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 ...
"Come on phil. You are still peddling that BS?"
Sorry, pat, I just don't find your theory that price competition between and among domestic producers will be ineffective to be a very compelling argument.
By the way, if there is ANY market where foreign competition would not seem to have a chance to dominate the way you fear, it would be the home housing market. Last time I checked, noone was importing new homes from outside the country.
Although I seem to recall under a previous thread that YN was concerned about smuggling real estate in across the border. LMAO
I guess we have a difference of opinion in what is "BS".
"Of course a used car bought from a dealer is a retail transaction; a retail transaction is any purchase by an indivisual rather than a corporation. Think about it.
when did we start registering cars on a federal level?Did you forget that the NRST is supposed to piggyback on the State collection?"
Now back to the main point: You think it is worse to defend oneself from physical assault than to sling an insult. You lose all credibility for that.
Defending oneself from physical assault is a most basic human right and intelligent thing to do.
by the right of the nineteenth ammendment (I think that's the one) that authorized the income tax to begin with. And if you think that you can change it without another constitutional ammendment, then you will find out to your loss that we will then have TWO tax drains - income AND outgo.
Connecticut instituted an income tax some time ago. They lowered the sales tax by two percent when they did it. the result was a serious net gain for the state. Now the sales tax is higher than it was before, and the income tax is rising, and what hae been made better? precious little. The state just gets another pocket to pick.
Short of a Constitutiona ammendment, this is all you'd be getting. THAT is is serious, comrade (I was called a socialist earlier;-))
So, in my neck of the woods new construction is already 25-50% higher than existing homes. They still sell pretty darn good tho'.
how many shopkeepers have you surveyed to discover that this new method will be easy to implement?
I did, yes. There is also profit in selling a business.
Do you understand that under the NRST, your Federal Corporate/Business Taxes will end? No more, quarterly filings, penalties, or audits. No more withholding for Social Security + employee match, Medicare, etc.
That's just it, I don't ever belive it will be so and it is a folly to expect it. Then again, Reagan did defeat the Soviet Union, so miracles do happen.
Having lived in California that has had sales taxes since I can remember, I have been personally dissuaded from many a purchase by the sales tax on an item that I otherwise could afford and vice versa by customers. The regression in sales taxes is a fact. There is no way I would go along with an NRST.
I would, however, concede to the voluntary choice of a taxpayer selecting a flat tax or, filing a progressive return with deductions and exemptions, as long as it did not result in a tax that was less than the flat tax. I may not be as pro-choice regarding abortion, but I am about taxes. A sales tax to me, however, is the equivalent of abortion at birth.
I think it is ignorant and/or wildly naive to suggest that the income tax will go away. It will never go away without repeal of the 16th amendment.
I'm with you.
A fact that won't change with the 'fair tax.' Instead, there will be a further 23(?)% tax ON TOP of that premium.
That 23% really bugs me. If the government has to take that much money to stay "revenue neutral" it is spending way too much money.
It ought to, nevertheless, that is what is being paid out of gross household income for the current tax system, especially if Bush does not manage to get his tax cuts made permanent.
Point is government is too big, and mainly because most voters do not perceive the full cost of government in their lives. To most of the electorate government is a source of handouts with someone else paying the piper. A visible across the board retail sale tax changes that perception and changes the balance of who demands change in government by exposing the real tax burden to the view of every voter in the nation.
"...You will have less buying power under an NRST, than you do now...."
Incorrect. Total purchasing power will remain unchanged. The combined effect of cessation of federal withholding from your check, the prebate, price reductions due to removal of embedded tax, improved return on investment for your investments, and removal of the employer portion of the FICA tax (downward pressure on wages)....in the final analysis, you should be in the same position you are today...perhaps better off.
The only people who will lose purchasing power under this system are the idle rich and the members of the underground economy. Those living from inherited trust funds, like John Kerry and Wife Ta-RAY-za, who garner most of their income from income tax-free municipal bonds will now pay when they spend their money. Ditto drug dealers and pimps.
The FairTax is calculated to be revenue neutral. It will take no more money from the economy than our current system. If the idle rich and the members of the underground economy are now going to pay their fair share.....what do you think will happen to your share of the tab?
LOL! YOu cracked me up with that one, EV... Too funny.
"My proposal would fit on a post card. which is a simpler starting point?"
Where is your proposal documented?
Since it only consists of a postcard, does that mean that you could get it implemented without a bill in congress?
Can you elaborate on that? I'm sure many would love to know how you change the revenue system of the federal government without introducing a bill into congress.
please don't think that I am defending the status quo. that was never my intention. I was merely stating that there is a better (IMNSHO) way.
not to brag, but I do have some kind of economic understanding, and a degree to prove it, but we are entering a discussion here (mostly polite - thank you all) on a sensitive topic of vital importance ot the Union. Anybody can produce a pedigree - remember all those "constitutional scholars" that lined up for Bill Clinton duiring the impeachment? An equal number lined up against. So a mere pedigree isn't sufficient to establish credibility.
an understanding of the topic, and of the law of unintended consequences helps as does a dose of history.
Question: How does a country like Zimbabwe or Bangladesh collect thier taxes? They don't have the infrastructure that we have, yet they seem to manage.
When's the last time you heard of a state agency arresting a shop/retail owner for not reporting the taxes they collected or for not collecting sales tax? There are some, I'm sure, but not that many. If a retailer decides to pocket the money kept for taxes, plus the administrative sum they are allowed to keep, then they should be prosecuted.
You put people's money back in their pockets and I gurandamntee you that there will be a clamor. If people were suddenly required to pay quarterlies or monthlies, there'd be a revolt that would make the Boston Tea Party actually look like a party.
"There is nothing around that I have heard of that obligates a company to pass along any windlfall that it takes in."
To state this in your answer regarding your misunderstanding of the free market supports the other poster that pointed out "you have no conception of a free market". The companies competitors will force them to lower the prices, or a new competitor will emerge and do very well in that industry.
"Hillary said the same about her health care propposal."
Very funny and very sad and very telling.
"...Resolve the equation by amount earned, divided by hours worked, the regression will be obvious...."
Founders never intended to tax income, only consumption. Please see my post: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1358525/posts?page=216#216
"yet. there is nothing that prohibits them either."
There is nothing that prohibits them from implementing a sales tax and tracking your purchases today.
full of envy? toward whom? I spent part of my life homeless, so I guess you can say that I know a bit about the lower end of the spectrum, but I not only grew up in a middle class (OK, lower middle class) household, and now earn more than all of my sibs combined, some might call me prosperous. So I see many different angles. I know enough of politics that anything the hurts the lower class will nto fly. That which negatively impacts the middle class will have a tough time of it. Soaking the rich is already being done to shameful levels.
which is why I favor treating every person equally. tax them all at the same rate.
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.