Posted on 04/22/2003 10:40:02 AM PDT by sheltonmac
There is an important distinction to be made concerning a "national sales tax" as proposed to replace current taxation, and the method of taxing consumption as intended by the Founding Fathers. A national sales tax would give Congress an across the board percentage of our economy by laying an internal tax, whether such revenue is needed or not. The Founder's method of taxing consumption began with an external tax on imports at our water's edge, and was extended to reach internal consumption only if external taxation were found insufficient.
It is important to study our nation's first revenue raising Act to understand the wisdom of the Framers. The Act was "... in a certain sense a second Declaration of independence; and by a coincidence which could not have been more striking or significant, it was approved by President Washington on the fourth day of July, 1789." [See, Twenty Years of Congress, James G. Blaine, 1884, Vol. 1, page 185]
Madison, in discussing this Act before Congress, clearly pointed out a very important principal of American's original tax reform package:
"...a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents."
The Act imposed taxes, not on American constituents, but on "goods wares and merchandise" imported into our Country by foreign nations, and not one dime was raised under the Act by any internal taxes. Internal taxes were frowned upon by the Founder's especially when a national revenue could be had by requiring foreign nations to pay for the privilege of doing business on American's soil!
Jefferson, in his Second Annual Message (December 15, 1802) states:
"In the department of finance it is with pleasure I inform you that the receipts of external duties for the last twelve months have exceeded those of any former year, and that the ratio of increase has been also greater than usual. This has enabled us to answer all the regular exigencies of government, to pay from the treasury in one year upward of eight millions of dollars, principal and interest, of the public debt, exclusive of upward of one million paid by the sale of bank stock, and making in the whole a reduction of nearly five millions and a half of principal; and to have now in the treasury four millions and a half of dollars, which are in a course of application to a further discharge of debt and current demands."
Imagine...all this in consequence of "external duties!"
In Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address (March 4, 1805), he points out:
"At home, fellow citizens, you best know whether we have done well or ill. The suppression of unnecessary offices, of useless establishments and expenses, enabled us to discontinue our internal taxes. These covering our land with officers, and opening our doors to their intrusions, had already begun that process of domiciliary vexation which, once entered, is scarcely to be restrained from reaching successively every article of produce and property. If among these taxes some minor ones fell which had not been inconvenient, it was because their amount would not have paid the officers who collected them, and because, if they had any merit, the state authorities might adopt them, instead of others less approved."
"The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles, is paid cheerfully by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to domestic comforts, being collected on our seaboards and frontiers only, and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens, it may be the pleasure and pride of an American to ask, "what farmer, what mechanic, what laborer, ever sees a tax-gatherer of the United States?"
The national sales tax idea would do ill to our nation as it is an internal system of taxation which ultimately increases the cost of goods manufactured on American soil; burdens the American Citizen in its collection; and, is to be paid BY the farmer, mechanic, laborer, etc. who will continue to see the intrusion of the "tax gatherer of the United States" if such a system is adopted!
It is also important to note how imposts and duties (external taxation) were successfully used to encourage domestic manufacturing and assist in building a strong industrial base. The first revenue raising Act imposed an across-the-board tax on imports which was higher for imports shipped in foreign owned foreign built vessels, and discounted the tax for imports arriving in American owned American built ships:
"a discount of ten percent on all duties imposed by this Act shall be allowed on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be imported in vessels built in the United States, and wholly the property of a citizen or citizens thereof."
This skillful use of external taxation gave American ship builders a hometown advantage and predictably resulted in America's merchant marine becoming the most powerful on the face of the planet. In addition, our national treasury was filled by foreigners paying for the privilege of doing business on American soil.
But this was when members of Congress, and those running for Office, put American interests first and would have considered NAFTA, GATT and the WTO as acts of sedition, and would have tarred and feathered those promoting such surrender of America's sovereignty.
A national sales tax plan which omits external taxation as a principal source to fill our national treasury, is in fact a surrender of national sovereignty to the advantage of foreign interests!
