Visions of vaporizing the IRS abound again

sacbee ^ | 11-18-04

[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.

[elbucko]

Oh? Please point out to me that particular provision of H.R. 25.

Please point out to me the particular provision of H.R. 25 that PROHIBITS such a provision from being added later if enough revenue is not collected? Do you really trust Congress that much? Do you think that Republicans will remain a majority in Congress for any great length of time?

[kevkrom]

Doesn't need to be a provision... common sense (which you are seeming to ignore in favor of paranoia) says that they can't do it because there is no mechanism for them to track what each individual spends.

[elbucko]

Actually, under the NRST bill, the government would certainly know my employment income,..

So the "shadow" IRS already has its nose under the tent...

What they will not know is how much I spent on retail goods and services.

Just how long do you think that will stay that way. If you purchase by debit or credit card, the government can and will find out.

Look, I don't have any problem with your "pie-in-the-sky" tax schemes, more power to ya'. What I do have a problem with is that you are so trusting of government to implement these schemes fairly that you are not insisting on provisions of restraint in these same tax plans. All the economic theory in the world won't protect you from greedy and ambitious politicians.

[Sprite518]

Perhaps the spending behavior in Western Europe and Canada is valid? Nevertheless, they pay way more taxes than we do. So it would seem only natural. Moreover, if you analyze the tax revenues after the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts, then you will see the tax revenues went up. Furthermore, it was the spending that sky rocketed which created the deficits, and not the lack of tax revenue.

[jimthewiz]

What I do have a problem with is that you are so trusting of government to implement these schemes fairly that you are not insisting on provisions of restraint in these same tax plans. All the economic theory in the world won't protect you from greedy and ambitious politicians.

You are right. It is a vast right-wing conspiracy. Vote for more liberals, they will protect you.

[kevkrom]

You need to adjust your tin-foil. There is no way for the government to track every single person's purchases unless they outlaw cash. If you think the feds can pull that one off, then I've got a bridge to sell you...

[elbucko]

Please study supply side economics.

I understand "basic" supply side economics quite well, thank you. As well as the "Laffer Curve". I was locally involved in Ronald Reagans' first election campaign in the 1980's. I do have a college degree. In my first five years of business, I have often paid all my employees, paid the rent/light/water/gas bill and then had to personally live off my credit card until the contract was fulfilled and my company paid. How many of your employees checks have you signed, how many of your suppliers have you begged to add modest interest to your past due bills for materials until you receive payment from your customers?

I think a lot of you are like virgins at a wedding shower. You offer a lot of advice and opinion, which you are certainly free to do, but you haven't actually done "IT". Your tax schemes are too simple without restraint and privacy provisions and taking into account the complicity that the states will have in any tax system.

[elbucko]

You need to adjust your tin-foil. There is no way for the government to track every single person's purchases unless they outlaw cash.

You're forgetting something. The burden of proof is on you, unless you provide in the law that the govt. must prove your spending.

My tinfoil hat is not as thick as the cardboard dunce caps many of you are wearing regarding taxes and government.

[elbucko]

You are right. It is a vast right-wing conspiracy. Vote for more liberals, they will protect you.

That reply is in total contradiction to my opinion. Are you dyslexic?

[kevkrom]

You're forgetting something. The burden of proof is on you, unless you provide in the law that the govt. must prove your spending.

Lemme get this straight... you are seriously suggesting that all of the following could even remotely happen:

1. The government passes a law requiring each person to spend a minimum amount on taxable (retail) goods and services. Would this be a fixed amount (what about people who spend less than that?) or a percentage of income (how would total income be determined if only wages are tracked?)

2. The government then violates all manner of financial privacy to track every individual's check and credit card purchases, and keeps a database comparing that to the minimum amount that person is required to spend.

3. Anyone who comes up short gets hauled into court to prove that they made up the required difference in cash by providing receipts.

I suppose this will be right after the aliens from Area 51 are proven to be the secret force running the CIA?

[kevkrom]

what about people who spend less than that

Should read: what about people who make less than that

[elbucko]

Doesn't need to be a provision... common sense.

Well, if that's the case, we can do away with the Bill of Rights. After all, the government can always be trusted to do the right and fair things in regards to its citizens. (/sarcasm)

[kevkrom]

No you're just getting obnoxious. The "common sense" wasn't saying that we can trust the government to do the right thing. the "common sense" is that the government would be incapable of doing what you suggest because they simply do not have the ability to collect the information necessary to do it.

[CSM]

"And please don't believe for a minute that corporations will lower the price on large ticket items such as cars, because they are no longer federally taxed. That is just ridiculous. They will simply reep the extra bucks. It always works that way."

How about you and I start a company that does sell that large ticket item for the lower costs? You up for taking advantage of that readily available market?

[elbucko]

Lemme get this straight... you are seriously suggesting that all of the following could even remotely happen:

Not exactly, but when Congress passed the 16th. Amendment in 1913, it was on the top .01% of the population. Do you think that anybody would have thought then, that a child is born in 1990 would have its footprint taken and it would receive a Social Security Number before it could suckle at its mothers breast?

Don't you get it! If you do not restrain government, by law, from doing harm, it will do harm. That means that any tax scheme will have to be backed up by a very comprehensive tax bill that limits the powers of government into your personal affairs for tax purposes.

[Sprite518]

Privacy provisions? What do you mean without restraint? The government controls the purse strings.

Yes it is that simple, but when you give it to government all they do is complicate a simple process. They do this so people like you will accept it since you do not understand it. I don't care if you were CEO of a company. That does not qualify you understanding economics. You may understand what the government tells you do something, but that does not mean you know why, and is this the best way. Perhaps you should live a dictatorship? That way government can take care of all your needs. Hopefully, it would be a benevolent dictator.

[jimthewiz]

Are you dyslexic?

Personal attacks are an indication of a lack of facts to support your argument. I have not seen one link or argument, other than your own opinion, that supports any of your assumptions.
The Constitution denies any powers to the Federal government that are not specifically permitted.
If one had read H.R. 25 or any of the discussions of the particulars of the proposal, a rational person would see the merits of the plan and none of the what-if scenarios that you fear.

[elbucko]

...the "common sense" is that the government would be incapable of doing what you suggest because they simply do not have the ability to collect the information necessary to do it.

In todays electronic world, the doesn't make sense. You'd be surprised how much information the government can collect on you through your bank or employment.

[kevkrom]

But basically... and this is what I've been leading up to... what you are saying is that the government will go through all of the trouble to get rid of an income tax, only to them impose a requirement that each person spends a certain percentage of their income on the sales tax, keeping (and probably filing with the government) records that prove that they properly complied.

Wouldn't it just be simpler to stick with the current system, since that's almost exactly what that ridiculous scenario would be?

It's natural, and proper, to be wary of the government, and skeptical of anything that they're doing. But you're going past that point into paranoid fantasies about an all-powerful, all-seeing entity that is capable of passing draconian measures to accomplish what they could so with simple inertia, the latter of which is the natural state of governments everywhere.

[kevkrom]

In todays electronic world, the doesn't make sense. You'd be surprised how much information the government can collect on you through your bank or employment.

Are they going to outlaw cash? Are they going to require that I buy retail instead of resale? That I can't save up for a major purchase, a child's college, a daughter's wedding, or my own retirement?

You're delusional if you think this could even remotely happen.