Posted on 06/10/2005 11:13:37 AM PDT by Always Right
All one has to do, IMHO, is look at the economic history of the United States prior to the implementation of the progressive income tax and compare that to what has followed.
Few even know that the progressive income tax finds it's modern origins in the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" despite the ease with which one can find out such things in today's world.
Not all business will need to remit - only retailers will.
Stop pushing your income tax snake oil. The income tax is not great, it's horrible.
Currently, tax burdens are generally separated into 3 categories: income tax, FICA, and embedded tax in prices.
Today, the drug dealer only pays a portion of his tax burden, the part embedded in prices. But under the nrst, the drug dealer begins paying his full burden. Hence the drug dealer pays more tax under the nrst.
You're not quite there yet. Should be "The desire to maximize profits leads to attempts to improve margins". Sometimes that leads to attempts to gain market share in order to either (i) improve margins by amortizing fixed costs over more units, or (ii) get a dominant, semi-monopolistic position so as to set the market price (Jack Welch's approach). Sometimes it just leads to raising the price.
LOL! Medication ran out?
And you have credibility??? Further, what indicates to you it will be the same people in the same offices doing the same jobs?
The nrst reduces the # of collection points by 80%. And 80% of retail transactions go thru only 20% of retailers. There will be no inspection of individuals' incomes. There will be no individual audits - only business audits. 45 states already collect a sales tax - they'll collect the nrst and earn 1/4% on it.
You aren't misled, just trying to paint tax reform proponents as something they aren't. It's the income tax fanatics who mislead on nearly every post. It's all the kool aid the income tax demagogues have left.
Well, it was in 540
But it was part of my main point that creditors would hold the debt.
Now tell me, what caused the Depression, was not the Gold Standard, was not the stock market crash in and of itself.
What happen was, the entire economy of the 1920s (like the 1990s, I'm afraid to say) was financed on credit, rich and poor alike went on a credit frenzy. So when the stock market crashed, all this money evaporated, so when creditors tried to collect, well, it was a vicious cycle.
I do hate FDR, but I will admit one thing, if it had not been his program, we would have ended up with much worse. I seriously believe Huey Long could have become President in 1936, and what does that say for America at that time.
We're lucky we escaped the 30's with some form of free government (somewhat) intact, especially when you look at what happened to Germany and other countries.
The entire economic future of this country is hinged on credit, and that is the foremost basis of my entire opposition to the NRST. My belief is, at some point, we will have a downturn and that credit bubble is gonna bust. If you consider the Depression the worst recession of all time, and then put it in a category of "depressions" or, bad recessions. Then by the rights of the time scale, we are overdue, and we are now more entangled in credit than ever.
Does the FDIC insure, yes it does, up to (I still think 100k)
100k was worth alot more in 1933 then it is today, so while it is more difficult to occur, bank failure is entirely possible if it gets bad enough
With a NRST, you are just adding a higher volume of debt in a society that's already gone rabid, and I hate to break it to you, this economy is not as stable as we would have it.
As a result, I'm not in the mindset that we need to be adding more to the debt thru legislative fiat, because if credit in this country goes, our whole system is gone.
ping
But the tables are turned with the NRST. The states will be remitting grossly more than they will ever receive. It would then be the states with the power to withold money from the feds if the feds don't comply.
Massachussetts: " No money from us until you pass a gay marriage law."
California: "No money from us until you legalize marijuana."
New York: "No money from us until you ban all assault weapons"
With a NRST, you are just adding a higher volume of debt in a society that's already gone rabid, and I hate to break it to you, this economy is not as stable as we would have it.
Just where is this higher volume of debt coming from you say the NRST is supposed to be adding to.
Taxation levels are the same under the NRST as they are now.
The FairTax legislation specifically assures the same level of effective progressivity in the tax burden as exists today with the income/payroll tax system.
The individual's contracted wage is under no risk of the NRST, thus he will receive his gross pay he earns with no federal withholding or FICA taken out of it.
Sorry, I totally fail to see your imagined scenario of higher individual debt at all, just the contrary as the factors that lead to such extreme consumption are reversed with the implementation of a retail sales tax.
Saving and investment for future benefit is encouraged by no taxation of savings.investment capital thus wealth grows without the heavy tax burdens of income taxes taken out of re-invested earnings or even the capital put into the investment initially. Consumption on the other hand is taxed and a visible deterrent to excess credit spending is imposed.
Your extended flights into hypothesis are simply substance-less with no foundation to them.
My vote is for a simplified and lower income tax, with the savings coming from less government.
Absolutely! As every economist worth his salt will readily attest.
consumption is more stable than income.
Well, consumption is more stable than income. Did you not know this?
It retains withholding.
It retains payroll taxes - employee and employer
It retains the IRS looking into every individual's life, where we're guilty until proven innocent
It retains hidden, embedded taxes and tax costs in prices. Hidden taxes allow gov't to grow without the populace being made aware that they're paying for it.
It retains the tax component in US exports.
Get over the flat tax. It's only how income tax lovers sell their snake oil - to try to prevent any reform at all.
No, you're trying to avoid what my argument is: that the nrst will tax big spenders more than now. That's one of the things that allows many people to pay less - broadening of the base being another.
The big spenders could pay as much as 23%. The less you spend, the less your tax. So you could save and pay less tax. You could give to charity and pay less tax... maybe ancient_geezer would post a graph illustrating effective rates by $ spent...?
Why mislead? Is that all you've got?
Another huge problem with the nrst - as big as the "earmarking problem in alabama"... is leprocy. How can the nrst guarantee that leprocy won't spread in alabama? Well, if it can't stop leprocy, I'm against it.
rotflmao
Like a man with a terminal illness who is offered medicine but refuses the medicine because it may not work. Well, not taking the medicine sure isn't gonna help him. How stupid is that?
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.