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.
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.
Not to the majority, and on election day, majority is what counts.
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.
We had a Corporate Tax (see Flint) in place prior to the individual income tax, and businesses were plagued with numerous license taxes, duties, tariffs and all sundry of business taxes laid by the federal government. The game of tax the business and let it pass the tax down to the customer price has been around forever, the tariff being only one of many such taxes.
You make your blanket statements but I notice you never back them up.
Am I to understand that your argument against my idea is that it currently has little support?
No only that it has no support where it counts, as a bill to be enacted by Congress. You have yet to let us in on how you intend that this tariff system of yours will be put in place without Congress Critters and Presidents involved. You know, the folks who get elected by providing the current gravy train?
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.
You would be wrong. The argument I have is that you do not get to decide what the ultimate size to do its 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?
The NRST is revenue neutral with the current tax system, avoiding the pitfall of enactment of most reform proposals and clearly the primary pitfall of you tariff only system. Unlike your tariff, the NRST replaces the current tax system sustaining current revenue stream it does not put an immediate threat to incumbancy nor current programs.
From there it is up to the good people of this nation to decide what programs and what size of government they desire and press for with knowledge of the tax burden that the visibility of the NRST provides. The choice is not your's or mine as to the extent of this government, it is upon the Congress as elected representatives of the American people to determine that through the processes laid out in the Constitution.
What you may think is the best way to determine the size of government relative to your liking is only relavent insofar as you are able to effect the election of representatives to the legislative branch of government. That's where it ends, and that is where your fantasy of a tariff only system ends.
I'm thinking that $60-100 billion a year should cut it. If I'm wrong, I'll have no problem admitting it,
That's good of you. Hope you aren't to disappointed when you never see it happen.
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.
Still trying to figure out how a National Retail Sales Tax that impacts both foreign and domestic goods the same does not do the job just as well if not better as a single rate NRST impedes the setting of individual rates and favored treatment of goods based in political and foreign manipulation. In fact an NRST would go along way preserving good trading relations while extracting that maximum revenue possible from the sale of imported goods you seem to think is so desirable.
Considering the NRST is applied equally to domestic goods and foreign imports one can expect that for a given rate of tax, substantially more revenue can be extracted from imports than would be possible under a tariff only situation allowing the setting of much lower rates of taxation for a given level of revenue to the government.
You want a $60-$100 billion government, that would translate to a 0.6 to 1.11% NRST. At current import levels we now experience a 2% overall tariff going to 1.1% or less would just assure greater trade and more revenues. Trying to extract $60-$100billion from a tariff only situation would demand a tariff rate of 6 to 10% which probably would not achieve the objective for lost sales volume of imports in favor of untaxed domestic products.
I fail to see any advantage to be gained from your "revenue tariff" whatsoever, especially noting the advantages of the NRST in lower rates and expanded trade, both domestic and foreign, that would arise as a consequence of minimal tax burdens focused into the general retail sector where the tax burden is visible and the electorate can directly monitor the impact of government on their economic lives on a daily basis.
Sorry I just don't by your argument for "revenue tariffs" to sustain any level of government. You simply do not provide a substantive reason as to why we should weigh down import trade with 10+ times higher tax rates using "revenue tariffs" over the tax rates of the NRST collecting the same level revenues.