Posted on 04/16/2003 7:28:39 AM PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
We might be getting somewhere now. What percentage of prices is "compliance costs" exactly?
Oh and if you're going to "scrap the code" how come you're only reducing "compliance costs 90%"?
So when you do your required by law payroll taxes you aren't really complying with any laws then?...got it.
Tax costs are the costs of the tax.
What does that mean exactly, it keeps getting muddier and muddier around here...
OH wait, it's not mud...IT'S BULLSHIT!
I'm not doing any of this. It's HR 25 that will do such.
Compliance to tax laws cost money. You can find out yourself how much compliance to the income and payroll tax adds to prices, reduces wages, and decreases ROI....you don't need or want information from me. There are dozens of experts out there who have published research on the topic.
And yes they say 90% of compliance costs will be eliminated. I won't bother you with a link, again, as you've asked not to be "spammed" with links (even thou you ask for them first!).
By "scrapping the code", as you put it, the cost of complying with tax laws is reduced by 90%.
Of course under the NRST it is the business, not the consumer, who is responsible for keeping receipts, so they will still have that expense. Under the income tax, business AND consumers must provide receipts on demand by IRS.
It would be nice to be able to eliminate 100% of compliance costs, but I'm still waiting for that bill to be introduced.
George writes: Z, Joe and Jane "Sixpack" don't influence politicians. Millionaires do. If people making millions of dollars had to pay the same rate as on their income, they would be clamoring to get that rate lowered. While sipping their favorite beverage, under the NRST, they would probably talk about the government supplied amenities we "all" should have. Concert halls, museums, ballparks and arenas, race tracks, etc and conclude that the tax rate needs to be raised. It's already happened. It caused the Boston tea party. Your utopia just don't exist. Peace and love, George. 178
Zon: The fact of the matter is, politicians need votes to get elected and reelected. Joe and Jane "Smith" are in the majority and their votes can keep any tax-rate raising politician from being elected. Their massive number of votes can also elect a politician that will lower the tax rate. It seems all too clear that you're implying that votes don't matter and the only way politicians would lower the tax rate was if multi-millionaires bribed them. 205
Most times, Politicians make their most odious votes as "lame ducks". They don't care if they get re-elected. Some make "mistakes" like the former Bush. And, it really doesn't matter if the odious politicians get re-elected anyway. Most times if not all, their replacements are odious politicians with the BIG government ideals.
Yeah sure George, politicians don't get voted into office by the massive number of poor and middle class voters. And politicians don't care if the get reelected. They just look like career politicians. Sure George, whatever ever you say George.
I made an error, I'm human. Big deal. I acted responsibly as a mature adult and acknowledged the correction.
Dead wrong. This is the person who stands to lose the most under the plan.
Savings have already been taxed. Now the retiree who starts to spend what he has saved will be taxed again. In a big way.
Oh puh_leeez get off you friggin hypocritical high horse. You keeping crapping on Jim's living room by bringing this up. If I called you a commie bastard or something what would you say, "thank you sir may I have another"? I had already politely asked Mr. Jesup to refrain from personal attacks in post 153. But no, he had to keep going with more personal attacks. And you have the nerve to get on my case. You seem to have no problem with NRST crapping all over. Give it a rest.
So what's your excuse for crap you continue to spew in here. I am a good American who responds when someone attacks me. You seem to expect me to roll over and take it like a Frenchmen. I don't play that game, maybe you do.
No. That's not right. Interest and dividends are not taxed under the nrst.
The savings will be taxed again regardless of whether the nrst is enacted or not...because under the income tax, prices are inflated by embedded income taxes. So those who have done the right thing and saved money will be in no worse position regarding amount of tax to be paid on savings.
And maybe under the NRST income from interest, dividends and capital gains is subject to social security tax.
No. That's not right. Interest and dividends are not taxed under the nrst.
I said maybe. So I assume you didn't mean that the maybe was no. And that you didn't mean the maybe was wrong. Thanks, for letting me know that those things aren't taxed.
Waaaaa!, Waaaaa!, Waaaaa!, Waaaaa!............
90% is 9000 times better the 0% looie!
Here is an excert from remarks made by The John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, Dr. Walter E. Williams, in March of is 2002 to a standing-room-only crowd of students, faculty, and guests at Hillsdale College's Constructive Alternatives Seminar: "...Keep in mind that a working definition of slavery is that you work but do not have any rights to the fruit of your labor. Taxation and regulation constitute confiscation of some or all of the freedom to own and use property. This confiscation has reached unprecedented proportions. In 1902 expenditures at all levels of government totaled $1.7 billion, and the average taxpayer payed only $60 per year in taxes. In fact, from 1787 to 1920, federal expenditures never exceeded 4 percent of the Gross National Product (GNP), except in wartime. Today federal expenditures alone are $1.8 trillion - almost 30% of GNP - and state and local governments spend over a trillion more. The average taxpayer now pays more than $8,000 a year, working from January 1 to May 8 to pay federal, state, and local taxes. In addation to the out-of-pocket cost, Americans spend 5.4 billion hours each year complying with the federal tax code-roughly the equivalent of 3 million people working full time. If it were employed in productive activity, the labor now devoted to tax compliance would be worth $232 billion annually. The federal cost of hiring 93,000 IRS employees is $6 billion. If these Americans weren't fooling around with the tax code, they could produce the entire annual output of the aircraft, trucking, auto, and food processing industries combined..." Emphasis added
I am unaware of Dr. Williams being affiliated with ANY tax reform organization Looie. What do you think he is talking about in the highlighted part of this Looie? I RELLY hesitate to post anything with numbers in it to you Looie because we have ALL seen the effect they have on you bu I'm going to just once more for the heck of it.
George W. has proposed 760 Billion in Tax Cuts over 10 years. I'm ALL for that in the short term but if that would do good things for the economy, as I believe it SURELY would, how much MORE good would eleminating 90% of the compliance costs associated with the current income tax system do Looie?
Let's assume, for the purpose of this exercise, that Dr. William's numbers in the above article are correct (I personally think he errs on the conservative side) and compliance with the income tax consumes $232 Billion per year. 90% of that is $208.2 Billion per annum. Multiply that number by 10 and you come up with $2.08 TRILLION Looie!
That is 2.08 TRILLION with a T currently wasted dollars which would be put to productive use in the economy Looie! I say that would have a huge and beneficial effect Looie!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.