Posted on 11/15/2004 7:00:17 AM PST by Rakkasan1
MINNEAPOLIS - Rep. Gil Gutknecht is pushing legislation that would replace the federal income tax with a national sales tax.
"Think of a world where there is no income tax, where you get to keep everything you earn and you pay the tax man when you buy stuff," Gutknecht, R-Minn., told the Star Tribune of Minneapolis.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
Maybe you can explain how a VAT is materially any different than a NRST.
A Vat is levied on business purchases throughout the chain of production and is hidden from the perception of the electorate. That is why it countries that use them are able to impose exhorbitant tax burdens on their citizens under the guise of taxing those mean old corporations instead of the little guy. It's called a shell game designed to distract attention away from the reality of where the burdens are.
Definition [ http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/13330.html ]:
value-added tax
levy imposed on businesses at all levels of production of a good or service, and based on the increase in price, or value, added to the good or service by each level. Because all stages of a value-added tax are ultimately passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, it has been described as a hidden sales tax. Originally introduced in France (1954), it is now used by most W European countries.
The National Retail Sales Tax on the otherhand is imposed only on the retail sales level collected from the customer visibly, without price pass throughs, to disguise or hide the tax.
Except for the 40% of it that is invisible to the electorate
Nice claim but untrue as those few excises & tariffs left after repeal of the income/payroll tax system only comprises about 5-6% of total federal revenues.
A NRST is no more encouraging to "citizens participating in constraining government excess" than any other system.
Hmmmm, can't expect citizens to be particularly interested in constraining government when the majority of them do not perceive the cost of largess and more government:
The Honorable James DeMint (R-SC)
United States House of Representatives
THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2001
- "There has been a shift in the relationship between individuals and government, he argues, such that fewer and fewer are paying taxes at the same time that more and more are receiving increasingly generous benefits. If it becomes the case that most voters do not bear a financial burden for this largess, then there will be little to restrain--and significant political incentives to encourage--the continued growth of government.
The result, the bottom 60% of income brackets perceive little to no federal tax burden,(in many cases thinking they are even getting a handout) and 70% of the voting public clamor for more from government looking for the top 40% of income earners/producers to foot the bill
As Walter Williams so clearly makes the point about folks not recognizing the cost of government aas regards themselves:
" It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?"
By your statement here, and your positions on this issue in the past, you have made it abundantly clear where you stand.
Yup. On the side of the truth.
LOL, so you say.
100years of history under the income tax makes it clear that we will not get there (smaller government) from here (the income tax).
Don't suppose you would be interested in adjusting your chart for inflation and population, would you?
Don't need to all that is necessary is to compare federal taxation with state taxation and note that prior to 1900 before the income tax became a dominating factor in the collection of revenue, state tax revenues exceed the federal impostions, with imposition of the income tax, federal taxes rose to exceed state tax revenues accompanied by attendant federal intrusion into roles previously dominated by then states with FDR and the 30's, expansion of social programs on the federal level achieved dominance the tax take of the federal government expanded to double that of the states. Today over $2 are collected by the Feds for every dollar collected by the states.
Would you please post the link to a working nrst for comparison...while you're at it post the link from the list of links you claim supports the 22% lie...it has to be a lie, no one can verify otherwise other than a verbal brain fart by some AFFT hired economist in a meeting somewhere.
So you still can't prove your deception of 22% price reductions then...
Get off your high horse. Unlike you, everything I've posted about the nst are facts from the bill...What you've posted is your parroting of someone elses wishes, lies and or conjecture That's what really bothers you and the rest of the nst clowns about me.
How about the deception of calling a tax "of the gross payment" a "sales tax" when a tax "of the gross payment" would have to tax any other taxes, fees etc. included in "the gross payment"?
How about the 23% sales tax deception that is actually 29.97% in REAL sales tax terms?
How about the deception of "any government" employees wages salaries and benefits would be taxed an ADDITIONAL 30% (That's HUGE)
How about the deception of your sales tax imposed on some interest paid and earned?
How about the deception of your income not having to be reported? (employers would report employee's and self employment income is also required to be reported).
How about the deception of Social Security bureaucrats determining the rates every year (without oversight or votes from Congress?
How about you will receive 100% of your paycheck deception? Where is that part of the law written? If an employee does get 100% of his/her paycheck does that include the employer half of FICA paid towards the employers benefit?...Why not?
What say you about THOSE deceptions?
EVERY point you have raised has been debunked a multitude of times by many different folks and yet you return tomorrow with the same tired crap that has repeatedly been debunked.Really? So show me the paper that supports Jorgenson's 22% price drop claim.
A Vat is levied on business purchases throughout the chain of production and is hidden from the perception of the electorate.It's not hidden. The full amount of tax (actually more) is added to the price at retail purchase. It is listed on the receipt just like any other sales tax. Prices in Europe are routinely advertised without the VAT.
Nice claim but untrue as those few excises & tariffs left after repeal of the income/payroll tax system only comprises about 5-6% of total federal revenues.You forgot those federal taxes being collect by taxing state & local governments. This is what let you make people think they are paying less than they really are.
Hmmmm, can't expect citizens to be particularly interested in constraining government when the majority of them do not perceive the cost of largess and more government:You assume the public doesn't perceive the cost of largess and more government without showing evidence. They may not, but a NRST wouldn't change that (in fact, it may make it worse).
