Posted on 11/03/2004 10:42:24 AM PST by tgusa
"I'm not exactly sure how big the national sales tax is going to have to be, but it's kind of an interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously," the president said. The next day administration officials said Bush was not considering such a reform.
John Kerry's campaign quickly condemned a national sales tax, and Bush for potentially supporting it.
“If [Bush] has his way, every trip to the supermarket will feel like a visit to H&R Block and every day will be April 15. And now that this plan has been exposed, George W. Bush is trying to mislead the public into thinking it was just an off-the-cuff comment," Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said in an Aug. 12 statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Yup - I brought up the same point in an earlier post. Thanks for the reinforcement!
How does not signing up protect your privacy? The only information the government can glean from your application is your SSN and the number of kids in your household. So what?
"A national sales tax would mean more IRS enforcement agents not less. The amount of cheating in a system like would be immense."
Incorrect, sir. Currently there are something like 110 million income tax returns filed each year. The number of filers under the FairTax would decline by approximately 90%.
Second, we currently have a system so complex that even the professionals do not understand it. According to CCH, the number of pages in the tax system is now in excess of 60,000 ..... and that does not include the recently passed corporate tax bill that is, I believe, about 800 or so pages. We are replacing it with a system which is a little more than 100 pages as currently written. That is an ENORMOUS simplification.
We would therefore have a dramatically simpler system with an enormous decrease in the number of points of collection/enforcement.
Will a National Sales Tax (NRST) create compliance challenges which are different than those we face under the current system? Absolutely! Will those challenges be greater or more difficult than the ones we have under this system? No way, Jose!!
Employers 'shall'. This does not mean that individuals couldn't exempt themselves from the ~proposed~ scheme.A self-employed person's employer is himself. The bill clearly states that self-employment income shall be reported.
"....a sales tax would be a more volatile revenue base and that a combination of a low flat income tax and a sale tax would hedge that bet......or perhaps to start off with......"
That is incorrect. History shows that consumption is a more stable and predictable revenue base than income is. Here in GA, a big part of the problem with our state budget during the recent economic downturn is the dropoff in income tax revenues. Sales tax revenues did not show nearly the proportionate decline.
Your Nightmare: Honesty outlives the lie. It always has. It always will. 348 -- today
Yes... If they don't they won't get their full Social Security benefits. The SSA won't know how much to give them without their wages.
If a person chooses to collect social security. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that people may retain their social security benefits by paying into social security..
It says "shall," not "may." Doesn't sound like it's voluntary to me. 353
Te Social Security Administration (SSA) retains the regulations for whether a person must report their income to the government. The clause you referenced is subordinate or secondary to SSA regulation.
Thankfully President Bush understands that people need the right to chose social security, or not.
"Honesty outlives the lie. It always has. It always will." -- Zon 10/05/2002 -- 12
It most certainly appears that you want the government to force people to report their incomes to government.
I don't.
The government has no business knowing what my income is.
The primary cause for the government to force people to report their incomes is so politicians and bureaucrats can continue receiving unearned/usurped paychecks. A secondary cause is to effect manipulation of the people via social engineering.
How specifically you are hitching a ride on their coattails -- what your vested interest is -- you have yet to divulge.
I'm a proponent of individual rights, private property rights and the right to freely chose to enter contracts.
You want to violate one or all of those rights by enlisting government agents to initiate force and fraud against innocent people -- myself included.
How does not signing up protect your privacy? The only information the government can glean from your application is your SSN and the number of kids in your household. So what?
The primary point is that money not paid out in prebate checks ends up funding the government. A secondary point is, where you say, "so what", to giving up that amount of privacy you do not speak for everyone. Many people will chose not to divulge that information.
I find the amount of information about me in the hands of the IRS under the current system very invasive, but telling them my SSN (which they already know) and the number of people in my house, no big deal.
The first type of overhead is tax planning, which in this context refers to all the economic decisions that individuals and firms make to maximize their benefits in the tax code.So there are $1.6 trillion in legal and planning costs? Not a chance.
• The third type of overhead is tax audits and litigation, referring to the cost of the IRS and the Tax Court, as well as all the legal costs that taxpayers incur while dealing with these two government institutions.
businesses bear a cost of $102.5 billionThat's exactly what I said, I even doubled it to account for legal and planning costs.
in 1997 Americans spent no less than $225 billion complying with the income tax.No they didn't, they just didn't watch as much TV. They are monetizing leisure time, which people in the real world can't do very easily.
