Posted on 02/03/2002 3:17:46 AM PST by doosee
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:02:21 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Keep learning about the nrst. You'll be pleasantly surprised...
Now go watch the Rams destroy New England.
I can accept families paying the extra taxes for having children if those children were freed from Social Security and Medicare taxes and could provide for their own parents instead of everyone else. Those without children would have less taxes they'd need to pay but could save for their retirement needs which might be higher because they wouldn't have the kids to pitch in for their care.
I doubt it. The folks with the high income will spend much more.
I'm glad that you said it is assumed that the poor people pay........
Around these parts, it seems to me that they spend most of their income on lottery tickets, a tax on THEM would insure that the "poor" really DO pay their "fair share".
I was watching O'Reilly during the Clinton administration and O'Reilly was complaining about being audited. I think he said he was audited 3 years in a row, and if it happened another successive time, he was going to do something about it. If true, he's had his share of audits!
True. But it would really only hit those who didn't already pay income taxes. For me, I'd rather not pay the income and payroll taxes and gladly pay a national sales tax. I'd have much more money to spend without the taxes taken out of my check.
A sales tax could hit you quite hard if one year your washer, dryer and refrigerator needed to be replaced which for many people are fairly big items.
Actually this is not really true once the economy settled out after the change over.
The between business income taxes, payroll taxes and cost of tax compliance, tax litigations, the annual dance with every changing forms and reporting requirements, the the burden on citizen as reflected through higher prices, lower wages, and lower return on investements are horrendous.
The following article covers the mechanism on how the current tax system propagates and is embedded into consumption expenditure.
DO YOU PAY YOUR INCOME TAX
AT THE SUPERMARKET?
by D. Sherman Cox J.D. L.L.M. Taxation
The percentage used in the above article is somewhat off target in that it is based on a percentage that excludes individual income tax and SS/medicare contribution extracted out of individual wages & salaries. The 24% in the article considers only those factors actually paid to government out of impositions on the business plus cost to business of complying with the income, payroll, excise & tariff tax laws.
The total contribution of the federal tax system(including taxes in gross wage/salaries) to the price of retail consumption goods and services is 36% for taxes alone. Including cost of compliance at around $600billion/year, increases that percentage to about a 47% total burden on the family caused by the federal tax system as it exists today.
Tax as % of current family retail expenditure = fed/(1-state-fed-savings) =
23.5/(1-.235-0.102-0.012) = 36.09%
Current total Federal tax revenues are about $1900billion, more than $600billion(Paine '97, Pilla '95, AGCCA 2000, Williams 2000) additional dollars are passed on in consumption prices due to the business costs of complying with the federal tax law.
The percent total federal burden = 36*(1900+600)/1900 = 47.36% as passed through consumption prices.
Reduce the taxes on business and simplify them ultimately means a higher standard of living for the citizen as that would mean a considerable reduction in prices coupled with higher personal income available for consumption as well as savings and investment. By several measures the shelf price of goods and services should fall more the 20% though normal market forces. With a 23% NRST is tacked into lower pricing, coupled with full gross pay plus the FCA available, nearly all family's should see a substantial increase in standard of living and all that means to the economy.
Only those that for one reason or another elect not to accept the FCA, and do not now pay any taxes would fail to benefit in any substantial manner. Even those persons would be no worse of than they are today for their total expenditure (tax + goods & services) would remain approximately the same, if not a little lower than, it is today.
If Bush is pro-gun, that's news to me. Ask him if he intends to re-up the "Assault Weapons Ban". Hint: He stated that he would before he was elected.
Watch how fast he signs a bill to outlaw the .50 caliber guns.
BTW what if it's a single parent home? Does the 2nd $165 kick in? or do we go straight to the $58?
The statute are based on adult vs children, not just raw count, so for the single parent situation, it would be $165 + $58 as far as I can determine. It must be presumed the second adult is out there someplace kinking around in another household collecting the other $165.
Then I'm confused. How will the govt issue the "pre-bate checks", if they don't know your income?
Also, who is going to pay for the govt agency required to monitor and write the checks?
With a national sales tax, no one ever gets a shot at an idea of my income. If I don't want to purchase food in order to avoid the tax, I can just plant a garden. I acknowledge that there are problems with any tax system, but the sales tax comes the closest to being free of govt intrusion that I see.
They issue the same prebate check to everyone of equal family size. You tell them your family size once per year by providing the SSNs of them. BTW if you don't want to give the SSNs (ie you don't want SS benefits nor the privacy invasion), you simply may opt not to receive the prebate.
Also, who is going to pay for the govt agency required to monitor and write the checks?
The Social Security Admin already sends checks and funds electronically. THe infrastructure is already in place.
1. I'll have a lot more disposable income
2. the government will have no idea how much money I make
If I may be so bold as to add one to the list:
3. The government will have no prior claim to ANY of my income! I'll be F R E E!
This statement makes no sense unless you plan to hand out a receipt with your purchase telling you what the tax you paid is funding.
Once more, taxation is a symptom; until you accept this fact you are either a shyster, a fool or simply confused.
---max
9-11 has changed everything in regard to how the elected perceive gun rights. Attacking guns is so uncool right now that even Chuck Shumer has lost his tongue. I could be wrong but I think you are not giving W enough credit.
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.