Posted on 03/08/2005 9:20:44 AM PST by n-tres-ted
Our tax code is a mess for a reason. Special interests pay for special favors. And with 17,000 pages and counting, there's plenty of places for our politicians to hide the kickbacks. Meanwhile, all the exemptions, deductions, exceptions and special provisions reduce the tax base, which means higher tax rates and smaller incentives for individuals and companies to produce income. And whether the tax breaks are set in fine print or spelled out in bold type, they generally favor the rich, making our tax system less progressive than is generally believed.
No tax system is perfect, but ours is so awful that fundamental reform is the only option. Fundamental reform is not just a necessity; it's also an opportunity to stop taxing income and start taxing consumption. My colleagues and I have been studying income and consumption taxation via computer simulations for some time now. We've found that switching from taxing wage and capital income to taxing consumption can significantly improve economic efficiency and growth. What's more, it can make our tax system much more progressive and generationally equitable.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
what would the nrst do to offset this? all I can see is that it would be neuitral at best, harmful at it's most likely
"Hardly simple, maybe visible, but with thousands of retailers having the added burden of collecting this tax, it is hardly efficient nor non-invasive. The diff between collecting state sales taxes and collecting both state AND federal sales taxes (which will be different) is by definition complicated and costly."
The current tax system, according to CCH, now runs in excess of 60,000 pps. The FairTax bill, in its current form, is a little over 100 pages. That is a little more than 99.75% simplification, as measured by the number of pages at this point. Your attempt to compare the complexity of the FairTax with that of the current system is bogus.
So Principled is still peddling that BS!
Those are all valid choices. But for the earner on the low-end of the income scale, its less likely to be a choice than a matter of what they can afford. That's where they get hit with reduced buying power under the NRST. Get back to a flat tax on income, and I'm happily on board.
"Not if you put an NRST on every item the company buys, from raw to finised, in order to produce their product."
You really need to read the proposal. That comment alone lets us know you don't really understand it. Take a look, you might like what you see.
What color is the sky in your world?
Have you actually read the info at fairtax.org or the legislation itself? I think not. Had you read the bill and the supporting documentation, your questions would be answered.
It is designed to be revenue neutral. Please read the documentation before coming here and dissing on it.
I'd like to read the article but not bad enough to subscribe. Anyone else think posts like this are a waste of time?
How 'bout you happily reveal your private matters to unknown government entities, and I'll tell them and other Nosy Parker's to kiss my a$$?
I don't think rental property would be taxable under NSRT.
Since the the property rented (its a business asset not taxed under a Retail Sales Tax ) is not taxed, the NRST is collected from the renter on the basis of the rent paid, taxable as a service.
Come on phil. You are still peddling that BS?
No! If the "bottom-dwelling-drunk", legally has the money to buy a luxury car, he has every bit as much right to buy it as someone working 80 hours a week. That's a free market. The same market that makes possible the jobs that make and sell the luxury car.
"not from what I've heard from it;'s proponents. there are rebates (re-imbursements), certain items are taxed but others aren't. Hardly simple, maybe visible, but with thousands of retailers having the added burden of collecting this tax, it is hardly efficient nor non-invasive. The diff between collecting state sales taxes and collecting both state AND federal sales taxes (which will be different) is by definition complicated and costly. Those retailers able to survive the initial startup costs will pass those costs, as hidden costs upon the consumer. "
You really should read more about this proposal. Is it more or less complicated to have 200 million individual persons reporting their income, deductions, etc. to a mega powerful branch of the federal government or to have thousands of businesses collect a percentage of their sales for remittance? In addition, these businesses will be reimbursed for compliance.
Come on phil. You are still peddling that BS?I think he's paid to.
dividends and capital gains are already taxed multiple times. as soon as the government discovers the loophole, it will be closed.
"This is where you are wrong. An NRST will remove "choice" from the consumer because you will have less money, under an NRST, then you do now. Even though you "get to keep all of your income", it will not equalize. You will have less buying power under an NRST, than you do now."
In the several discussions that I have seen regarding spending power and how it will be affected by the NRST the worse case scenario that has been shown is that it will be equalized. What rationale/resources did you use to come to the conclusion that it will actually be harmed?
Resolve the equation by amount earned, divided by hours worked, the regression will be obvious.
nice! you can't answer my question, so you resort to the personal. and I thought we were having a nice discussion.
but whilst we're trading illusions about intelligence, might I suggest you study economics?
I really didn't want to go this route.
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.