National sales tax - now! Alan Keyes on the end of income tax and the return of economic liberty

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Monday, August 19, 2002 | Ambassador Alan Keyes

[JohnHuang2]

Monday, August 19, 2002

Quote of the Day by skull stomper

[Bigun]

Bump! ;>)

[Vladiator]

I think I saw this release earlier on the following web site: http://www.billionairesforbushorgore.com/

[Free the USA]

Index Bump

[Jimmy Valentine's brother]

Sorry. Can't support government collecting taxes painlessly by nickel and diming the public. I wan't people to write a quarterly check to the government, No with holding, no sales tax. I want it up front and personal. You want social security and medicare; write the check or put it on your Visa card.

[RFP]

I am opposed to a "National Tax" because it is my fervent belief that the Feral (sic) government should not be in the tax business AT ALL!

The tax system that we should have, IMHO, is very simple:

• 1) Congress sets a budget, balanced or not* (see comment below).
• 2) The GNP is calculated/determined each year and estimated for the following year.
• 3) Each state's contribution to this projected GNP is revealed and expressed as a percentage.
• 4) The congressional budget is multiplied by each state's GNP percentage and the treasury of each state is billed for this ammount accordingly. DONE!

BADDA BOOM, BADDA BING - ALL TAX REVENUE GENERATION IS NOW THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE RESPECTIVE STATE LEGISLATURES! THE FEDS ARE OUT OF THE TAX PICTURE, except for import and export duties, excise taxes, fines, etc. as properly defined by the Constitution). THE 16th AMENDMENT CAN NOW BE REPEALED!

This approach has the following advantages:

• 1) Flexibility. Each state could customize it's revenue generation plan as it best fits their own economy. If they wanted to use sales tax, user fees, taxes on concert and sporting event tickets, sin taxes, gas tax, highway tolls, higher license fees, an income tax, business taxes, property taxes, whatever.
• 2) Competition: Businesses and residents will flock to the most favorable conditions and away from the most repressive. We would have fifty entities all coming up with different ideas. The cream always floats to the top. The best revenue generation system will be emulated.
• 3) Reduced government size: Since the tax burden will be more visible (read: local), congressmen will be leaned on more by their constituents to reduce unnecessary spending and programs. Substantial savings will be realized immediately with the elimination of the IRS!
• 4) Greater attention to local politics: Similar to above. With state legislatures having the power of taxation, and paoople voting with their wallets, we'll see an increase in the election of fiscal conservatives. State and local governments will reduce in size and number of unecessary programs/expenditures as well.

The only drawback I can see is collecting the money from the states. There would have to be some way to collect it, i.e garnish a state treasury if there is resistance. Again, this is all based on GNP figures so it's legit and fair for all the states. Other states would lean on their neighbors to pay up.

* Regarding the "balanced budget": by all means congress should strive for a balanced budget and we SHOULD have a BB amendment - with the only exception/out that it wouldn't have to be balanced in times of officially declared war. This would force congress to keep deficit spending down and force them to declare war and define the enemy when the money is really needed - Nice side benefit: there would be no more Veit Nams and their ilk.

[RFP]

Oh yeah, another side benefit is that, since the state's tax burden is based on it's GNP, companies that move headquarters to Bermuda but still have manufacturing in the state will still be contributing to the state's GNP and hence it's tax burden. Thus, the state can hit these biznisses with import and export taxes on it's products (such as Stanley tools) as it sees fit.

We'd quickly see an end to these shady tax dodge maneuvers.

[goldstategop]

I think a national sales tax is a good replacement for the income tax since it already exists in the states. We don't even need a mammoth federal bureaucracy to collect the tax; we leave it up to each state to collect the requisite tax required and turn it over the the U.S Treasury Department. No more IRS! That's the beauty of it and its simple to administer too. Besides since investment and savings will never be taxed, we can give ourselves a tax break whenever we want by reducing our spending habits. And there will be no real incentive for the politicians to raise taxes on us since we simply stop consuming more. Bottom line: we're back in control of our lives and the government is forced to live within its means. That is why getting rid of the income tax is so important.

[Symix]

in this socialist scheme anyone with a private dollar is suspected of being too rich.

That is rich!

[Keyes For President]

The tax system that we should have, IMHO, is very simple: 1) Congress sets a budget, balanced or not* (see comment below). 2) The GNP is calculated/determined each year and estimated for the following year. 3) Each state's contribution to this projected GNP is revealed and expressed as a percentage. 4) The congressional budget is multiplied by each state's GNP percentage and the treasury of each state is billed for this ammount accordingly. DONE!

I like your approach even better. I think it's more constitutional, too.

However, I agree with Keyes that the income tax must be abolished, and I'd support the national sales tax over the income tax any day of the week.

[Keyes For President]

Real reform requires abolishing the income tax and returning to the system our Founders intended, funding the federal government with tariffs, duties, and excise taxes – sales taxes – not with the privacy-destroying income tax. We should return to the original, constitutional tax system of the United States of America.

Bump.

[EternalVigilance]

BUMP!

[Bella_Bru]

I'm all for a different type of tax system, but, will someone explain to me what happens when you have a year or two where retail sales are way down? Don't you think the government would find some sneaky way to make up the lost sales tax?

[EternalVigilance]

Thanks for posting this, my friend.

This is a critical paragraph:

Congress will pass a national sales tax only when the people insist on it. To bring this day closer, it will be necessary to turn the attention of grassroots America to the real tax debate. That debate is not only about the rate of taxation or bloated size of government. Most importantly, it is about the right to property and the preservation of our liberty. Americans must come to see that the tax reform we so urgently need is not more back room manipulation of the income tax and its ever-mutable rates, schedules, and regulations, but it is rather a total replacement with the system our Founders intended.

Amen.

[EternalVigilance]

Under the FairTax, all of the hidden aspects of the current system would be gone. The only tax debate left for politicians to haggle over would be the rate.

As things are, the politicians have perfected their ability to play one group of taxpayers off against another. But under the NRST, all Americans would be on the same side...the side in whose interest it is to lower the rate.

So, the short answer to your question is this: if revenues fall off, the government will be forced to do what families are forced to do when income is reduced...tighten their belts.