Posted on 11/13/2002 2:55:22 PM PST by sheltonmac
And the income tax is an improvement?
You mean I can choose not to buy food, clothing, or shelter? You might as well say that obeying the law is voluntary.
I refer you to my previous post on this subject, in which I pointed out that the cost-of-living rebate covers those necessities. On the other hand, if you choose to by Beluga Malossol 000 caviar, Giorgio Armani suits and a 10,000 foot estate house, you'll most likely have to pay the tax. As I stated quite clearly in my previous post, "What is voluntary about the NRST is when you pay it."
Since the NRST includes a cost of living rebate to everyone, if you choose not to spend any more than the rebate for a whole year, then after the rebate, you pay no taxes that year. It is your choice to either save any income that you earn over and above the rebated amount or spend some or all of it and pay taxes on that additional spending. That's where it's voluntary. But, basic cost of living expenses are rebated. You do have a choice.
If, at a later date, you should choose to spend the savings that the NRST has largely made possible, that is your choice. If you decide to hold on to your savings and pass it on to your children, that too is your choice. It is entirely voluntary.
So you are for turning retailers into tax collectors for the government?
Duh! How can you turn retailers into tax collectors, when they already collect sales tax? In 45 of the 50 states, retailers already collect sales tax.
[No tax on savings] Not directly, but what about someone saving up to buy a new car, a new boat, or a bigger home? You know as well as I do that the government will have a higher sales tax on "luxury" items so the "rich" will pay their "fair share."
The fact remains that savings is not taxed under the NRST. You can save for your kid's college expenses, a nicer retirement, a real nice vacation or yes, even a nice car, boat or plane and the interest will not be taxed. You pay no tax until you choose to spend that money. Furthermore, even if the government should try something so stupid as another luxury tax, although it might affect your choice of how to spend your savings, it won't affect your level of savings.
On the other hand, the government has probably learned it's lesson, after the last time they tried a luxury tax. Within less than a year, the US yacht manufacturing industry went from the world's largest to one of the world's smallest. Tens of thousands of jobs were lost in the US, in less than a year, as those manufacturers either went out of business or moved offshore, where they could compete.
All arguments aside, the fact remains that a national sales tax cannot be implemented unless the Constitution is amended to allow the government to do it,...
What cave did you just crawl out of? A sales tax is by definition, an "excise" tax and both of the NRST bills in Congress today provide for uniform application of that excise tax throughout the United States. I now direct your attention to the US Constitution.
The Constitution, 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 Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...
That's about as plain as anything can be stated. If you can't understand that, then you have much more serious problems than worrying about taxes.
Our energy should be directed at eliminating the income tax, not replacing it.
Oh. Now I understand. Why didn't you just come out and say that you're an anarchist? That explains your confusion.
I do not want you to love me. Nor do I want to make you seem anything. And who are "you guys"?
I stated that it reminds me of the VAT tax experiment. I did not say that I thought it was the same.
What then reminded you of the VAT tax experiment, if not for perceived similarities???
It is not as polar opposite as you believe.
Gee, ok. Lots of back up there.
A flat tax resembles VAT in no way that I can determine.
Yes, you are unaware of the ways a flat income tax resembles a VAT. As I said.
Any income tax (grauated or "flat")adds cost to products at each and every step of production. That, Movemout, is a VAT. The flat income tax is a subtraction-method VAT. I would be happy to provide a link for your education, but you'd be better finding one on your own.
Your unsubstianted assertions are not welcomed by me.
I do not ask you, or anyone, to welcome any of my assertions. If you believe that I need to substantiate my claims, why would you not simply ask me to do so?
In the case of the nrst, if it got too high folks would buy fewer and fewer new (taxable) goods. Revenues would fall then, making the tax increase self-defeating.
Note that not all items are taxed. There is a great degree of flexibility with regard to discretionary spending on non-taxables. Used car vs new car, used home vs new home, etc. Necessities, however, require tax payments and provide little choice (if any) with regard to paying the tax. This is why the authors of the nrst made user-defined necessites tax free.
