Gutknecht pushing national sales tax

Pioneer Press ^ | 11-15-04 | ap

[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.

[Zon]

The current income tax rates are higher because of evasion.

The current income tax rates are high because congress raised the rates. Your response to the IRS Abuse Reports  you put the IRS responsibility on congress. It's true that congress empowered the IRS and congress must fix the problem. It's also true that the income tax rates are high because congress voted for higher taxes.

You also think consumers are the engine of the economy. When in fact product invention and product production must occur before consumption can occur. People are first producers. Producers and their production efforts are the engine of the economy.

Your Nightmare: Consumers are the engine of the economy. 292

Your latest gaffe that it's tax evaders that caused the high income tax rate -- in fact reality is that the IRS caused high income tax rates the same way congress empowered the IRS abuses -- they voted "yea" -- is par for you to make such blunders.

A system less prone to evasion allows the rate to be lower.

Tax transparency and lower tax rates would be by far the greatest deterrent to tax evasion. It would stem the flood of wealthy tax-slaves moving to foreign countries -- the expatriate movement.

Not only would the NRST greatly curtail tax evasion it would cause a flood of businesses and jobs to come to America.

Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Bill Archer (R-TX) August 12, 1996  

"A recent survey was done, in Europe and Japan, of the major corporations and I was astounded at the results. They were asked, 'If the US abolished its income tax and went to a sales tax, would that have any impact on your decisions?' Eighty percent of the corporations said they would build their factories in the United States of America. Twenty percent said they would move their international headquarters to the United States of America."

Credit ancient_geezer.

If people evade the sales tax like you want them to do the rate will have to go higher.

Your presupposition asserting that ancient geezer wants people to evade taxes is as deceptive as the presupposition assertion underlying the question: do you still beat your wife?

[Zon]

Your nonchalant attitude about plagiarism in no way absolves you from your dishonesty. On the contrary, you draw attention to your dishonesty each time you plagiarize.

[Your Nightmare]

Your latest gaffe that it's tax evaders that caused the high income tax rate -- in fact reality is that the IRS caused high income tax rates the same way congress empowered the IRS abuses -- they voted "yea" -- is par for you to make such blunders.

Tax evasion reduces the base and means the rates have to go up to generate the same revenue. This is very basic. Sorry you can't comprehend this, but it's true.

[Your Nightmare]

Your nonchalant attitude about plagiarism in no way absolves you from your dishonesty. On the contrary, you draw attention to your dishonesty each time you plagiarize.

[cough] free [cough] speech [cough]

[phil_will1]

"Over the last century, the US has become the greatest economic force on the planet. Maybe superior economic performance has nothing to do with the income tax."

And perhaps the USA achieved that distinction in spite of, rather than because of, its antiqated and inefficient tax system.

BTW, that invitation to defend the current tax system in a public debate is still open, just in case you have reconsidered your position.

[Your Nightmare]

BTW, that invitation to defend the current tax system in a public debate is still open, just in case you have reconsidered your position.

Make it a VAT vs. NRST.

[ancient_geezer]

. If people evade the sales tax like you want them to do the rate will have to go higher. Period.

Sorry, they'll just have to avoid the NRST at a lower rate I guess.

Actually I expect to be able to avoid a NRST of between 18-20% ultimately. Once HR25's rate is updated for the Bush tax cuts.

 

from Tax Freedom Day 2004 PDF http://www.taxfoundation.org/sr129.pdf

 

Total Effective Tax Rates by Level of Government Percent Net National Product(NNP)
Year	Federal	State	Total
1998	22.4%	10.4%	32.8%
1999	22.5%	10.4%	32.9%
2000	23.1%	10.4%	33.5%
2001	22.2%	10.5%	33.7%
2002 1	19.7%	10.2%	29.2%
2003 2	18.5%	10.1%	28.6%
2004 3	17.9%	10.0%	27.9%
Notes: Leap day is omitted to make dates comparable over time. Positive and negative percentages in parentheses after legislation indicate the first-year fiscal impact of the bill,measured as a percentage of NNP. Since depreciation is not available to pay taxes, GDP is an overstatement of spendable income for the purpose of measuring tax burdens. Depreciation is netted out of NNP. 1 Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of 2001 2 The Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 3 Job Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 Sources: Office of Management and Budget; Internal Revenue Service; Congressional Research Service; National Bureau of Economic Research; Treasury Department; and Tax Foundation calculations.

 

Which includes more than enough tax evasion already as these rates are based on NIPA data which excludes the tax evasion and illegal trade transactions that exit from it's dataset.

[Zon]

You failed to show any sign of sarcasm or parody in your post or tagline. Any person that happened to read your posts and not mine would assume that the tag line that you plagiarized were your words. Whether or not it would hold up in court is a moot.. The Point is your continued use of my words despite knowing that you have deceitful is  a gross inversion of what those words mean. Alas, their meaning will render your purpose on these threads irrelevant.. Also, if your actions on these threads are a reflection of your life in general then you will render yourself irrelevant. One example, real women would find your actions on theses threads utterly repulsive.

[ancient_geezer]

But you only believe the good doctor when it benefits your cause, right?

You really should quote his Jorgenson's entire paragraph elipses have this terrible tendancy to leave important stuff out.

