Posted on 02/08/2003 5:56:38 PM PST by Bigun
White House Floats Idea of Dropping Income Tax Overhaul By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 — President Bush, having already set off a firestorm over his proposals to cut taxes and revamp retirement accounts, suggested today that the time might be near to drop the income tax as a whole and replace it with some form of consumption tax...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The Federal government could return to assessment of the states as its primary form of revenue.
The System you talk about was what existed under the Articles of Confederation with the Continental Congess. It was done away with by the ratification of the Constitution, that being one of the primary reasons for the Constitution.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #21:
- The principle of regulating the contributions of the States to the common treasury by QUOTAS is another fundamental error in the Confederation. Its repugnancy to an adequate supply of the national exigencies has been already pointed out, and has sufficiently appeared from the trial which has been made of it.
- It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. ... Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country.
Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment. Either the value of land, or the number of the people, may serve as a standard.
James Madison, Federalist #39:
- "The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"
James Madison, Federalist #45:
- "The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] sic Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional] Congress will have to require them of individual citizens;
Wouldn't happen your way because Article I Section 8 provides for the levy of excises, tariffs, and duties without apportionment.
Secondly Article I Section 9, to which you allude, is for the imposition of Federal property and capitation taxes and does not in any way force the federal government to make an assessment of the states. The original direct taxes under the Constitution, allowed for the states to be collectors of property taxes for the Federal government, however the Federal government created its own assessors and administration authority requiring the states to abide by the Federal government's assessment of the value of private property for purposes of that tax, as well as reserving the Federal government's authority to come in and collect property taxes directly from the land owners whenever a state failed in its duty to the federal government.
I refer you to one of the first acts of Congress implementing the administrative infrastructure for Federal direct taxes:
United States Statutes at Large
Thirteenth Congress Session. I. Ch. 16. 1813
Now if that's the kind of tax you like, You are more than welcome to it. Seems to me that even the income tax with all of it's faults is less oppressive on the individual.
Personally I would much rather see a National Retail Sales tax, administered by the states as called for in Linder's bill.
What FreedomCalls means is that he's concerned that it isn't fair that someone who has done the right thing to save for retirement would have to pay extra just because of changing to an NRST.
It's a common concern. But you're already being double taxed on your spending today. Indeed, every single thing you buy has 20-30% invisible tax in it. In today's world, you're taxed when you earn it and taxed when you spend it on ANYTHING - even the necessities of life.
Under the nrst, only certain spending is taxed - income is never taxed. Under the nrst, there is no gift tax. Under the nrst, there is no death tax. Under the nrst, seniors do NOT have to pay anything more than they were going to pay anyway - and seniors do not have gift or estate tax.
:0)
If a purchase is made in order to produce something else, it's not a retail sale. Only retail sales to the end consumer are taxed, not purchases made along the production line.
what about paying for college tuition?
Not taxed. It's an investment.
Buying medical insurance?
taxed
Paying a doctor bill?
taxed
Yes, the nrst has zero net tax on necessities.
That'd be really great. I always buy used cars and it burns me that each time they get sold, there is a tax on them. I guess we wouldn't lose the state tax on them but it's nice to know the US wouldn't tax things over and over and over.
We have too much consumer debt so this would help people save instead of spend. Besides if manufacturing jobs are all in China, sales isn't helping our economy very much any more. It doesn't lead to new manufacturing jobs.
Actually, we do not have to repeal the 16th first. The legislation handles the "If we don't repeal the 16th first, we'll get both taxes" argument by abolishing the IRS and defunding it 2 years after the NRST is in place and requiring a 2/3 vote of both Houses of Congress to raise the tax rate or change the tax base.
HST, Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) has introduced legislation to repeal the 16th, and both NRST bills call for repeal of the 16th.
I should hope they'll slash all the many welfare programs at the same time ---otherwise I wonder how we could afford to do this. I think they could easily streamline all the many welfare programs ---put SSI, TANF, Medicaid, WIC, HUD, food stamps, CHIPS, HeadStart and all the many others in one agency --it would reduce duplication of paperwork because it's all just the same people applying for all the programs. And then eliminate all the double and triple dipping the welfare classes do ---they never give up their food stamps when they take WIC or put their kids into free government babysitting (Head Start) which also gives them free breakfasts and lunches. They need to cut all that out.
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.