However, direct expenses of the IRS are not the central compliance problem; rather, it is the expenses that are pushed forward on the taxpayer to be tax collector, tax accountant, and record-keeper.That's nice, but we were talking about businesses. Thanks for the irrelevant cut & pasty.
At present, this burden is estimated at $700 billion annually.Says who? The Tax Foundation cut & pasty says it's $194 billion, which is it?
Jane Gravelle of the Congressional Research Service estimates that economic loss from the corporate income tax is equal to about 97 percent of the corporate tax revenue collected.OK. Last year the corporate income tax collected was $131 billion. 97% of that is $127 billion, less that the $200 billion I allotted.
Dale Jorgenson, the chairman of the Economics Department at Harvard University, found that each extra dollar the government raises in revenue through the current system costs the economy $1.39.Economic costs are not "embedded taxes." If they were in prices, they would be in the economy, not lost production.
Incorrect, sir. Currently there are something like 110 million income tax returns filed each year. The number of filers under the FairTax would decline by approximately 90%.But they would be filing 12x more often.
That's the real problem we're seeing here from the naysayers POV.
-- They WANT government to have more 'purpose', more control.
The Fair Tax threatens that agenda.
Yep. They're so transparent.
The act of being honest in itself resolves problems. Dishonest acts create problems. The problems naysayers create expose their true colors while creating the opportunity for others to honestly solve the problems.
They're temporarily useful. The goal in the long run is to create a individualist civilization while allowing the naysayer, parasitical elite and problem creator to fade away as they become obsolete. Those that are redeemable may chose to redeem themselves on their own accord and effort to become honest. The most destructive of them are irredeemable.
If a person chooses to collect social security. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that people may retain their social security benefits by paying into social security.You can (mis)read it however you want. It is clear in the language of the bill that wages and self-imployment shall be reported.
It most certainly appears that you want the government to force people to report their incomes to government.I'm not for the FairTax, you are. And the FairTax requires wages and self-imployment to be reported. So who wants the government to force people to report their incomes?
How specifically you are hitching a ride on their coattails -- what your vested interest is -- you have yet to divulge.No interest except I think this is a lousy plan for America. That and I hate the lies and distortions the supporters of the FairTax are using.
You want to violate one or all of those rights by enlisting government agents to initiate force and fraud against innocent people -- myself included.Huh? Climb back into your bunker or I'll sick the black helicopters on you.
but telling them my SSN (which they already know) and the number of people in my house, no big deal.
That's obvious. There's many people that think differently for which you do not speak. As I said, the primary point is that those that are entitled to sign up for the prebate check will chose to let the government keep the money. That's a good thing.
As tpaine said: "I'd bet that in time it would become declasse/unfashionable to take the prebate."349
Oh, that was my other grounds for disagreement with you. The government haveing even one excess penny is bad. They always get [us] in trouble with it. Anyone who doesn't want their prebate should get it out of the hands of the freedom grabbers and donate it to their church or charity.
You can (mis)read it however you want. It is clear in the language of the bill that wages and self-imployment shall be reported.
As I wrote and you chose to ignore: The Social Security Administration (SSA) retains the regulations for whether a person must report their income to the government. The clause you referenced is subordinate or secondary to SSA regulation.
Also, with the elimination of the IRS there is no bureaucracy to enforce the reporting of income. Nor does HR 25 state that there will be an agency to enforce the reporting of income.
It is wrong for government to force people to pay into social security who would chose not to. The Social Security ponzi scam and the SSA need to be eliminated.
Anyone who doesn't want their prebate should get it out of the hands of the freedom grabbers and donate it to their church or charity.
Curing the cancer is the solution. Applying Band Aids treats only the symptoms. Cure dishonesty. irrationality and criminality. Parasitical elite in government are by far the biggest tumors/offenders.
This is a LONG thread, and I have not read all of the comments, so this may be a repeat (sorry)
If I can buy a product cheaper on the internet or by mail from a company in another country without paying sales tax, then that sale is lost to US companies.
This disparity would have to be addressed -- maybe through the use of tariffs. This all sounds vaguely "colonial" to me.
So there are $1.6 trillion in legal and planning costs? Not a chance.
You overlook the indirect disincentive costs which compise the bulk of the burdens on the economy recognized by all economists but not by your figures.
businesses bear a cost of $102.5 billion
That's exactly what I said, I even doubled it to account for legal and planning costs.