It is quite obvious the American People are fed up with the manner in which Congress now raises its revenue, and the system will be changed...one way or another. But if income taxation is abandoned and the Founders original tax plan is returned to, including the use of impost and duties at our water's edge as a principal means to fill our national treasury, a powerful group of international financiers and investors will have their gravy train cut off. Perhaps that is why a flat tax along with a national sales tax has been offered as "tax reform" by the establishment ... each proposal cleverly perpetuates a burdensome system of internal taxation as the principal means to raise revenue, and leaves the international gravy train in tact by not resorting to external taxation to meet the expenses of Congress as was intended by the Founders!
In closing, many of the same people who promoted the NAFTA, GATT and the WTO (the free trade crowd) are now promoting various forms of tax reform ... each proposal cleverly maintaining internal taxation as a principal means to raise a national revenue. Let us continually keep in mind the important distinction between internal and external taxation while working toward the elimination of income taxation and strive to return to the Founding Father's original tax reform package which provided the means allowing America to become the economic envy of the world.
Do I detect a reading comprehension problem or is it a problem with definitions?
Would Linder be considered "close to the legislation?
The most popular was the one introduced by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. LINDER). He is touting this as a national sales tax, and the rate he pegged within the committee was 23 percent. Upon questioning, we found out that it is not 23 percent, it was almost 30 percent, on every good and service produced in this country, prescription drugs, funeral services, everything. We talked to the Joint Committee on Taxation, which is a scientific committee, to give us expertise. They said that national sales tax, to be revenue neutral, would have to be a 59 percent rate. Is that what you are going to replace the current code with?In case you're wondering what the additional tax on wages is. "Any governent" (local,state, federal) would be a "taxable employer"(look it up) ALL government employee's wages, salaries and benefits would have a 30% tax imposed on them (paid by us)...that's a HUGE increase in the cost of government...Interesting, I asked the gentleman a question. I said, Mr. LINDER, would the national sales tax apply to wages for municipal employees? He said, Oh, no, [Page: H2274] GPO's PDF no, no, no. Then one of his staff persons poked him on the back and said, it is in the bill.
It is in the bill. So the authors do not even know what their proposal is. As the questioning developed, your municipality would have to pay the Federal Government 30 percent of their municipal wage base, because it is a service. And where would your municipalities get the money from? They would radically increase the property tax. In the City of Milwaukee, that would be a very, very bad mistake, because property taxes are relatively high.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am managing director of the Barcroft Consulting Group and I am here on behalf of the National Retail Federation. My statement reports on the findings of a study undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers ("PWC") for the National Retail Federation Foundation. I was principal author of that study, which examines the economic impact of substituting a national retail sales tax ("NRST") for the federal income tax.
Even that PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) study was improperly stated by Wilkins:
| April 11, 2000, Del Threadgill, Vice President of Taxes, J.C. Penney Company, Dallas, TX, and Chairman, National Retail Federation |
1) The required budget-neutral NRST tax rate would range from 24-65%, depending on the number of exemptions and the taxpayer compliance rate .
· a seperate Congressional Joint Economic Committee report confirms PWC's findings by estimating that a NRST rate of 19-65% would be necessary.
2) Serious economic disruptions would occur under a National Retail Sales Tax.
· the economy would be depressed for three years - with GDP down $180 billion.
· consumer spending would be depressed for eight years, with consumer purchases down $503 billion.
· up to 1.5 million American jobs would be eliminated.
· the question arises as to how many retailers and small businesses would still be around to enjoy the modest long-term benefits of a NRST?
3) A National Retail Sales Tax would redistribute the federal income tax burden from higher income to middle and low-income families.
· the purchasing power of low-income households would be down 8-14% under a NRST while high-income households would not be affected.
Obviously that would happen with a Clintonian "budget neutral" sales tax just as shown in for the JCT statements the statements of Rep. Frost(D) and other House Democratic Caucus members in the prior reply addressing the same issue above #398.
However, that is not the NRST of
H.R.25
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 01/7/2003)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
which is "revenue neutral" against current tax law, not "budget neutral" against a Clintonian wishlist projection of Democrat desires for a budget. And is the broadest based retail sales tax posible with no exemptions, and expected compliance rate similar to the income/payroll tax system in current use.
As usual your disinformation campaigns can be shown for what they are, total distortions of the actual facts.
