Posted on 03/08/2005 9:20:44 AM PST by n-tres-ted
Although I seem to recall under a previous thread that YN was concerned about smuggling real estate in across the border. LMAOI never said any such thing.
"i don;t think that they can without facing shareholder lawsuits of the class action variety. they have a fiduciary responsibility to them, not to their consumers."
Do you actually believe that? And you understand free markets how?
my neighborhood gas station, like yours raises it's prices immediately upon news of a price hike (the need to reaplce the gas, y'know) but lowers them only gradually when the price declines (they have another excuse, but I forget). the increase always comes a lot quicker than the decline for some reason.
but gas station managers are not beholden to stock holders.
"...A monthly rebate given in advance seems to imply the continued existence of an IRS bureaucracy that keeps track of how much income everybody makes. The rationale for the continuation of such an unnecessary and unwieldy system is cryptic to me....
The prebate portion of the bill will be administered by the Social Security Administration. At first this seemed a cumbersome way to do things...until it was explained to me. Under this system, THERE ARE NO EXEMPTIONS for 'necessities' because that provides a foothold for lobbyists, who troll the halls of Congress with cash looking for someone to "give" them an exemption in exchange for campaign cash. It further removes government from the position of Nanny...deciding what is good for us or what is a necessity. If I want to spend my prebate on ripple, so be it. Moreover, this system disfavors illegal aliens. Only holders of valid SSN's will get the prebate.
"You know, Phil, I've never made my business decisions, and I've owned three successful ones, on what the CEO's of major corporations or Washington politicians have to say."
Major corporations, however, DO make their decisions, at least in part, on what their CEOs say.
I gotta go home. I enjoyed it. Conservative Goddess, will you please watch my back while I'm away?
i really liked the last part. everybody should pay taxes, nobody should be exempt. and the only fair way is to tax ALL income at the same rate.
Consider a $10,000 purchase, taxed at 23%. The $30,000 earner pays 7.6% of their income in sales tax. The $100,000 earner pays 2.3%. Yell BS all you want, the numbers don't lie
Yours do however, as they leave out the extensive effect of business overhead costs associated with the federal tax system throughout the entire chain of industry from raw materials to delivery of the final retail product to customer at the end of the chain.
"...A monthly rebate given in advance seems to imply the continued existence of an IRS bureaucracy that keeps track of how much income everybody makes. The rationale for the continuation of such an unnecessary and unwieldy system is cryptic to me...."
Under the current system, the price of all building materials is inflated due to entity level taxation. Once those costs are removed, the price of building materials should decrease...and with the prebate, your full paycheck in hand....you'll probably be able to buy the same house...
The only difference will be that you'll clearly see how much tax you are paying vs our current system where much of the tax cost is hidden from your view.
my proposal is too simple and there ain't any loopholes. that is why nobody introduced it.
"All income is income and must be declared
All income is taxed at the same percentage for every american.
Taxes are payable on the first of every month.".
no exemptions, no exceptions, no hassle. if you know the percentage, you know how much to pay.
Is that gross household income percentage of 23% inclusive of current business taxes?
I would prefer some Constitutional cap of 7 to 10 percent, but I know I'm just dreaming.
Cordially,
the last time I heard of some shopowner getting busted for not forwarding the taxes they collect is about the last time I heard of someone going to jail for nonpayment of federal taxes. as you haev said before - fear of government guns is mighty persuasive.
"I'm talking about a day after you have succeeded in killing the income tax and instituting the 'fair tax.' At that point, I am making a choice between an existing home or new construction."
It may interest you to know that there is a transition rule that enables businesses which hold inventory on the day of implementation to take a credit which approximates the amount of imbedded taxes in that inventory. The idea is to enable retailers to pass along cost savings from the removal of the old system on day 1 of the FairTax regime.
"Taxing the new construction but not the existing home provides a significant disincentive to new construction. I'm guessing you don't work in the trades, or in logging, or manufacturing of construction goods...."
No, I don't. I'm in the mortgage business.
I respectfully disagree. The politicos are the last ones who want the Fair Tax. It comes from lots of ordinary people across the country, including those like I am who are boomers (and Sooners, too!). Cost of goods would be reduced so much under the Fair Tax (because embedded taxes would be stripped out by repeal) that it would be like buying goods with "before tax" dollars, and never having to pay income taxes, all rolled into one.
The wealth of nations depends upon an infinite variety of causes. Situation, soil, climate, the nature of the productions, the nature of the government, the genius of the citizens, the degree of information they possess, the state of commerce, of arts, of industry,gthese circumstances and many more, too complex, minute, or adventitious to admit of a particular specification, occasion differences hardly conceivable in the relative opulence and riches of different countries. The consequence clearly is that there can be no common measure of national wealth, and, of course, no general or stationary rule by which the ability of a state to pay taxes can be determined. The attempt, therefore, to regulate the contributions of the members of a confederacy by any such rule, cannot fail to be productive of glaring inequality and extreme oppression.
This inequality would of itself be sufficient in America to work the eventual destruction of the Union, if any mode of enforcing a compliance with its requisitions could be devised. The suffering States would not long consent to remain associated upon a principle which distributes the public burdens with so unequal a hand, and which was calculated to impoverish and oppress the citizens of some States, while those of others would scarcely be conscious of the small proportion of the weight they were required to sustain. This, however, is an evil inseparable from the principle of quotas and requisitions.
There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.
It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, gthat is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.
Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country. Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment. Either the value of land, or the number of the people, may serve as a standard. The state of agriculture and the populousness of a country have been considered as nearly connected with each other. And, as a rule, for the purpose intended, numbers, in the view of simplicity and certainty, are entitled to a preference. In every country it is a herculean task to obtain a valuation of the land; in a country imperfectly settled and progressive in improvement, the difficulties are increased almost to impracticability. The expense of an accurate valuation is, in all situations, a formidable objection. In a branch of taxation where no limits to the discretion of the government are to be found in the nature of things, the establishment of a fixed rule, not incompatible with the end, may be attended with fewer inconveniences than to leave that discretion altogether at large.
PUBLIUS. (Alexander Hamilton)
maybe you are correct, but since their boards will be under the same shareholder pressure, you can safely bet that they will scheme to keep as much of the found money as they can.
That's a much better answer. Presuming the best case scenario, that might make the difference.
But if the income tax is left in place (an admittedly different comparision), all bets are off.
"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."
Nothing prevents them from implementing both systems today, however the way the legislation is written it would protect us from having both systems.
Regressive means that they must spend a larger proportion of their resources simply to acquire necessities: food, clothing, shelter, medicines.
exactly. but to eliminate the income tax wouls dtake a constitutional ammendment. if you'r enot careful we'll end up with both. the nature of governments being what it is.
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.