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 ...
"you cannot pass a law that changes the constitution. that requires an ammendment."
True, but you can put language in the passed law that it will not take effect until the amendment is abolished.
The rest of the article is posted at # 12. Only an excerpt is permitted at the beginning.
hmmmmmm
Final Authority
Your Nightmare
Always Right
I wonder why so many of the guardians of the status quo have to display their egos so brazenly?
Better get with the program, Louie and Willie. LOL
could you poiont out where in the constitution or federaslist papers the founders favored taxes on consumption? I know they didn't like income taxes, but...
Thank You for your kind words.....and I would be happy to quote and cite the exact passage. From Federalist Paper No. 21, http://federalistpatriot.us/fedpapers/fed_21.html
"...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, that 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."
SOMEBODY has to collect, track, and disburse to the government the funds gathered.
Yep, called your state, the same folks collecting state retail sales taxes.
You really should read the legislation:
H.R.25Fair Tax Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
`CHAPTER 4--FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATIVE TAX ADMINISTRATION
|
| House Ways & Means archives 106th Congress: Statement of Billy Hamilton, Deputy Comptroller, Testimony Before the House Committee on Ways and Means Hearing on Fundamental Tax Reform April 11, 2000 My name is Billy Hamilton, and I am the Deputy Comptroller for the State of Texas. Carole Keeton Rylander, the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, was delighted to receive an invitation to testify before this committee regarding the Fundamental Tax Reform measures under consideration today. Unfortunately, Comptroller Rylander's schedule did not permit her attendance, and she has asked me to testify here on her behalf. My comments today are directed only to the feasibility of state administration of the Fair Tax proposed by H.R. 2525. I do not intend to comment on the economics or any other aspects of the proposal. The Texas Comptroller's office has administered a sales and use tax since the 1960's, and I have been involved with administration of the tax since 1982. Last year, the Texas Comptroller collected $13 billion in sales tax revenue from more than 600,000 businesses. I offer my own experience with sales tax administration, as well as the size of Texas' sales tax program, as the basis of my qualification to speak to you about the administerability of H.R. 2525. As you know, H.R. 2525 would permit states to collect and administer the Fair Tax on behalf of the federal government. In my opinion, Texas would be well-equipped to administer the Fair Tax based on our experience in administering our own sales tax. Even though the base, rate and other characteristics of the Fair Tax are significantly different from the Texas sales tax, it would be feasible for our office to collect the Fair Tax by expanding and enhancing the systems we currently have in place. For example, we would:
The expansion of our systems to administer the Fair Tax, in the manner I've just described, would be sizable. Under the Fair Tax, we would serve approximately 900,000 more filers than we do currently. We estimate that serving that many additional taxpayers would require 1,100 to 1,600 more full-time employees. The Texas Comptroller currently employs about 2,700 people on a full-time basis. In spite of this large expansion, the compensation for collecting the Fair Tax that would be provided to states under H.R. 2525 would likely cover our projected costs. As a first approximation, we estimate that the cost to the Texas Comptroller's office for collecting the Fair Tax at full implementation would be $100 to $150 million per year. I emphasize, however, that there would be significant costs to begin collection, including the cost of facilities to house the additional processing facilities, the capital costs of information technology and revenue processing equipment, and the costs of notifying, registering and educating taxpayers on the new tax. In closing, I believe that if the Fair Tax is to become a reality, the U.S. government would be well-served to make use of the existing expertise of the states. Many states have administered consumption taxes since the 1930s and have developed particular capabilities in this area. We also have extensive experience in dealing with the affected businesses. As long as the administrative fee paid to the state is adequate in relation to the costs of collection, I see no reason that the State of Texas could not effectively administer the Fair Tax. |
"The government will never abandon the income tax because the liberals won't let it happen because how else would one tax an American living on foreign soil, or tax old wealth (death taxes) or tax so-called unearned income, or tax windfalls like a signing bonus or the like?"
That isn't what the FairTax is about, so that is a strawman argument.
Here is what Herman Cain had to say about the possibility of combining a sales tax with an income tax.
Here it is in Real Video format: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/video/050304-foxnews.ram
And the Windows Media version: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/video/050304-foxnews.wmv
My point is why futz with all of this stuff, and not support a Flat Tax on income instead?
The income tax was flat to begin with. And why should I or anyone want to report my family financial condition to government all the time, much less have to prove, it under threat of law, to their satisfaction when they disagree with my assessment?
"A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business; the eye of the federal inspector will be in every man's counting house....The law will of necessity have inquisical features, it will provide penalties, it will create complicated machinery. Under it men will be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the tax payer. An army of federal inspectors, spies, and detectives will descend upon the state."
