Replies

A dream you'll never live to see. Most people wouldn't stand for it and there'd be riots.

Many places already have a city / state consumption tax, on some things. N.Y.C. and Chicago's is already almosts 9 %. I rather doubt that a Fed Gov consumption tax would only be 10 % ; however, if it were, added onto already existing VAT , that would come up to 20%, in some places. Since the vast majority of people, in this country, don't pay THAT in Income tax, they would certainly be angry as the dickens. Then, there is state income tax and in someplaces, city income taxes. Neither would be done away with, I presume. Add property taxes to the mix. With NO Fed income taxes, there'd be NO mortgage deductions. There'd be NO charitable deductions.

From family stories, I know, full well, what life was like prior to unemployment benefits, etc. I know what would have to happen, without any governments teats. This country , for the most part, doesn't know that and they would have one gigantic hissy fit ! What would those , now getting Social Security ( and I'm NOT talking about the cheats )do ?

Jim, we mostly want the same thing. What I, unlike you, can see, is that it just can't be done in one fell swoop. This isn't 1780,nor even 1880. Incrementilism is the ONLY way to turn back the clock. It's how that clock got started, in the first place. This isn't an aggranian nation any more. This isn't a small nation, clinging to the shores of the Atlantic Ocean. The STATES weren't doing that great a job of " handling things " in the 1880s; how could they now ?

Here's another tidbit to chew on. Barttering was still previlant, not so very long ago. Push for this , IMMEDIATELY , and we're back to an underground marketplace, rather quickly, and a lot of funds get diverted away from the Fed Gov. Yes, more cash would come from that same , now, underground vault; it just couldn't supply enough to do the paltry things you calim that it should only do.

Would the upper middle and upper classes try to find some way around a consumption tax ? Look at what happened when the " LUXURY TAX " was instituted a few years back !

Capital Gains taxes would, I assume , now be gone , only to be replaced by a 10 % ( or more ? ) consumption tax ? On the purchase of EVERY stock and mutual fund and option, etc. ? Watch the Markets crash and burn !

Housing sales ? P-O-O-F !

There just HAS to be some way to get the GOV out of our pockets; but, this isn't it .

Either the National Retail Sales Tax or the Flat Tax would be better than what we have now.

Either system would be fairer and simpler, but the Flat Tax could move through Congress more quickly and easily. The problems with the NRST are...

1. The rate would be over 20% and added to current sales taxes, it would come close to 30% in some states. I doesn't think people will tolerate this.

2. There would be a compliance problem called, "I can get it for you wholesale."

3. Repeal of the 16th amendment would have to come first in order to avoid having both the income tax and the NRST. This would be a long, drawn-out process even if it were to be successful.

If there is no federal income tax, there is no need for federal mortgage deductions. And there would automatically be a much bigger paycheck for every working American. Eventually, the Social Security Tax will also have to be phased out and privatized otherwise it fails of its own weight and goes bankrupt. This alone returns 16% (both sides, employee and employer) or so of every worker's paycheck to the working family.

As a bonus, the costs of all products sold will be reduced by 20% or so as the government tax burden on all products will be lightened.

Let's face it, the 25% that the federal government siphons off the GDP every year is a huge dead weight burden on our society!

The social security lobby is good at mobilizing votes but geriatrics can't riot. If social security is maintained given the likelihood of the huge expansion in cost it is quite likely my generation will start rioting social security needs to die.

I guess your comments could be summarized as "don't do anything, it's too risky". I would wager anyone could throw that reasoning around. But don't you think the peole that are working on the details haven't thought of what you so *afraid* of?

Add property taxes to the mix. With NO Fed income taxes, there'd be NO mortgage deductions. There'd be NO charitable deductions.

With no burdensome income tax, you don't need interest mortgage deductions. And did you know that more than half of all charitable deductions are never claimed? So, right there, we have fifty percent that are unaffected. Ever study has shown that when Americans have more money, they give more. Bump that fifty up to sixty or so to take than into account. Plus you have to figure at least half of the rest would give even without the incentive of a deduction.

By my rough count we are cruising on at least 80% of charitable giving to continue as before... at least!

Housing sales ? P-O-O-F !

I disagree. Even without the mortgage deduction advantage a sales tax puts in a better advantage to buying a house:

Income: 40,000

Income tax: none

20% sales tax one time on 100,000 house: 20,000

sales tax on 700/mo. rent over 20 years:33,600

A family taking home 40,000 can afford a 120,000 house as easily as a family taking home 32,000 can afford a 100,000 house. Plus, they save in taxes (discounting for time would reduce the advantage ,but increasing to 30 or 50 years would add to the advantage).