You overlook the indirect disincentive costs which compise the bulk of the burdens on the economy recognized by all economists but not by your figures.
in 1997 Americans spent no less than $225 billion complying with the income tax.
No they didn't, they just didn't watch as much TV. They are monetizing leisure time, which people in the real world can't do very easily.
Hmm the total quote:
| According to the non-partisan Tax Foundation in 1997 Americans spent no less than $225 billion complying with the income tax. The most recent projections made by the IRS of tax returns to be filed in Calendar Year (CY) 1999 indicate that the grand total, or sum of all major tax return filings, will be 228.2 million. This number is then expected to grow at 1.24 percent annually until CY 2005, when the grand total return count is expected to reach 245.2 million. This does not include the 1 billion information returns that will be filed. In addition, more than 8 billion forms and instructions are sent to taxpayers each year, enough to encircle the globe several times. Paperwork is the most visible compliance cost, but it is clearly not the only, and perhaps not the largest compliance costs. Return processing, determining liability, recordkeeping and other burdens are an estimated 19 to 33 % of the total revenue raised by the income tax system and 2.0 to 3.5% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)[an additional 3% of GDP1999 = $279Billion]. We waste money each year on seeking to avoid taxes, avoid trouble with the IRS, interpret the laws or determining the best course of actions with the laws. |
Disagree all you wish! Doesn't help your argument one bit. Cost involved in just seeking to avoid the tax more than double the figure, to $225 + $279 > $504 billion not counting litigation and not counting the tax code disincentives inducing misallocation of resources reducing productivity by another 35 cents for every federal tax dollar of revenue collected..
At present, this burden is estimated at $700 billion annually.
Says who? The Tax Foundation cut & pasty says it's $194 billion, which is it?
Tax foundation nor you account for disincententive costs nor misallocation of resources in trying to avoid the tax code.
Dale Jorgenson, the chairman of the Economics Department at Harvard University, found that each extra dollar the government raises in revenue through the current system costs the economy $1.39.
Economic costs are not "embedded taxes." If they were in prices, they would be in the economy, not lost production.
LOL, the economy is aggregated into retail prices.
| http://spruce.flint.umich.edu/~mjperry/Unit10.html "Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the most widely used measure of economic performance around the world. We currently have almost $11T of annual GDP in the U.S. GDP measures the total market value or total spending on all final goods and services produced domestically during a specific period, usually quarters or years. " *** SNIP *** WHAT COUNTS IN GDP?: 1. Only FINAL goods and services purchased by final users. Only retail sales count, not intermediate (wholesale) goods or transactions. When GM buys steel, tires or transmissions, those transactions don't count because it would be double counting since those expenditures will be accounted for in the final retail price of the car. For example, suppose GM spends $15,000 for a car and sells it to a dealer for $16,000 and the dealer sells it for $17,000. We only count the $17,000 for the final retail sale. We can't count $15,000 + 16,000 + 17,000 = $48,000. Only the value of the final output is counted, and the value of the inputs are not directly counted since their value is reflected in the final purchase price. |
And show me the study, I don't trust people quoting Jorgenson.
I'm not here to convince you, for your view and agenda has nothing to do with the discorvery of any truth. It is merely to demogogue and confuse issues with irrelavancy and outright distortions.
It is sufficient to me to note that Jorgenson's results are underwritten by other economists as well.
| "According to a study by Jane Gravelle, an economist with the Congressional Research Service, and Larry Kotlikoff, an economist at Boston University, the corporate income tax costs the economy more in lost production than it raises in revenue for the Treasury. " |
As I wrote and you chose to ignore: The Social Security Administration (SSA) retains the regulations for whether a person must report their income to the government. The clause you referenced is subordinate or secondary to SSA regulation.If that were true the bill would say "may" not "shall."
Also, with the elimination of the IRS there is no bureaucracy to enforce the reporting of income.There's the SSA. It will be bigger and badder than ever. Or the treasury department.
It is wrong for government to force people to pay into social security who would chose not to.What do you think you would be paying when you paid the FairTax? People who didn't report their wages or self-employment income would be paying into the system and getting nothing out.
If you want to be honest, why don't you admit that your real objections to the Fair Tax are based on more than such petty [& changeable] details?
355 tpaine
A self-employed person's employer is himself. The bill clearly states that self-employment income shall be reported.
It's a ~proposed~ bill, and that part could be changed, obviously.
But in any case, its becoming clear that you have a vested interest in our statist quo system. Can you be honest and tell us why?
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.