Tell us lewislynn, if every voter is required to pay the same tax rate without exception, just who is going to support any Congress Critter with the temerity to propose a 60% tax rate on every person in the country?
Tell us lewislynn, if every voter is required to pay the same tax rate without exception, just who is going to support any Congress Critter with the temerity to propose a 60% tax rate on every person in the country?
I'm pretty sure I could go back just a few days where you posted that 71% of our income went to taxes and related...60% would be a tax cut compared to your idiocy.
I'll save you the effort:
Cost of all government state and federal, regulatory as well as taxation:
We must . . . End Tax Slavery Now; Nov '97
by Jarret B. WollsteinHOW MUCH DO YOU REALLY PAY?
According to the Tax Foundation, in 1994 the average American paid 22.4% of his or her income in federal taxes, plus 11.8% in state and local taxes - 34.2% total.
But that's just the beginning! Dr. James Payne of the University of California found that in addition to direct taxes we also pay huge, hidden taxes including:
- Compliance costs - record keeping, monies spent on tax planning, computers and software purchased to fulfill IRS requirements, etc.
- Enforcement costs - IRS audits, field investigations, service center corrections, criminal investigations, litigation, and forced collections.
- Emotional, moral and cultural costs - families forced onto welfare, time and creative energy lost figuring out how to avoid taxes, etc.
For every $1 we pay in direct taxes, we spend an additional $0.65 in compliance costs. And even that figure doesn't include the cost of import duties, license fees and other government regulations. For a typical U.S. family, the real cost of taxes and regulations is at least:
Federal taxes 22.4% of income
State & local taxes 11.8%
Compliance costs 22.2%
Regulatory costs 12.7%70.1% of your income is now consumed by government
The NRST replaces Federal Taxes 22.4% of gross family income with a 23% tax on family expenditures, and removes the federal portion attributable to income/payroll Tax Compliance Costs.
Once again your mistatements and spin catch up with you.
In case you're wondering what the additional tax on wages is. "Any governent" (local,state, federal) would be a "taxable employer"(look it up) ALL government employee's wages, salaries and benefits would have a 30% tax imposed on them (paid by us)...that's a HUGE increase in the cost of government...
And yet again your analysis fall short for falling in with a liberal misrpresentation.
In certain cases the government pays and remits the sales tax on behalf of service providers who would other wise be required to collect the sales tax from the government as being businesses doing a taxable service for government.
Thus the government becomes the "Taxable" "Employer" remitting the NRST instead of the taxable seller of services and cancels the sales tax otherwise collectable from the government and remittable to the government by that seller of services.
It is nothing more than a measure to remove the uneccesary transactions of the government paying taxes a service provider who would otherwise late just send the tax collected from the government back to the government.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.
`(12) TAXABLE EMPLOYER-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `taxable employer' includes--
`(i) any household employing domestic servants, and
`(ii) any government except for government enterprises (as defined in section 704).
`(B) EXCEPTIONS- The term `taxable employer' does not include any employer which is--
`(i) engaged in a trade or business,
`(ii) a not-for-profit organization (as defined in section 706), or
`(iii) a government enterprise (as defined in section 704).
SEC. 103. RULES RELATING TO COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE OF TAX.
- `(b) TAX TO BE REMITTED BY PURCHASER IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES-
- `(1) IN GENERAL- In the case of taxable property or services purchased outside of the United States and imported into the United States for use or consumption in the United States, the purchaser shall remit the tax imposed by section 101.
- `(2) CERTAIN WAGES OR SALARY- In the case of wages or salary paid by a taxable employer which are taxable services, the employer shall remit the tax imposed by section 101.
If you hang around these threads long enough you will certianly discover a severe reading comprehension problem on the part of one lewislynn and that math isn't his strong suit either.
Today we have and agency of the federal government, the IRS, which has the capability of destroying any one of us as it chooses. All they have to do is make an accusation against you, founded or not! Either way, when the smoke clears you will have been destroyed financially!
That goes away when H.R.25 becomes the law of the land! No small thing if you ask me!