If taxes became too high, folks would spend less and less discretionary income on taxables. That would make revenues fall. Of course, necessities are not taxed; hence the revenues flow from discretionary spending.
It is a single rate, but it is not applied to all similar items. So there will be a degree of choice.
Yes, anything is possible, eh?
The nrst bill is written with a single rate. That's one of my requirements for support. Without it, we could end up where we are now. Similarly, I only support this bill because it has NO exceptions.
Even tho I know anything can happen, I prefer to make things better and work to keep them better. Not doing so is like a sick man refusing medicine because he might become sick again later. Doesn't make sense.
It reminds me of the value added tax (VAT) in Europe which was a miserable failure in so many ways.
A flat tax is a better choice until it gets to be so onerous as to cause rebellion.
You have been sold a pig in a poke, The flat tax is a personal income tax with a VAT, and classed as a consumption tax, because Consumption = (Receipts - Investment) the tax base of the VAT.
None other than the father of the flat tax, Robert Hall of Stanford University (along with Alvin Rabushka), in his 1995 Ways and Means Committee testimony said, "The Hall-Rabushka flat tax is a value-added tax."
Which was pointed out again in additional hearings in April of 2000:
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/fullcomm/106cong/4-11-00/4-11kotl.htm
"Robert Hall, one of the originators of the proposal(Flat Tax), who describes his Flat Tax as, effectively, a Value Added Tax. A value added tax taxes output less investment (because firms get to deduct their investment.)"
"The Flat Tax differs from a VAT in only two respects. First, it asks workers, rather than firm managers, to mail in the check for the tax payment on that portion of output paid to them as wages. Second, it provides a subsidy to workers with low wages."
The Flat Tax; Chapter 3, by Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka
| In our system, all income is classified as either business income or wages (including salaries and retirement benefits). The system is airtight. Taxes on both types of income are equal. The wage tax has features to make the overall system progressive. Both taxes have postcard forms. The low tax rate of 19 percent is enough to match the revenue of the federal tax system as it existed in 1993, the last full year of data available as we write. Here is the logic of our system, stripped to basics: We want to tax consumption. The public does one of two things with its income—spends it or invests it. We can measure consumption as income minus investment. A really simple tax would just have each firm pay tax on the total amount of income generated by the firm less that firm’s investment in plant and equipment. The value-added tax works just that way. But a value-added tax is unfair because it is not progressive. That’s why we break the tax in two. The firm pays tax on all the income generated at the firm except the income paid to its workers. The workers pay tax on what they earn, and the tax they pay is progressive. To measure the total amount of income generated at a business, the best approach is to take the total receipts of the firm over the year and subtract the payments the firm has made to its workers and suppliers. This approach guarantees a comprehensive tax base. The successful value-added taxes in Europe work this way. The base for the business tax is the following: Total revenue from sales of goods and services less purchases of inputs from other firms less wages, salaries, and pensions paid to workers less purchases of plant and equipment The other piece is the wage tax. Each family pays 19 percent of its wage, salary, and pension income over a family allowance (the allowance makes the system progressive). The base for the compensation tax is total wages, salaries, and retirement benefits less the total amount of family allowances. |
FLAT TAX, VAT TAX, ANYTHING BUT THAT TAX; Duke Law Magazine, Spring 96:
A consumption tax seems to be a poor path to select.
CONSUMPTION TAX PROPOSALS; 1996 Deloitte & Touche LLP
The Flat Tax is a VAT even as the current income/payroll tax structure now in place is a subtraction method VAT, in that it is a levy imposed on businesses at all levels of production, it is passed on to the consumer hidden in the price of goods and services.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/foundationmessage03-00.html
"Under the WTO definition of the term, a sales tax is an indirect tax, as is an European-style VAT. The economic equivalence of an European-style VAT and a subtraction-method VAT is well-established. A subtraction-method VAT is essentially identical to a business income tax except that all purchases of plant and equipment may be expensed, rather than depreciated as under current U.S. law."
As long as government is able to play a shell game with hiding taxes from the Voter(i.e. individual) it can rely on the old maxim:
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
and keep right on growing without bound.
