What makes you think that if the NRST is passed, people won't get sick of paying that much money,
I'm relying on it.
and start demanding that government find alternative sources to support the level of government that they're comfortable with, without having to pay any more than they already are?
don't tax you,
don't tax me,
tax that guy with the import behind the tree.
Who is already taxed with an NRST.
Then tax you with you cup of tea.
1) One selective tax levy will not allow a perceptible drop the tax rate of a broadbased NRST.
2) Business will not willingly go for the complexity of a selective tax laid upon them once they are free of the current system and have experienced the freedom and advantages of the NRST,
3) The person levied with an additional tax is not likely to be too happy about the situation.
3) Either house can block legislation with failure of majority, The senate can block legislation to change the tax system by a minority of 41 votes, and a president can veto it.
You said yourself that the Constitution authorizes many forms of taxation. What gives you the impression that people will voluntarily renounce those forms that give them the most benefit with the least burden to themselves?
It is up to the people as always isn't it? That is why you have nil support for a tariff only tax system.
Never know until its tried, Then NRST has written legislation to support, dissatisfaction with the current income/payroll tax system and the advantages of the NRST to argue for it without upsetting the current applecart of bennies. I rely on changing the perceptions of people as regard the cost of government to induce change in government if that is what they desire to do.
H.R.25
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 01/7/2003)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
Where is your legislation, what do you rely on to effect your changes?
Taxing the wealthy at what they're currently taxed at will result in everyone else being taxed at a level more or less what they pay now. I'd call that perceptible.
2) Business will not willingly go for the complexity of a selective tax laid upon them once they are free of the current system and have experienced the freedom and advantages of the NRST,
3) The person levied with an additional tax is not likely to be too happy about the situation.
4) Either house can block legislation with failure of majority, The senate can block legislation to change the tax system by a minority of 41 votes, and a president can veto it.
And these three advantages were present when the imcome tax system was implented in the first place, but that didn't seem to put any dampers on it.
It is up to the people as always isn't it? That is why you have nil support for a tariff only tax system.
Am I to understand that your argument against my idea is that it currently has little support? That's kind of a circular argument, that we shouldn't support something because it has no support. I've never once denied that my ideas aren't currently popular. But popularity isn't the necessarily the mark of a good idea, is it, at least according to that Scottish judge whose statement you keep posting.
I think that the most devastating argument you feel you have against the tariff proposal is that it won't generate enough revenue to enable government to do its legitimate job. It seems you and I have different ideas of what government's legitimate job is. One big difference is that I don't base my ideas on what government is currently doing. My approach is to work from the ground up, and ask, What do we really need, under normal peacetime conditions?
Certainly we need a decent defense capability, though we don't need troops in every country, or ships all over the world, or a President bombing Yugoslavia or doing some other feel-good operation whenever he finds it politically convenient. So what's that leave us with? I'd say a few carriers, a few air bases, a satellite fleet, a missile fleet, a small number of troops, and a well-regulated militia like we used to have. We can keep far more in mothballs, to be brought out when the situation calls for it. And we've proven quite resoundingly that we can grow a huge force in a very short period of time when the emergency arises.
Looking at the other items on the list, the reason the court system and "general government" are so expensive is that society is severely overregulated, well beyond what's needed (you didn't seem to have gotten my sarcasm in Post 612 when I "conceded" that government's job might be a bit more complicated today). And as for the payments on the debt, the feds can go a long way towards completely paying off the debt by selling its gazillions in land holdings that aren't even remotely being used for a purpose authorized by the Constitution. As for what's left of the debt, I wouldn't consider it unreasonable to have an internal tax until it's paid off.
I'm thinking that $60-100 billion a year should cut it. If I'm wrong, I'll have no problem admitting it, though I'd still argue that maximum-revenue tariffs, even if they do need to be further supplemented, are the best way of keeping foreign manipulativeness at arms length while still preserving good trading relations with the rest of the world, which is the point I was initially making.