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 ...
Its called Free Market. When there are less regulation then there is more competion. Which is better for the cunsumer, jobs, and the economy. Case in point the long distance industry. Look how cheap long distance calls are now that the regulation was removed.
It is clear that you are extremely ignorant of the tax history of the United States. Go to Amazon.com and search "Tax History of the U.S.". Buy one or two of the books that result, then we'll talk.
Until you're up to speed, buzz off.
How do you get your cash? ATM, cash a check, or are you an illegal alien?
Are they going to require that I buy retail instead of resale?
Resale sales are documented too. I can see that you have limited business experience.
You're delusional if you think this could even remotely happen.
I am sure that those who were against the 16th. Amendment were called "delusional" too.
Have you considered the fact that your scenario (and this dire situation appears to be a result of your own imagination) will be resolved far more simply be just replacing the sales tax with a revived income tax? In other words, the worst possible case that you can contrive is that we end up back where we are?
No. What I am saying is that any tax reform must also include government reform and restraint by statute. I can tell that you have never been audited, or been in the service, or worked for, or with, a government agency. If anyone has fantasies it's you. Government is not Disneyland.
Exactly. And how did we get where we are now. By not planning for government mission creep, or inertia as you put it.
Aren't you tax wizards smart enough to draft a tax bill that prepares for the worst and hopes for the best?
Make up your mind. Is the government going to require (by statute) people to spend a minimum amount on taxes (your original assertion)? Or are you suggesting that some raving, jackbooted bureaucrat is going to bust down your door at 2 AM to make sure you've been paying your "fair share" without any statutory authority?
If it's the first case, then what's the point of restraining government by statute if they over-ride that statute with another one? If it's the latter case, then your just a paranoid lunatic.
Congrats on running your own business. People like you make the country great. But it doesn't make you an automatic expert, nor does it allow you to make wild and laughable claims be magically true.
Well you finally found me out.......;^)
Gotta go. Got a business to run.
Nice title
Jackbooted Thug abolishment bump.
"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?"
Hee hee. I already went broke trying to start an Internet oriented computer var company with a partner. I am now with no job, no job prospects, believe me, and almost completely broke. I could not even buy an expensive used car at this point.
So I let my condition out of the closet. That's ok, perhaps it will explain why I am not sure a national sales tax is right for me and others that no longer have a pot to piss in. Yes it soon will be time to not have a ISP anymore. But saying the above, I still am a staunch supporter of free-enterprise, low taxes, and the American dream for all that can experience it. I praise God and thank him daily for all the years of working for a living and being able to have a home etc.. I think many of us often forget that we are not always in total control of our lives. We may think so, until things slip away.
But as just stated, I support those things this forum stands for and I fully support our military.
I appreciate your open mind throughout this thread. However, you missed the point of my question. The point was that if the evil corporations don't lower their costs with the lower tax rates, then their markets will be wide open for new entrants to take their market share. If no one else takes the risk and enters the market, then the selling price is what the market is willing to bear.
Don't worry, your situation will get better. I'll keep you in my thoughts.
Have a good weekend, it's Miller Time!
"Its called Free Market. When there are less regulation then there is more competion. Which is better for the cunsumer, jobs, and the economy. Case in point the long distance industry. Look how cheap long distance calls are now that the regulation was removed.".
I agree with your statements. BUT do be aware, MCI, SPRINT,
and all the other companies would never had come into existence IF, AT&T did not already have most of the USA and world 'wired'. The start up companies where given a free ride in that they could purchase very low transmission rates, to use, until they where able to procure enough funds to start investing in their own satellites, land lines etc.. One thing we as a country lost, when AT&T broke up, was the world's finest R&D. Few people have any idea as how much AT&T provided universities and companies in many fields such as chemistry, physics, and all forms of electronics and communications etc.. AT&T was a "public Trust", and fewed by those in the know as a national treasure for R&D as well as practical engineering design.
Sophisticated CAD tools for IC developement just to name one little thing where for many years desired by many foreign and state wide companies. We created the most exotic tools in the world. So many companies that create integrated circuits used our tools. I could go on and on, as how the world has benifited from what was AT&T. And to boot, since the company was set up as a public trust, it was regulated. We where not allowed to exceed a given profit margin.
So yes sir, we in recent years have had many new communication companies that have emerged, that offer some pretty good rates. I wonder how many still use trunk lines that AT&T own. Without these lines(equipment/services), these companies would never have been able to exist in a competive mode. What you perhaps do not remember was the fact that when AT&T was still in existence, they where required to put in phone lines just about anywhere in America so that most towns/cities/rural areas had the lowest cost most high relieable phone service in the world.
We had the lowest phone rates and highest reliability of any country in the world. A little known fact perhaps.
So...........if you followed carefully what I just wrote you may now realize why these new companies where able to come into existence. Many of them have nowhere the huge costs of operating the huge communication backbones that where installed during the seventies and eightees by AT&T.
So their operational costs are very low in comparision, they just buy cheap services from existing systems. That is why they can keep their rates low.
So perhaps your choice in this case, telecommunication market was not a good choice.
But I heartly agree with the premise set forth. Less regulation often can allow for a win win situation.
"I appreciate your open mind throughout this thread. However, you missed the point of my question. The point was that if the evil corporations don't lower their costs with the lower tax rates, then their markets will be wide open for new entrants to take their market share. If no one else takes the risk and enters the market, then the selling price is what the market is willing to bear.
Don't worry, your situation will get better. I'll keep you in my thoughts. Have a good weekend, it's Miller Time!"
And I do appreciate what you said. And I agree in principal.
The issue I tried to address, is when major players in some given market get together and say, hey this is great, we all keep the current prices, and reep the gains.
And we must try to comprehend, often it takes many years to put a given manufacturing process into place. A given process may for instance entail making loans from banks to the tune of lets say 5 billion US dollars to implement a new Integrated Circuit Process line. The pay off point for that line given a given cost/price curve and demand may take some five years or more to break even. So would we expect the company to just lower it's prices on product that flows from that new line? This stuff is complicated.
The company wouldn't just be able to "pay off the bank", because all of a sudden it no longer has to pay corporate taxes. Perhaps what I or someone else should have tried to stress, is if such a tax restructuring was to take place, that we should not think new business will sprout up overnight, and that current priceing would plumet immediately. It could take years for this to develope.
As for things getting better for me, I do believe that is in the good Lord's hands. But thanks for your kind thought.
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.