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 ...
Really? So businesses won't be liable for federal sales taxes? Only state sales taxes?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
Dream on. They either fulfill the requirements of their contract (you know, that pesky lease they signed) or they're out.
Same with that car or furniture they were stupid enough to lease.
Same thing with any business renting a car or a delivery truck or a copy machine (or, strangely enough, a building).
This will be one of the biggest problem areas, defining business vs. personal items. As a business, I could provide tax free autos to my employees. This would save 40% in state and federal sales tax on the purchase. In fact, everyone should be motivated to start their own business at the prospect of saving 40% on many of their purchases.
Exactly. At least one of my companies needs a new computer or two every year and a new TV and DVD/surround sound system (for employee training, don't you know) from time to time. ;^)
Also, the disparity between what would be taxable by the state and not the feds (and vice versa) would also be a potential problem.
Actually those are YOUR assumtions.
My example (not assumption) for the sake of simplicity was he paid 25% income tax on the entire rent payment he received...I then rightly showed how he would be the big loser if he reduced the rent by the amount of the tax.
My only mistake was in assuming someone with intelligence would understand it.
There's no logic in the thinking that the renter should get his full paycheck (gross pay) but the landlord should reduce his gross pay when they all have to pay a new 30% "replacement" tax on their purchases.
Even you fairtax supporters call it "a replacement tax"...Not having to send it to IRS but paying at the register instead would be an example of "replacement" wouldn't it.
The only thing for sure would be the tax. The rest of it is simply YOUR baseless assumptions, conjecture, wishful thinking.
20 to 30% price reductions are not possible. NO ONE has nor can show an example of how it can be done.
The IRS spends God knows how much of your tax money on these toll-free information hot lines staffed by IRS employees, whose idea of a dynamite tax tip is that you should print neatly. If you ask them a real tax question, such as how you can cheat, they're useless. So, for guidance, you want to look to big business. Big business never pays a nickel in taxes, according to Ralph Nader, who represents a big consumer organization that never pays a nickel in taxes...
Dave Barry (1947 - ), "Sweating Out Taxes"
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.