Workman's comp is precisely where they are saving. In Florida, WC for the construction industry runs at over 50% of payroll and that's not chicken feed. And there is no deep doodoo, injuries for the illegals are handled by you and me as taxpayers - they know the risks and gladly take them for the money.
LetsRok: "The reason a national sales tax will never work is that it takes the power away from legislatures."
So does, not being re-elected by displeasing your constitutents by not enacting a law they demand.
A Congress Critter without a seat in Congress is a pitiful creature indeed.
tberry: Exactly!! Not only the power to give influence but also the power to control money and the support of their projects as they see fit.
Not much influence, power to control money or project to see fit, when someone else who heeds a constuencies demands for tax reform.
They will never voluntarily give away their "Golden Egg." You will note that whatever tax is mentioned, it is always required to be "revenue neutral."
You would have Congress violate the Budget Enforcement Act, demanded by conservatives to force budget discipine?
Revenue neutral just means you must repeal programs, to enact tax reduction. Better get busy on your Congress Critter to repeal and cut programs if you want lower tax rates.
They won't care what it looks like as long as they can manipulate it. Right now the Sales Tax is presented as returning money to the poor.
Wrong, it returns tax money to everyone, an effective tax cut that does not violate the Budget Enforcement Act, and thus provides a means to enable enactment and still provides the same revenue paid into the treasury as current law.
The average family currently pays 23% of your gross income in total federal taxes. Under the NRST of 23% of consumption expenditure of families.
The FCA is is a tax pay back to all Americans without any qualification otherthan being a legal resident. The same amount is paid to each and every American lowering the effective taxrate to much less than the apparent 23% of the bill.
What will keep them from returning money to whomever they please to give favor just as they do today? Nothing!!
Who else is left to return the money to after every single resident already receives the same amount as a return of taxes?
I don't believe the right to tax and control our money and the resultant power will ever be voluntarily given up.
Ever hear of elections? Its up to you to work to remove the Congress Critter in you district that is not doing the job you expect of him. The power is yours, to remove em. They have nothing when someone else, who listens to the electorate, holds the office.
Your powers to exercise they have no contol over, the soap box and ballot and jury boxes. I suggest you start participating instead of acting like a peon an slave.
As long as you believe you are a slave, you will be treated that way by the incumbent Congress Critters. It's all up to you to make the change and throw off the shackles you have placed on yourself.
Nasty and unnecessary) what is your evidence that people would not be paying more, if such conditions did not exist with the higher costs of doing business your statement implies.
OK, let me put it this way - what makes you think we are getting a savings. That's a really good debate technique - but you know, and I know that you do, home prices, and food prices have not come down in proprtion to the savings the employers have gotten from the working of non-taxed illegal aliens.
You said that repeal of the income tax would bring prices down and even with a 23 to 30% added tax, the prices would remain the same. My question, why has prices not gone down any with the savings the employers are realizing from un-taxed labor in those two industries? Surely we should see some - just a teeny bit - now personally, you see I don't buy the whole argument - but if it is true - then I want to know why some savings has not been realized. WE have millions, literally, millions working in this country today producing things that are not paying payroll taxes and at the same time are getting paid less than their counterpart American was making - why hasn't that been passed along to us - you know it hasn't.
Ok, now fair is in the eye of the beholder. You see those getting the government goodies right now feel that taxing others into poverty so they can get their check is totally fair - and by the way, so do the politicians.
It is a necessity to them, it assures that government does not take from that which is necessary to survival.
That sounds just too much like a liberal to me. What exactly is necessary to survive? That's a little subjective, don't you think. That almost sounds like 'they want to put you old folks out on the street'.
Who is that? If they don't feel the need for support, they have that which beyond the necessary to their survival. No reason for such folks to ever feel "need for government support" ever. The FCA in such case is merely available to them compensating overpayment of taxes taken from them.
Do you remember when the elderly didn't depend on SS? I do. Do you remember America before the Great Society? I do. Hordes of people were not starving and dying from lack of medical care. WE had fewer, by necessity, homeless people than we do now. There was no reason for these people to feel the need for government support ever - but once the checks started coming in - somehow the 'need' grew. That is human nature - you can't discount that. For the survival level folks, that FCA makes the difference beween being literally being taxed to death and survival.
