My reason for supporting discriminatory tariffs remains -
You said you were after "revenue tariffs" now we are going to "discriminatory tariffs". What is the distinction that such is not the dreaded "protective tariffs" you have said your tax is not supposed to be?
provided that they are geared towards revenue considerations only, not political considerations.
How do you intend to enforce that, considering who has the authority to enact law, (i.e. CONGRESS).
And if this policy does result in political manipulation of rates, at least the manipulation is confined to the foreign sphere, rather than on our lives as citizens
We'll just manipulate that other guy's livelyhood, (i.e. importers.)
don't tax you, and
don't tax me,
We'll just tax that guy behind the tree?
Once again, How do you intend to enforce no political ramifications in implementing "discriminatory tariffs". Once the door is opened, it remains out there to be applied against all citizens. Foreigners don't pay tariffs American citizens do.
Again, this is provided the tax burden isn't alleviated by inflation,
Your suggestion? Seeing that inflation is driven ultimately by demand for largess exceeding government revenues. The point of an NRST is to provide folks with a measure of the real burden, to discourage demand for additional largess that induces the tendency towards inflationary taxes(e.g. deficit financing).
The only guarantee to attempt to deal with that problem is to support an amendment such as:
H.J.RES.22
Sponsor: Rep Istook, Ernest J., Jr. [OK-5] (introduced 2/13/2003)
Latest Major Action: 2/13/2003 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Title: Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
or that the people don't vote in an income tax on the wealthy once again. So my suggestion to you is to back up your proposal with a proposal for a constitutional amendment to make it stick,
Tells me you haven't bothered to learn the first thing about the NRST proposal, nor read the bill itself which calls for a constitutional amendment to prohibit all taxes on income, payroll, and gift estate taxes as part of putting the NRST in as a replacement to the current tax system.
It is up to you to support appropriate amendments to get the job done, ones like H.J.RES.15 which is already in committee:
H.J.RES.15
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 1/28/2003)
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.
Though it should be modified to prohibit all income, payroll, gift estate taxes as the NRST proposal H.R.25 calls for in anticipation of ultimate enactment of a bill like H.R.25.
You can be encouraging people to get behind that or a like amendment now, while encouraging the enactment of a better tax system.
The distinction is that it would still be geared towards maximum revenue. Once you're over that hump for any particular item, then you're into "protective" country.
How do you intend to enforce that, considering who has the authority to enact law, (i.e. CONGRESS).
I told you, with a constitutional amendment limiting Congress' ability to extract internal taxes, such that they'd have the greatest incentive to get the best revenue they can out of tariffs. This would reduce the tendency to play around with the rates for political purposes. I suppose we could go further by requiring the appointment of an apolitical board (something along the lines of judges) whose job would be to determine those rates.
How do you intend to enforce no political ramifications in implementing "discriminatory tariffs". Once the door is opened, it remains out there to be applied against all citizens.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Tariffs can't be used to tell people what school to send their kids to, or when to buy a home, or what kind of health insurance or retirement plan they should have. They are extremely limited in their potential for manipulativeness.
Foreigners don't pay tariffs American citizens do.
Something I've never denied. Does this mean you'll now stop accusing me of wanting to avoid a tax burden for myself?
Your suggestion?
No, inflationary spending is most definitely not something I'd suggest. Read my post again.
Tells me you haven't bothered to learn the first thing about the NRST proposal, nor read the bill itself which calls for a constitutional amendment....
You're right, I was only relying on your statements to me. After all, you're the one trying to sell this proposal to the rest of us, so it's up to you to highlight the features that would make us want to accept it. I even provided you with a golden opportunity when I asked you what would prevent the people from wanting to reinstitute the graduated income tax. You gave me four answers, none of which mentioned anything about a constitutional amendment. But I'm glad to hear it's part of your proposal.