For example, I made from all sources of income say 50K last year. I then have to pay 5K on November 1st (Nov 1st so that we're fresh out of paying before voting), That's it. No deductions, exemptions, write offs or entitlements. Sounds "sound" to me.
How much of your receipts were earnings as opposed to the cost out of your wealth you put into aquiring your earnings.
The complexity and difficulty lay in separating the two into "earnings" to be taxed as income, instead of "Gross receipts" which is a tax on (income + your wealth expended that has been taxed previously). The devil is in the details of what government allows you to deduct as cost.
Why should you be required to report and prove to the government what your earnings and expended wealth are to compute and pay that tax, instead of simply paying a fixed percentage of total payment collected by a business in an anonomous sale not requiring any of the above.
Is there ever a convenient time to pay taxes?
Yep, at the grocery store when you are spending money you have already earned, at the time you elect to spend it.
Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible
Makes sense. But this factor currently resided within our EO's power to implement.
Actually the choice of an income tax imposes complexity in separating earnings from expended wealth aquiring those earnings. That imposes direct costs on business & individuals that places an unecessary burden on the economy and what we as individual have to apply to other ends.
A retail sales tax removes over 95% of all those costs:
Where Have All the Dollars Gone?
How the government robs Peter to pay him back.
By James L. Payne, Reason Magazine February '94When the overhead costs are added together, (24 percent compliance costs, 33 percent disincentive costs, and 8 percent other costs), they total 65 percent of tax revenue.
Wouldn't a large bureau be required to make sure that manufaturers, service providers and retailers collect taxes from sales?
Substantially less than under an income tax that has to be administered and enforced on every individual in the United States.
Only retailers would be subject to collect and remit those taxes, and then only to the existing tax authorities in the States. 45 of which already administer sales taxes much more complex than the NRST decribed in HR2525. When one relises that only 10% of the largest businesses move 90% of all retail sales receipts.
It becomes very clear where the diffence lays and how much smaller a bureaucracy it takes. The federal bureaucracy essentially goes from the 120,000 employees of the IRS plus additional DOJ agents, plus US Court resources ... to an office in the US Treasury receiving revenues forwarded from the States,(who by the way are paid to adminster and remit those taxes to the Treasury) No unfunded mandate.
The IRS itself conservatively estimates that 63,000,000 people are not paying the "income" tax, so that is a bogus assertion. I'm sure many of those millions (and posters like yourself) believe they are "getting away with not paying their fair share", but all they are doing is not volunteering to assess themselves. It is possible to be tax-free without an NRST, flat tax or VAT.
Anyway, the kind of tax "reform" that most think is the only solution has about as much chance of passage in this age as the final assignment of blame for the American Civil War.