With scaremongering statements like that you are certainly going to get the democrat vote. They couldn't have written it better.
You are a mind reader and clairvoyant now? Gee such capacity and talent
Again, that was nasty and uncalled for - just tell me why it wouldn't. My opinion is based on history of this country for the past 40 years - all you have to do is look back and see what has happened. I don't know your age - but I assumed from your ID, you are not a spring chicken, either - so you know the devastation to this country caused by government dependency and by people even seemingly independent people sucking up to the government trough and how it breaks down your independence. You have to pay attention to the every little whim and whisper from politicians for fear they are going to take your goodies from you. Do you want more and more people to feel that way? I don't.
Now no, I won't be affected to the point of feeling a dependence on the government - but I will be dependent on the largesse of the fathers in Washington when I reach 65 and that part of my husband's retirement package of supplying part of our health insurance changes to a medicare supplement. I didn't plan this - I didn't cause it. It came about because the government took money from me and began buying votes and power with my money. They began to support millions of people with my money - as a result I couldn't save and the price of health insurance went so high - no one can actually afford it. That isn't going to change with the change in the way they collect revenue. But I won't live long enough to feel 'beholden' to them. Will the next generation? Some will - will their children - even more of them. That is not what I want.
Now I am not being condescending and I don't want to protect anyone from themselves - you may just be confusing my political stand and yours. I want to protect this country. Would you honestly be in favor of handing out goodies to people if you knew they would become addicted to government money? And if you look at history - you know it will be. But it is so pious to say you are just wanting this tax bill because you want America to thrive and get the government off people's back, etc, and yet my fear that you are actually putting a leash on Americans is unfounded and condescending - now that's is really convoluted thinking. We are both discussing doing what we think is best for this country and its people. I have believed that you are actually arguing from that standpoint - but when people have to resort to such a vicious, untrue, insulting form of debate - then I begin to wonder - am I bringing out some good points and you have none to counter.
Now if you don't think this will make more dependence - you haven't looked at our history and the destruction monthly checks have caused - not just to the taxpayers, but to the makeup of this country. It is there for all to see. Now you can say, if that is how you feel, that the addiction or acceptance of government money for a vaster portion of the American people is a small price to pay to get this bill passed - then say so. That is all you have to do. Personally, I think it is too high a price to pay. Therein lies our differences.
I slept on it and I still think it is a bad idea - as for an idea - I put mine across - smaller taxes and everyone pay. NOw please do not tell me that people are going to starve because of it. WE are not eliminating all the other government programs - we aren't putting them out on the streets - for goodness sakes.
We do need tax reform - badly. A sales tax sounds like a good way. You say you don't want to starve a segment of the population and I don't want to enslave them. To me, that is the long and short of it. The scare tactics of starvation is just not real. No one has starved in this country for many years. Any starvation would not be because they were paying 10 to 15% more for their purchases - just won't happen and that old 'starve the babies - put the older folks on the street' is just over the top. Now the idea that people will get addicted to government checks has it's proof in our history - starvation of the masses does not.
To me putting a Republican in office just because he/she is Republican has no merit. Creating a system to make people dependent on the government in order to get a bill passed has no merit. I do subscribe to the half-a-loaf theory - but only if the half we get isn't moldy. Do I think the politicians would pass an across the board sales tax? No. I don't think they will pass this even with the rebate, unless they see some gimmick in it for them. They might get reelected for one term based on their vote - maybe two - after that it will fade. There must be something in it for them or the government.
Now I think we have talked this to death and have gotten nowhere - so I will say I hope you really do have the best interests of this country uppermost in your mind - I do. We just feel the best interest lies in different directions. Only time will tell. My idea would not cripple this nation and would starve no one (that's just political rhetoric) - your way has some very bad possibilities, probabilities.
I want income tax gone - I want freedom - more freedom - not less.
OK, let me put it this way - what makes you think we are getting a savings.
The costs to the supplier are lower than they would be without the actions you claim.
The consumer has only a certain amount of dollars with which to purchase goods and services he desires. The consumer allocates dollars to pay for goods up to his expenditure limit and makes choices on where he goes and what he purchases based on his resources not what some company in compitition of those dollars would like to get away with.
