Posted on 11/18/2004 10:00:17 AM PST by LouAvul
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," said Minnesota Republican Rep. Gil Gutknecht.
That's the basic premise behind a proposed national sales tax, just one of many ideas for overhauling the nation's tax code. Under a bill co-sponsored by Gutknecht and more than 50 others, all federal taxes on income would disappear, but consumers would pay a 23 percent federal sales tax on their consumption - on top of existing state taxes.
Washington is abuzz with ideas after President Bush won a second term and immediately pledged to make "tax reform" a top domestic priority.
Nevertheless, the Senate's top tax-writer is expressing doubts about prospects for a major overhaul, perhaps dealing a blow to its chances. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told USA Today that comprehensive tax reform would be "difficult" to do.
Grassley said Bush would have to aggressively use his "bully pulpit" to win wider popular support.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
To the contrary, I used to be in favor of your simplistic and utopian tax schemes such as a flat tax and a national sales tax. So what you refer to as willful ignorance is actually enlightened opinion. When you finally shed yourself of the wishful thinking and the propaganda of various tax organizations (I belong to Howard Jarvis Tax Assn) then you too, if you have a shred of intelligence will abandoned these "pie in the sky" schemes and promote the possible.
Until then, keep on grinding.
Yes I do, and without the yucks, I've owned three businesses. All successful. Economics and taxes are a fact of my life. The progressive tax began as a good idea. It has gone bad because people thought they knew better when they didn't, yuck yuck! People like you. Yuck, yuck, LOL, LOL!
Actually, its like democracy, its a bad way to tax, except for all the others. It is the price of "fairness" in a basically unfair situation. Your "variables" however, have more to do with social policy than as a tax model. Flat and sales taxes can be used to redistribute the wealth just as surely as progressive taxes.
I am concerned that everyone seems to view taxation as a matter of social fairness, when it has historically been abused precisely because of that association.
I agree.
Taxation is for funding the required duties of the government. It is not a legitimate remedy for social injustice, and should not be viewed as such.
I agree.
A big part of the problem with taxes is that nobody will draw a line dividing the responsibility of the government from that of the governed.
That is why progressive taxes are ponderous, onerous and oppressive. Not that they are progressive.
Compare our "poor" with the poor in Indonesia and the concern fizzles.
That's like comparing apples and fish.
"You can get more info at http://www.fairtax.org"
Thank you. No response required.
"Sorry that I can't agree with you. Our views on the mechanics of economics are different. You could be right, but I don't agree with your assessment."
Like I said. I perhaps should not have started in on this post because I am far from being up on economics whether macro or micro etc..
Thanks for your views. No response required.
No. but if a moron like me can think it up, just think what a group of Democrat lawyers and CPA's could do. There will be "penalties" of some kind, if you don't spend enough under a national sales tax. When the income tax first started in the "teens", do you think that congress would have voted for the 16th. Amendment if they knew that employers were going to be compelled by the government to withhold a workers pay for income taxes? Do you think the US public would have approved? Think about it.
Do you think that someone in the year 1900, would have paid anyone a fee to keep a dog? I don't think so. These things creep and without sunshine and sunset provisions in any law, they will be abused. That's why the assault weapon ban expired, someone finally got smart to the fact that government will abuse, whatever it can abuse, unless government is restrained by something like a sunset provision.
When the 16th. Amendment was passed, no one thought of restraints.
What if a Corporation is owned by individuals who live in another country? Since the owners would not make purchases in the U.S. they would not pay any taxes at all. It also would be very difficult to monitor whether items purchased by Corporations were diverted to the personal use of the owners. Keeping track of the purchases of Corporations would require a Bureaucracy as large as the IRS. The only fair and practical way to implement a sales tax is have it apply to all purchases other than food, medical or a home.
What about the retired living on a fixed income from savings? They would suddenly be faced with a 23% increase in the cost of living with no proportionate increase in income reduced taxes.
That should be a Constitutional Amendment!
Oh? Please point out to me that particular provision of H.R. 25.
Seriously... how? One of the biggest benefits of going to a sales tax system isn't economic, it's the personal freedom in getting the government out of individuals' finances. There would be no mechanism for the government to track how much "kevkrom" or "elbucko" spends, since the government only sees the gross receipts of the seller.
Not really. Prices are currently inflated due to income taxes (the income tax acts like a VAT on production and sales), all of their savings (and capital gains) will be tax-free, and they are also eligible for the FCA, which will make their effective tax rate much, much lower than 23% (unless they're spending a lot of money...)
"If I buy a bottle of Coke for $1 and the government immediately extracts 23% in sales tax, that is the same as an income tax."
Except that everyone is subject to the tax. Thereby educating the public as to the cost of their demands of government. Without this the largesse will only grow, with this education the number of citizens screaming for less government intrusion in their lives will grow.
"Corporations pay tax on profits, individuals pay tax on income.."
Corporations don't pay taxes. Their customers do in higher prices.
Sir,
I am sorry, but you really do not know what you are talking about. I am perplexed, that you have the audacity to support such a tax. Especially, if you own three businesses. However, that is what you say....
Do you honestly belive that the government will not know how much you are paid by your employer? Are you really that naive? The government will compare how much you have been paid, with how much you have spent. If you have not spent enough, you will get a bill for the taxes due.
You're right, you're right. I should be wearing my tin foil hat! ...and I need to have that last filling removed; I think the dentist is a Nazi spy. ;-)
Actually, under the NRST bill, the government would certainly know my employment income, because that information is required for Social Security benefits (unless and until Social Security is seriously reformed or elimintaed). What they will not know is how much I spent on retail goods and services.
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.