Posted on 04/16/2003 7:28:39 AM PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
You clowns continue to say that yet can't seem to find one example. Rather, you go on and on about me ...
Just present ONE example of how your plan will reduce prices 20, 30, 40%, it would be much simpler than name calling or endless rants (lies actually) about how everyone everywhere has already posted it. .
Dr. Walter Williams has fotten [sic] more about economics that [sic] YOU will EVER know!
Maybe you could get him to show you how it would work then.
Sorry, though (with the exception of the constant little cigarette cough/clearing of the throat) I like listening to him on Rush, but when he talks about economics I can't help but think "affirmative action"....
Article 1, Sec. 9
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Amendment XVI shot that to hell!
Secretary Snow, who likes to snow people,
Any Article that includes lines like this cannot be treated seriously.
The proposed legislation will, instead, change the entire tax code of America from a tax on income to a tax on consumption over a 10-year period.
Which proposed legislation is that? All Bush is asking for is an extremely small tax cut, with an end to double taxation on dividends.
At the heart of this plan is the elimination of tax on corporate dividends
Actually Joan, the goal is to end the Double taxation on dividends. Someone will still have to pay taxes on any profits earned by dividends.
And so on and so on.
You file with a one page report, monthly, quarterly or annually depending on business level. You keep your records for an audit just in case, but you would do this anyway. Your usual business records (receipts etc) all contain the tax info, so there is no extra burden.
The claimed advantage of such a system over a strictly retail tax is that it captures economic activity that does not make it to the retail level (such as production machinery) thus distributing the tax throughout the economy more fairly. Of course, business has to pass this onto the final consumer anyway.
I am not promoting such a system, just clarifying a previous poster that suggested that producer level taxes would be multiplied.
You tax activities you don't like. I'm not clear that taxing consumption wouldn't create an initial drop in consumer activity. However, I would suggest that eliminating the complexity of the tax code would free society tremendously. Of course, it would create a depressing in the law/accountancy sector. After Enron, maybe that's a good thing for the big firms to take a hit, but many decent lower-level CA's would also be affected.
"Would you like to retract your statement now?"
==========================
PW, No thanks. The numbers on the bite to differing income groups tells the story. Known out take versus possible reductions. These people would make good used car salespersons. Thanks anyway. Peace and love, George.
AFE, That ain't so either. But, THIS article isn't even talking about the NRST. THIS article is speaking about a VAT tax that IS included in the President's{?} tax reduction bill. The VAT will be implemented over the next few years in ADDITION to the income tax and all the rest of the odious "user fees", "permits", "excise taxes", and other SALES taxes such as for gasoline, airline tickets, utility taxes, etc that are already levied. Be afraid for your children's future. VERY afraid! Peace and love, George.
"The best thing for the middle class is a hugh decline in federal spending."
============
FSP, Agreed. And, the lower earning taxpayer the hardest. And, the "movers and shakers" would have less incentive to keep the rate low. Whereas, with a flat tax on income with no deductions and or exemptions, they would have a BIG interest in keeping the bite low and lowering government expenditures. Now, and with a NRST they want government help with their favored passtimes. Peace and love, George.
SFG, Actually, the bill that the Tax is written into {Bush's tax cut bill} is designed to ELIMINATE "investment" income from taxation. So, in this instance, you are wrong. Peace and love, George.
SFG, BTW, do you REALLY think that ain't so?? Then, maybe he could be more forthright when discussing our national debt. The Treasury Department is, as of 12/31/2002, above the debt limit set by Congress, and as of 04/17/2003, $460,780,111,309.05, above the national debt limit allowed by Congress. 'Splain that! Peace and love, George.
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.