When the consumer runs out of dollars to spend for his needs. The seller goes without a sale.
The dollars are being competed for among many goods and service, not just house builder vs house builder, import goods vs domestic.
Money has to be spent on food, clothing, housing, entertainment ... the competition is across the board.
A seller that does not try to provide a fair opportunity to the consumer to purchase loses the sale to someone or something else the cusumer finds more useful or better bargain for his available resources.
You said that repeal of the income tax would bring prices down and even with a 23 to 30% added tax, the prices would remain the same.
My question, why has prices not gone down any with the savings the employers are realizing from un-taxed labor in those two industries?
Dollars available for (consumption + tax) did not change allowing business to sustain the price on goods.
Prices are what the market will allocate resource for. A given supply of dollars can only be allocated for those goods and services the customer perceives being able to purchase.
A change in tax method does not change the volume of dollars that can be applied by the consumer to purchase of goods, services with constant taxes. The shelf price must adjust, to (tax + price) equal to consumer dollars available or a business goes without a sale.
Business has no choice but to adjust prices to accomodate a fixed profit margin, where the volume of consumer dollars is unchanged or consumer estimate of value of a particular good remains fixed. If a business jumps price and the consumer does not perceive he has the dollars to expend for that item in lieu of other thing he might need, that business does not make a sale.
I do like the idea of a sales tax (I think). You know my feelings on the other.
But you say competition will bring prices down - and, in theory, it should. But when you consider that Wal-Mart is the largest retailer in the world - they can or do not need to do anything to their prices to remain right where they are. Many, many things in Wal Mart can be purchased cheaper in a grocery store, dollar store, etc. - but folks still buy in Wal Mart - why because they think it is cheaper - they are already there and they just buy everything there. We have seen K Mart decline and I don't see Target growing at least down here - so there is little competition for Wal Mart. We are not talking about the good ole days when people had many outlets to make their choice. So the theory is good - but I do not believe all factors have been considered. There just isn't that much competition. How will this force Wal Mart to do or not do anything? It won't. Now knowing WAl Mart's history - I personally think Wal Mart will reduce it's prices to below the added tax, and tout that big time for about a year or two years. When everyone else is out of business - no competition - charge any price you like. Now I am not saying that is wrong or that something should be done - I am just stating facts. Do you know how many people in this country buy everything from medicene, food, clothing, tires, toiletries - everything at Wal Mart. Has anyone factored in the actual business climate out here.
Just talk real language and real instances - not theories. Show me exactly how John and Suzy Public are going to fair under this. Start with where we are now and show me how they are going to force Wal Mart to bring their prices down. It could happen - but only because it must happen. Show me how Mr. and Mrs. Public make that happen.
There are other reasons to replace the income tax with a National Retail Sales Tax and abolish the IRS, but FReedom is the main reason.
“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” [Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800.]
Click here to help us scrap the Code, scrap the IRS and abolish the VLWC!
You can also click here to sign a petition in support of Fundamental Tax Replacement.
We will never be a truly FRee people so long as we have the income tax and the IRS.
I don't think they will pass this even with the rebate, unless they see some gimmick in it for them. They might get reelected for one term based on their vote - maybe two - after that it will fade. There must be something in it for them or the government.
***
I want income tax gone - I want freedom - more freedom - not less.
Have fun resolving your want, with political reality.
The options:
1) Repeal of all income and payroll taxes abolishing reporting of family financial condition. NRST with voluntary FCA(not rebate) or equivalent politically acceptable discounting mechanism which provides freedom of financial privacy. If the choice is exercised to accept the FCA, only the mail address for persons receiving the FCA is know to the government.
2) Some income based tax whether the current system or some "Flat" income tax system, involving reporting family financial information with details of all household members. Ginving such information to government is mandatory and not a choice for the taxpayer.
3) A EU style VAT or hidden tax that provides minimal visibility of government imposed burdens. No accountability for the cost of government growth.
Pick your poison, there are no other politically viable directions to go from where we are now.
Now you are giving me quotes from economic books again - give it to me in plain and simple language
Wrong, that is directly from my analysis of the situation, not a "quote from economic books".
