[GailA]

I'm sure this is an UNBIASED report (wink, wink)

This is a LONG report with graphs, and links to individual states.

[xzins]

ONE tax for the nation.....a sales tax.

ONE tax for the state.....a sales tax.

ONE tax for the locality.....a sales tax.


All of these can be collected at ONE time with NO PAPERWORK on the part of the person making a purchase at a cash register.

NRST ... the only fair tax system.

[Blood of Tyrants]

That is the worst piece of pro-income tax propaganda I have ever read. For example, the author throws out the following

sales tax receipts have not been hit nearly as hard as income tax revenues. But the problem with the sales tax is that its base has not moved forward with the times. “Nearly every state has a defective sales tax in terms of dealing with the economy of the 21st century,”

In one sentence he admits that a sales tax is much more stable than an income tax and in the next he derides it as being "defective" and "not moving with the times". By which he obviously means that we have refused to become Marxists!

How DARE we refuse to implement an income tax like the rest of the lemmings!

[isthisnickcool]

The "report" says that Texas has no corporate income tax. Well, that's essentially what the "franchise" tax is since it's based on a percentage of "net taxable capital" or "surplus". It is true, as they say, that this can be circumvented by simply using a linited partnership or adding one to mix.

So, they may call it a "franchise tax" in Texas but it is a corporate incomen tax.

I LOVE THIS! Simple and it will fit on a tee shirt:

ONE tax for the nation.....a sales tax.

ONE tax for the state.....a sales tax.

ONE tax for the locality.....a sales tax.

[Taxman]

Good find, good post, Gail.

Here is all you need to know about Governing:

***********************************

Governing is a monthly magazine whose primary audience is state and local government officials: governors, legislators, mayors, city managers, council members and other elected, appointed and career officials. They are the men and women who set policy for and manage the day-to-day operations of cities, counties and states, as well as such governmental bodies as school boards and special districts.

The magazine has a circulation of about 86,000. Besides public officials, its readers include journalists, academics, companies that provide products and services for government, and involved citizens with an interest in the governments closest to them.

Governing is published by Congressional Quarterly, Inc., a subsidiary of the Times Publishing Co. of St. Petersburg, Florida. In 1994, Governing acquired City & State magazine, and the two publications were merged into Governing.

Governing’s offices are located at 1100 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Suite 1300, Washington, DC 20036. Phone: (202) 862-8802. Fax: (202) 862-0032. E-mail: mailbox@governing.com

Send letters to the editor to any of the above addresses. Include a daytime telephone number. Letters are subject to editing.

**************************************

Written by big government pogues for big government pogues!

Why should we expect any other outcome or recommendations from a group of people determined to grow the power and reach of government?

[Forgiven_Sinner]

I read the whole article and couldn't believe how pro-tax and out of touch it was with reality, ie voters paying taxes. One of their charming misbeliefs was "state governments should never cut taxes during temporary revenue increases". Why not?

Another one was, "voters never accept a cut in services". I'm not aware of that! For example, wouldn't Tenn. be balanced if they cut back on Tenn Care? Has anyone proposed that? Say an income test?

The article reads as if it were written by a pro-tax, pro-big government pork spending bureaucrat.

[x]

“A diversified revenue structure is important,” says Don Boyd, director of the fiscal studies program at the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.

Considering the condition that Rockefeller left New York's finances in, this looks like some kind of sick joke.

The way things are arranged today, if states don't have an income tax, the money that they would have taken just goes to the federal government. It's a bad idea, as it encourages states to adopt income taxes, but it's obvious why the high income tax states and the federal government wanted things that way. If there wasn't this guaranteed bite taken of incomes, there would be even greater flight to low tax states.