In any case, none of that is the issue for me. The issue wheter or not we will have continued slavery under the communist inspired income tax or FREEDOM with the NRST!
You've been on these threads for years and while you may -- I repeat may -- have duped a couple of people into siding against the NRST there have been hundreds of people that have visited these threads and sided with the NRST.
What really bothers you is that people, after a bit of research readily reach their own conclusion -- casting your post in the trash can. Ignoring you from then on.
It bothers you that you're losing the battles and the war.
Preliminary report shows that electoral candidates that supported the NRST won the people's vote by landslides. The voting public in those areas have demonstrated that they readily understand the NRST. And did so despite having disinformation shoved at them.
See post 80
|
That's what really bothers you and the rest of the nst clowns about me.
You're the fish (sucker) that feeds the beast so that it may one day turn on you as you become the victim of IRS abuse. IRS Abuse Reports
"Warning: These IRS Abuse Reports start mildly and slowly. After a while, these reports build into such a crescendo of sickening horror, criminal destructiveness, and unbearable evil that a sedative may be required to read them all:"
You have been shown all manner of scholarly work many times in the past and refuse to accept it WITHOUT showing any scholarly refutation. It's just YN says it isn't true and round and round the mulberry bush we go.
You nailed! Bravo!
I have to say it myself because it's so good. There's a mountain of scholarly research that forms the foundation of the NRST. There's no scholarly research refuting it. Just lil'ol Your Nightmare's word that he has refuted it.
You have been shown all manner of scholarly work many times in the past and refuse to accept it WITHOUT showing any scholarly refutation. It's just YN says it isn't true and round and round the mulberry bush we go.Show me where?!? Where was I shown any scholarly work that verified Jorgenson's results? SHOW ME!! Everyone keeps saying I've been shown but no one can show me where! Put up or shut up.
You've been on these threads for years and while you may -- I repeat may -- have duped a couple of people into siding against the NRST there have been hundreds of people that have visited these threads and sided with the NRST.Lots of people have been duped, but by the FairTax supporters. That's why I am so anxious for hearings.
The reasons you put forth are contrary to published research of numerous experts in the field of taxation and economics. If you doubt their work, prove them wrong.
Of course we've been asking that of you since you've been here. But you haven't done so. You've only continued to parrot assumptions contrary to the experts'.
You haven't told us the real reason you oppose it.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH
Your Nightmare wrote: Honesty outlives the lie. It always has. It always will.
This is at least the third time you have plagiarized. The last time I caught you doing it I brought it to your attention 366. Yet you continue your dishonest ways. You too have earned the scorn cast upon you.
"Honesty outlives the lie. It always has. It always will." -- Zon 10/05/2002, 12, 63
This is at least the third time you have plagiarized. The last time I caught you doing it I brought it to your attention 366. Yet you continue your dishonest ways. You too have earned the scorn cast upon you.Plagarism? Are you serious? Please...
The reasons you put forth are contrary to published research of numerous experts in the field of taxation and economics. If you doubt their work, prove them wrong.The vast majority of published research I've read (and I'll bet I've read a lot more than you) say that even if prices were to drop, the Fed would step in and adjust monetary policy to keep them from dropping. They also say the only way prices can drop is if wages go down.
You plagiarized. This is the second time I called you on it. Your response is to rationalize your theft.
Of course we've been asking that of you since you've been here. But you haven't done so. You've only continued to parrot assumptions contrary to the experts'.Actually I have. And I've been asking for a second source for Jorgenson's price drop claim (which is critical to the success of the FairTax) and no one seems to be able to find it (although they all seem to recall seeing it).
OK. Whatever...
A Vat is levied on business purchases throughout the chain of production and is hidden from the perception of the electorate.
It's not hidden. The full amount of tax (actually more) is added to the price at retail purchase. It is listed on the receipt just like any other sales tax. Prices in Europe are routinely advertised without the VAT.
Definition [ http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/13330.html ]:
value-added tax
levy imposed on businesses at all levels of production of a good or service, and based on the increase in price, or value, added to the good or service by each level. Because all stages of a value-added tax are ultimately passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, it has been described as a hidden sales tax. Originally introduced in France (1954), it is now used by most W European countries.
You forgot those federal taxes being collect by taxing state & local governments.
Which make up 22% of the NRST taxbase, not 40%, as well as the fact that state & local governments tax very visibly as compared to the federal business taxes. Over 70% of state & local tax revenues are in the form of sales and property taxes and over half the remainder in state individual income tax, all the most most visible forms of taxation.
This is what let you make people think they are paying less than they really are.
And how does that happen when it is people only that fund all government, federal state and local? Government collecting tax on its own transactions is nothing more than an accounting action having no impact on revenue going to government services and programs. It does however serve the purpose of assuring that government does not have gain a market advantage in bidding for resourses over private enterpise, which is the dominant rationale in requiring govenment to pay the retail sales tax on its consumption.
You assume the public doesn't perceive the cost of largess and more government without showing evidence.
Hmmm, reply #221:
The result, the bottom 60% of income brackets perceive little to no federal tax burden,(in many cases thinking they are even getting a handout) and 70% of the voting public clamor for more from government looking for the top 40% of income earners/producers to foot the bill As Walter Williams so clearly makes the point about folks not recognizing the cost of government as regards themselves:
|
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.