And if this policy does result in political manipulation of rates, at least the manipulation is confined to the foreign sphere, rather than on our lives as citizens. But the best way to reduce that tendency is to constitutionally restrict government's ability to raise revenue in the first place (a long-term goal, to be sure, and one which would require a lot of convincing on the part of the public), so that it would have the greatest incentive to focus on revenue, not politics.
This actually brings me to another point. You spoke of the NRST's low tax burdens resulting from people's ability to gauge it directly. Again, this is provided the tax burden isn't alleviated by inflation, or that the people don't vote in an income tax on the wealthy once again. So my suggestion to you is to back up your proposal with a proposal for a constitutional amendment to make it stick, while you still have the momentum for it. If there's support for the NRST as you say, then there should be support for an amendment as well. Five years from now, when people are demanding to soak the rich again, you may wish you had it.
My reason for supporting discriminatory tariffs remains -
You said you were after "revenue tariffs" now we are going to "discriminatory tariffs". What is the distinction that such is not the dreaded "protective tariffs" you have said your tax is not supposed to be?
provided that they are geared towards revenue considerations only, not political considerations.
How do you intend to enforce that, considering who has the authority to enact law, (i.e. CONGRESS).
And if this policy does result in political manipulation of rates, at least the manipulation is confined to the foreign sphere, rather than on our lives as citizens
We'll just manipulate that other guy's livelyhood, (i.e. importers.)
don't tax you, and
don't tax me,
We'll just tax that guy behind the tree?
Once again, How do you intend to enforce no political ramifications in implementing "discriminatory tariffs". Once the door is opened, it remains out there to be applied against all citizens. Foreigners don't pay tariffs American citizens do.
Again, this is provided the tax burden isn't alleviated by inflation,
Your suggestion? Seeing that inflation is driven ultimately by demand for largess exceeding government revenues. The point of an NRST is to provide folks with a measure of the real burden, to discourage demand for additional largess that induces the tendency towards inflationary taxes(e.g. deficit financing).
The only guarantee to attempt to deal with that problem is to support an amendment such as:
H.J.RES.22
Sponsor: Rep Istook, Ernest J., Jr. [OK-5] (introduced 2/13/2003)
Latest Major Action: 2/13/2003 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Title: Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
or that the people don't vote in an income tax on the wealthy once again. So my suggestion to you is to back up your proposal with a proposal for a constitutional amendment to make it stick,
Tells me you haven't bothered to learn the first thing about the NRST proposal, nor read the bill itself which calls for a constitutional amendment to prohibit all taxes on income, payroll, and gift estate taxes as part of putting the NRST in as a replacement to the current tax system.
It is up to you to support appropriate amendments to get the job done, ones like H.J.RES.15 which is already in committee:
H.J.RES.15
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 1/28/2003)
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.
Though it should be modified to prohibit all income, payroll, gift estate taxes as the NRST proposal H.R.25 calls for in anticipation of ultimate enactment of a bill like H.R.25.
You can be encouraging people to get behind that or a like amendment now, while encouraging the enactment of a better tax system.
,I would conjecture that it would probably be considerably higher than the 2% we've been imposing across the board,
We are already imposing your "discriminatory tariffs" now, 2% is simply the overall average of all revenues received from tariffs across all imports, many are quite high depressing selected imports while most imports have none at all.
Under the NRST all imports would be taxed, which is what you stated as desirable. However, recognize that an NRST does not prohibit tariffs or other excises. I just don't believe that they are that great a tool to achieve the ends that adherents for such taxes claim for them, they serve only to inhibit markets which is a political tool of social and economic control more than mere actions with collecting revenue in mind.
Where oil is concerned, personally I would rather use up some other nation's resources before exhausting our own. IWhen oil prices rise for more than temporary fluctuation, our own resouces will be brought on line all to soon. I see no reason to encourge premature utilization of such reserves while not needed.
But then those are merely my views of such things. I are certainly allowed to express your own. In the end it will be Congress as representatives of the American electorate that will be the determiner such things.
For now, I try to focus on specific fights that I believe will lead towards the conditions leading to a better nation. It is far too easy to spread one's self so thin demanding instant results all over the place, that nothing is achieved.