 

http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/jorgenson/papers/BURDEN_web.pdf

Americans for Fair Taxation (AFT)have advanced an alternative pro- posal for a National Retail Sales Tax.The AFT proposal replaces personal and corporate income taxes,estate and gift taxes,and the payroll tax with a 23%national retail sales tax on a tax-inclusive base similar to that of the ST proposal (29.9%on a tax exclusive base).The AFT proposal is more ambitious than the ST proposal in that it replaces the payroll tax,used to fund entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare,as well as the in- come tax system.This has two important implications.The .rst is that the unfunded liabilities of the entitlement systems would ultimately have to be funded through the sales tax.The second is that a revenue neutral tax rate would be very high.

- Dale W. Jorgenson and Kun-Young Yun (2002)

 

Yep it certainly is a high rate, and revenue neutral with regard to 1996 tax law too I see:

http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/jorgenson/papers/BURDEN_web.pdf

To estimate the average tax rates on labor and capital income of individ- uals,we use tables 2.2 and 2.3 based on Internal Revenue Service,Statistics of Income1996 ,Individual Income Tax Returns .

- Dale W. Jorgenson and Kun-Young Yun (2002)

 

Fortunately this is 2004 and The Bush tax cuts (refer to reply #347) have pretty much decimated that tax law, so that now we are looking at 18-20% as a target rate for the HR25..

[Zon]

It occurs to me that I've never seen any threads started by you advocating a tax scheme that you prefer.

You should post article-threads that advocate your preferred tax scheme.

I mean, you can waste your time posting on the NRST threads but meanwhile your preferred tax scheme is not gaining any attention or supporters on FreeRepublic. 

[Zon]

knowing that you have deceitful is  a gross inversion

Correction:  knowing that your deceit is a gross inversion

[Zon]

Fortunately this is 2004 and The Bush tax cuts (refer to reply #347) have pretty much decimated that tax law, so that now we are looking at 18-20% as a target rate for the HR25..

That's awesome. I assume work is progressing on HR25 to ensure that the most accurate NRST rate will reflect the Bush tax cuts.

[Your Nightmare]

Sorry.

[Your Nightmare]

You really should quote his Jorgenson's entire paragraph elipses have this terrible tendancy to leave important stuff out.

I don't see anything relavent that I left out. Can't you please resist the illrelavent cut & pasties.

Fortunately this is 2004 and The Bush tax cuts (refer to reply #347) have pretty much decimated that tax law, so that now we are looking at 18-20% as a target rate for the HR25.

If the current proposed rate is too low and the new rate is determined using the same flawed method, it will be too low also.

[ancient_geezer]

I assume work is progressing on HR25 to ensure that the most accurate NRST rate will reflect the Bush tax cuts.

Neal Boortz, mentioned the Fair Tax Act has been slated by Rep. Linder to undergo a full economic review in one of his pieces a couple of months ago. Folks a AFFT tell me that the Economists at the Congressional Research Service will be doing that work, and should see something out when DeLay and the Ways & Means Commitee get their acts together next session and schedules the coming tax reform debates.

In the mean time, root for making the tax cuts permanent, or we could do that with passage of the NRST with an uptodate rate.;O)

[ancient_geezer]

If the current proposed rate is too low and the new rate is determined using the same flawed method, it will be too low also

LOL.

Let me give yah a clue. The tax rate will be determined by the new Republican Congress and the President in enacting a final bill.

As they implement tax cuts, the rate will be even lower.

Tax cuts are never "revenue neutral".

[Your Nightmare]

As they implement tax cuts, the rate will be even lower.

Let me give you a clue. The method used by the AFT was flawed. A correct method will require a rate even higher than the currently proposed rate.

Tax cuts are never "revenue neutral".

So you aren't a supply sider?

[ancient_geezer]

Let me give you a clue. The method used by the AFT was flawed.

The rate is what is set in the legislation.

A correct method will require a rate even higher than the currently proposed rate.

A correct method will assure tax rates are low enough to be on the low side of the Laffer Curve, not the high side.

Tax cuts are never "revenue neutral".

So you aren't a supply sider?

I am very much a supply sider, I just recognize there are two sides to the Laffer Curve. And that pushing tax rates to lower levels always encourages economic growth, while the lowest rate assure reduction of government revenues and growth as well.

Only one side of the Laffer relation allows for real revenue cuts with tax rate declines.

Liberty and individual empowerment is best served when control of the purse strings lay in the hands with the citizenry, where government growth is constrained by revenue limits and low tax rates. That can only happen below the optimum level of taxation expressed by the Laffer Curve revenue maxima.

 

 

I want to see the real revenue cuts imposed on goverment, hence I advocate low rates with implementation of an NRST that places control of fiscal resources within the handsof the consumer/investor.

Force government to make the hard choices of constaining, repealing and reducing programs, or suffer the displeasure of the electorate in trying to raise rates.

I would be quite happy to actually see less revenue going into federal coffers limiting government's capacity to expand.

Unfortunately, I fear the current proposed and forseeable NRST rates are actually too far on the high side of the Laffer Curve maxima and not to likely to achieve my preference. But I will settle for getting the NRST in with the lowest rate politically achievable, and let the electorate pressure that rate down over time.

[Your Nightmare]

The rate is what is set in the legislation.

OK. And the rate in the legislation is too low.

A correct method will assure tax rates are low enough to be on the low side of the Laffer Curve, not the high side.

You don't really think we are on the high side of the Laffer Curve, do you? What a laffer!

Liberty and individual empowerment is best served when control of the purse strings lay in the hands with the citizenry, where government growth is constrained by revenue limits and low tax rates. That can only happen below the optimum level of taxation expressed by the Laffer Curve revenue maxima.

You are dillusional if you think cutting revenue will cut spending. Completely dillusional.

Don't you think deficits and the debt have negative effects on our economy?