state’s “fair share” is according to the Constitution, and let each state decide how it’s going to raise the money - or how it will push back with enough force of “NO!” that Congress will take notice and lower its demands.
I thought requisitions went the way of the Articles of Confederation. When did Congress, under the Constitution, ever receive and deposit one large check from each state & territory?
Not true. The argument is about definitions. Every piece of legislation, every government law or ordinance, every contract has a list of definitions that are in effect. Definitions are important so that time is not wasted on those that do not read them and so that courts will apply law with meaningful intent.
Sales tax, whoever is imputed as making the payment, is idiotic.
Sales tax without income tax works just fine in many states including mine. It is a fact that in recessions sales tax revenues dip less than income taxes. Income taxes are difficult to administer and are more sensitive to economic conditions.
During recession the consumer needs to purchase certain items just to survive so there will always be a sales tax revenue stream that has this basic necessity sales thereby is less sensitive to economic downturns than income tax revenues. Sales tax revenues are much more stable and robust.
How about a different, more Constitutional, approach: reduce the IRS to a couple of guys working a couple days a year to receive, record, and deposit one large check from each state & territory.
Why not do it this way? Because it would be unconstitutional. What you are referring to is a direct tax which must be apportioned according to a census, a capitation tax. But you are proposing it be applied to the state level without apportionment which is unconstitutional because only income taxes are presently constitutional without apportionment and the States have no income.
Let Congress decide what each state’s “fair share” is according to the Constitution, and let each state decide how it’s going to raise the money - or how it will push back with enough force of “NO!” that Congress will take notice and lower its demands.
Again, what you propose is a direct tax on states without apportionment which is impossible. Direct taxes were written into the constitution to provide for large public works projects or for funding wars. If you are proposing a direct tax on states with apportionment then you are reigniting the conflict that led to income taxes without apportionment. Because average incomes are different in different states, you are in effect saying that poor people in one state pay as much as the rich in other states and even if the states try to lessen the burden on their poor, they still must come up with funds according to an apportionment census and so must tax the rich more. This is what drove the argument for income tax without apportionment. Direct taxation of incomes was the solution but because 'income' was never defined, it has turned into a game of who will be taxed. The FairTax resolves these problems totally.