Our freedoms and the thinking behind our system of government is equality of opportunity in the form of a level playing field and is in direct opposition to most of our tax laws which are geared to equalizing the ultimate outcomes as envisioned by liberals. Equal outcomes dovetail nicely into electing Democrats. There is nothing equal about a graduated income tax. The graduated income tax is evil and shifts the burden of taxes from one citizen group to another. If, as Mr. Rockwell correctly desires, then it is a requirement that you want every taxpayer adversely effected by any tax increase and you want every taxpayer to benefit from any tax reduction. The Flat Tax with no exceptions or exemptions is considerably better than a graduated tax or an income tax with deductions or exemptions. Most conservatives do not recognize it, but there has been more harm done to the US through the charitable deduction than you can possibly imagine. All of the environmental groups thrive on this feature of both the estate and the income tax. Genuine and worthwhile charities would suffer minimally if it were eliminated, but we would get rid of a host of fruit-cake liberal organizations that undermine freedom on a daily basis. The Charitable Deduction is very likely the single worst feature of the current tax code if you love freedom and want to defeat Democrats and other liberal groups. This is the reason they despise the Flat Tax.
A national retail sales tax has the advantage of taxing illegal aliens and other visitors to our economy. The United States leads the world in tourism and international visitors or travelers, legal or otherwise. Anyone visiting our shores benefits from government payed for means of travel and communications infrastructures while they are here. Why shouldn't they share in the cost of providing and maintaining this infrastructure network?
The total tax take for governments at all levels should be substantially lower. How much lower? I wouldn't profess to know, but suspect that it should be less than 10% of GDP as a combined amount of governments of all levels. Setting 10% of GDP for the federal government alone would be a good start toward learning what a reasonable level of government cost actually is. There should be no role at all for the federal government in education. All federal payments to individuals or groups that are not for services rendered or products provided should be abolished completely. There is no Constitutional authority for a federal role involving insurance and the Federal government is not an insurance company. All programs involving the fed insuring anything should be immediately abolished. All laws authorizing "The Secretary" to propose regulations of any kind should be sunsetted. If the Federal government were confined to its Constitutionally authorized functions, two-thirds of the federal budget would be eliminated almost immediately and the associated taxes and associated fees could be eliminated as well.
The basic unit of our society is the individual and this is followed only by the family. Most of society's real needs should be controlled, regulated and financed at this level. Defense and the police function are part of government's legitimate functions, but that does not mean that government should usurp the role or the responsibilities of individuals or families for their own defense or police protection. Because government and its courts have stripped many of our other rights to defend or fend for ourselves, government has used this as an excuse to coerce and co-opt many of our other rights. And as always, government's inefficiency and ineptness have degraded defense, law and order in our society. Now we double pay through private security organizations, not to supplement, but because government can't do anything correctly. Writing tickets for traffic control or parking violations is revenue generation (additional tax) with no enhancement to safety or of benefit to society. Show me the evidence that traffic enforcement reduces accidents!
Government regulation of any industry is crony capitalism and an invitation to bribes and corruption. Show me the evidence that it is of any benefit to anyone. If the data, and in this age there are no legitimate excuses for not being able to provide the data, that any government at any level provides anything useful. When you can show me and everyone else the data, then we will have some idea of the legitimate level of taxation, and a model for the level of government where that function should be located.
I will offer a premise that the responsibility for education begins with the family and ends at the individual. I will suggest that in the information age, there are few localities where the responsibility for education ever devolves to a government entity. And in the few instances where that proves to be true, it should be a decision made by families and individuals and would be better served at some other entity besides government. But I recognize the rights of localities to make their own wrong choices.
I look forward to other Freepers thoughts about these comments and the logical extensions that can be built around them.
The recent Republican victories are laudible, but will end up being disappointing to those who love freedom. There was no agenda of freedom underlying the Republican's victories. Indeed, there was no apparent reduce government at a fundamental level at all. At best, it could result in small reductions in spending programs for individuals or groups with no program being eliminated. Conservatives should demand more.
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.