-- Virginian House Speaker Richard E. Byrd, 1910, predicting the consequences of an income tax.
"a free people that pays slave taxes to its government is willingly training itself for bondage."
---Alan Keyes 1999
"try me. when a company's board is charged with maximizing profits (to be paid as dividends, for example) and they fail to do so, they can (and often are) sucessfully sued. There is nothing around that I have heard of that obligates a company to pass along any windlfall that it takes in. if they suddenly find their profit margin up by 20-30% they wold be financially misfeasant to give that money away unless to do so is the only way to retain market share."
Aren't you the one who questioned my knowledge of economics? I will say this as diplomatically as I can. Please pick up an economics textbook and refresh yourself on the elasticity of demand. I think that what you will find is that price maximization and profit maximization are NOT the same. Why? The answer is contained in your last sentence above: "unless to do so is the only way to retain market share."
You're not paid by the Americans for Fair Taxation?"I think he's paid to."Think whatever you like. You certainly like to jump to conclusions, huh, YN?
They can't...see: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1111944/posts Keeps Jim out of court.
Sorry, but that is the equivalent of saying, "he is talking about Red Delicious, not Apples"...
"how many shopkeepers have you surveyed to discover that this new method will be easy to implement?"
I don't need to survey shopkeepers, I spent quite a few years in financial management with small to medium sized companies.
you see? ,my version of the Flat Tax treats ALL income as income. ALL income is taxed regardless of source. whether i's capital gains, returns on investments, wages, whatever.
Where's your bill, and how does it protect my property that I put into my business and keep the government from taxing it as income when it is returned to me out of my sales revenues or as capital return from monies or value loaned or invested.
"whatever" is not a definition that is usable to separate income and profit from capital or wealth invested.
By what authority do you claim a right for government to demand that I testify against myself or gives government the right to demand my production of and to search my personal financial records and effects for evidence against me without a warrant and probable cause to do so?
Sorry, no matter how you swing it any income tax is a tool of of the totalitarian, and not suitible for any nation that claims to be free.
| I discussed the importance of abolishing the income tax because of its tendency to form a habit of servility in the souls of a people that accepts it. Servility of soul is bad not only in itself, it is also an open door through which will soon walk the abuses of ambitious government power. Leaders who find themselves with governmental power over a servile people will be quick to conclude that such a people exist to serve them. |
It will be interesting to see what happens when every business or individual that rents gets socked with a 30% increase in their rent due. Overnight.
Oh no? John Linder already has corporations who have signed agreements that they will lower consumer prices by any amount they are not forced to pay in income taxes. He is working with Wal Mart now. See post #172.
Good goooooolly! In Wal-Mart's case that would be about 3%. Whoop-de-doo!
could you poiont out where in the constitution or federaslist papers the founders favored taxes on consumption?
Constitution for the United States of America:
- Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
"COMMERCE, trade, contracts.
The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. Pard. Dr. Coin. n. 1. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons, by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts, and for which he pays a consideration; if the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. Domat, Dr. Pub. liv. 1, tit. 7, s. 1, n. "
- "A nation cannot long exist without revenues. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence, and sink into the degraded condition of a province. This is an extremity to which no government will of choice accede. Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events. In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land."
- "It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation."
- "The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury."
- The principle of regulating the contributions of the States to the common treasury by QUOTAS is another fundamental error in the Confederation. Its repugnancy to an adequate supply of the national exigencies has been already pointed out, and has sufficiently appeared from the trial which has been made of it. I speak of it now solely with a view to equality among the States. Those who have been accustomed to contemplate the circumstances which produce and constitute national wealth, must be satisfied that there is no common standard or barometer by which the degrees of it can be ascertained. Neither the value of lands, nor the numbers of the people, which have been successively proposed as the rule of State contributions, has any pretension to being a just representative.
- 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, that is, an extension of the revenue. ... 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.
- ``A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION in the article of taxation was the only admissible substitute for an entire subordination, in respect to this branch of power, of State authority to that of the Union.'' Any separation of the objects of revenue that could have been fallen upon, would have amounted to a sacrifice of the great INTERESTS of the Union to the POWER of the individual States. The convention thought the concurrent jurisdiction preferable to that subordination; and it is evident that it has at least the merit of reconciling an indefinite constitutional power of taxation in the Federal government with an adequate and independent power in the States to provide for their own necessities.
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(Farrand's Records)
James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9."Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"
No doubt. We do.
I meant the rest of the country, who would have to become equally excited for anything to be done.
The State of Missouri and every other state I have been in collects sales taxes from purchases but the purchaser is anonymous. The retailer collects the tax. Think McDonalds takes your name and number every time you buy a BigMac?
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.