Where there is a fixed pot of dollars available from which to pay taxes plus buy products, there is no room for companies to arbitrarily increase the total payment for goods.
Changing methods of taxation does not change the total pool of dollars chasing goods. Who the tax is reported to is the only possible change that can occur.
For the NRST the total burden of government tax is reported to the customer(i.e citizen) at time of purchase of products.
For an income tax system, that reporting of taxes is split between businesses and citizens where business pass down taxes to the consumer hidden in price, and citizen only perceives that portion in income tax statements filed with government by him and not what what he pays in the products purchased.
You pick the way you want. Clear and simple NRST, or some unmeasureable burden hidden from your direct view as a citizen under business tax based systems.
If you don't get, you are the kind of folks Congress Critters love to play shell games with. Hope you find the pea someday before you lose your shirt.
First, why are these the only two options - why not a national sales tax at a much lower rate and all participate. You know there is nothing like being a taxpayer to make you feel you have a stake in this country. I think it would be positive - very positive. There is just no need for an rebate FCA (don't know what that is) - none. Without the 'return' of monies the rate could be much lower -just in terms of monies returned also in terms of taking care of the 'requests' and cutting the checks.
Now there is just no way the 'starving babies- elderly in the streets' scenario should even be mentioned. I know it would be by the democrats - but certainly not by a Republican or a conservative - not necessarily the same animals these days.
You do realize that the 'wascally wepublicans' haven't starved a child in years nor have we put the elderly on the ice flow either. That is rhetoric - much like 'President Reagan says ketchup is a vegetable'. REally sounds like a democrat who once chastized me for being anti-abortion and said, "Republicans want the babies born, they just want to starve them afterward." Very mean-spirited, unnecessary, and totally untrue. So is the remark that people will starve if we institute a much lower rate and across the board. We don't starve people in this country - the spector just gets resurrected often for political gain.
First I have to know who you think will be deprived of their very survival if an across the board tax is instituted. Maybe we are not on the same wavelength here. What group? An income group? and if so, what income?
Wow!! I am misinformed - I thought this was supposed to release more dollars to the consumer and spur economic growth. Truly, I thought that was it. So this will only change the way we are taxed - no savings - no more monies for individuals - so of course, prices must by necessity come down - I see that. Again, I have totally misunderstood the propsition.
Now to go one further on your x amounts of dollars chasing goods - many times prices have gone up on everything and Americans have had to make the choice of buying necessities or luxuries. In that case, luxuries might get cheaper - to those that can afford it - but necessitities will trump the day for many.
You pick the way you want. Clear and simple NRST, or some unmeasureable burden hidden from your direct view as a citizen under business tax based systems.
Nope, I have proposed a better plan and a fairer plan and a plan that is totally non-intrusive - but you have dismissed that out of hand as politically incorrect or unfeasible. Even going to far as to say it will rob people of their every survival. Now would my plan get through congress - a big NO - will yours get through congress - a possibility - if the politicians see the benefit of having more and more people depending on the government. There would be many more ways to assure no one starves due to a 10 to 15% sales tax than putting everyone on the government money train.
If you don't get, you are the kind of folks Congress Critters love to play shell games with. Hope you find the pea someday before you lose your shirt.
They already have my shirt - now they are after my independence. But no, you see, I put no stock whatsoever in politicians and I don't tout political agendas. Now, of course, I would say that if you do not get the fact that each and every household receiving monies from the federal government each and every month will not produce a large number of dependent households, whether in reality or in mind - you are the kind the oppressive politicians love to use to spread their agenda.
I am going to out on a limb and say that I think you really do want better for this country and its people. Also, it seems you have worked long and hard to come up with that something. YOu started with a good idea and was forced to accept the reality put forth by the politicians. Now since you have worked so long and hard and do seem to be very involved in it, you feel that it is in fact, a victory as it is a half-a-loaf. I am just asking that you take a step back and look at it in terms of future generations - and see if you are not just trading one evil for an even worse evil. Perhaps it will have gotten the income tax off the backs of Americans - but instead it put all Americans on the federal leash. It is half-a-loaf or maybe in your eyes 3/4-a-loaf - but is the loaf that is left palatable. For me, it isn't.
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.