Posted on 04/01/2002 7:30:00 AM PST by Xenalyte
I was thinking along the lines of between ~450-133 BC, between the time when the Romans first began codifying their laws, and the period of unrest beginning with th murder of Tiberias.
It was during that period when Rome began to occupy a position somewhat comparable to our own, and thus forms a reasonable basis for comparison.
(See here, for one timeline example).
But is there a down side?
As compared to the income/payroll tax system we have today?
Yes! for politicians. If retail sales tax is implemented as an across the board replacement the real burden of the tax system we live under would become apparent to everyone, even the welfare folks that don't perceive the burdens laid on them today.
An enlightening article on that score covers the mechanism on how the current Federal tax system propagates and is embedded into consumption expenditure:
DO YOU PAY YOUR INCOME TAX
AT THE SUPERMARKET?
by D. Sherman Cox J.D. L.L.M. Taxation
The total contribution of the federal tax system(including taxes in gross wage/salaries) to the price of retail consumption goods and services is 36% for federal taxes alone. Wages and the taxes on them are paid for out of sales receipts to business,(i.e. consumption expenditure). If we add in the cost of compliance of more than $600billion/year, the percentage that truely represents the burden on the family due to the Federal income payroll tax system increases to about a 47% of family consumption expenditures.
Tax as % of current family retail expenditure = fed/(1-state-fed-savings) =
23.5/(1-.235-0.102-0.012) = 36.09%
Current total Federal tax revenues are about $1,900 billion, by a very conservative estimate more than $600 billion (Paine '97, Pilla '95, AGCCA 2000, Williams 2000) additional dollars are passed on in consumption prices due to the business costs of complying with the federal income/payroll tax laws.
Percent total current federal burden (taxes + compliance costs) of consumption dollars = 36*(1900+600)/1900 = 47.36% as passed through consumption prices.
Reduce the taxes on business and simplify them in any way possible ultimately means a lower prices and higher standard of living for all citizens.
Under a National Retail Sales Tax, (NRST) nearly all those costs would disappear, the taxes immediately paid by businesses would be bannished from the shelf price of goods and services for a solid benefit of a 20-30% decrease in shelf prices. The best statistics I have seen suggest around a 22% decrease in retail shelfprices, which, with the NRST in place, would not significantly change the total amount one pays for a basket of goods.
That means we would see a net expansion of dollars availble in the form of the difference between what folks see as takehome pay now and the gross pay they would receive without Tax witholding & SS/Mediscare payroll taxes.
So is there a downside citizen? You tell me. I haven't been able to discern one especially when one considers the advance in liberty and financial privacy that a retail sales tax provides to individuals.
This doesn't mean I have to become a libertarian, does it?
Nope, not unless yah want to :O) Legislation has already been proposed and just needs a solid show of citizen support behind it.
Billy Tauzin offers one solution, a 15% retail sales tax that replaces all income taxes but doesn't touch SS/Mediscare payroll taxes, that comes close to meeting the essentials of what it takes to reverse trend?:
H.R.2717
Sponsor: Rep Tauzin, W. J. (Billy)(introduced 8/2/2001)
Title: To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity for families by repealing the income tax, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
John Linder (R Texas) offers a more comprehensive bill to kill all income and payroll taxes outright, and provide a revenue neutral replacement:
H.R.2525
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 07/17/2001)
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
Other bills, moving in the proper direction are:
To get the ball rolling and focus Congress Critter's attention:
H.R.2714
Sponsor: Rep Largent, Steve(introduced 8/2/2001)
Title: To terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
A bill to prohibit he imposition of any tax by the Internal Revenue Code: (1) for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2005.
the modification then enactment and ratification of:
H.J.RES.45
Sponsor: (introduced 4/25/2001)
Latest Major Action: 5/9/2001 Referred to House subcommitte.
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the Untied States Government from engaging in the business in competition with its citizens.
(Modified to prohibit all income, payroll, gift estate taxes as HR2525 calls for, or we will see European VAT style hidden taxes along with payroll excises to take over in the place of the of the current individual income tax(i.e. personal income tax) that Ron Paul amendment prohibits.)
And to keep em reminded that there is indeed a Constitution to pay attention to:
H.R.175
Sponsor: (introduced 1/3/2001)
Latest Major Action: 2/12/2001 Referred to House subcommittee
Title: To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.
But I don't think it should be replaced with anything. Except, possibly, a high and uniform revenue tariff.
Tariffs currently make up about 5% of total Federal Revenues. People buying foreign goods pay the tariffs. How fast do you want to shut down foreign trade? Who do you figure is going to support such a measure seeing that there is some serious impediment standing in your way, namely 70% of the voting public clamoring for more from government or do you figure on joining the 70% pushing for bigger government.
Representation without taxation is the formula that got us where we are at today. The ability to hide or disguise taxation from the view of large sectors of the electorate allows the Congress to get away with the creation of the evergrowing monster that it fosters.
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
Liberty and freedom have a price, responsibility. If that price is avoided there are no brakes on the growth of government, the ultimate result is the end of freedom through creeping socialism.
Reprobate? LOL
I don't want to, of course.
"Who do you figure is going to support such a measure seeing that there is some serious impediment standing in your way, namely 70% of the voting public clamoring for more from government or do you figure on joining the 70% pushing for bigger government."
Seems to me the NRST bears the same burden.
"Representation without taxation is the formula that got us where we are at today."
Perhaps. A fixed fee to be paid at the polling place would be a much more simple and direct way to address that problem. Or perhaps instead of a tax, a cash reward for not voting would be better.
"The ability to hide or disguise taxation from the view of large sectors of the electorate allows the Congress to get away with the creation of the evergrowing monster that it fosters."
I disagree. One part of the population is very much aware that it pays heavy taxes. One part is very much aware that it does not.
"Liberty and freedom have a price, responsibility. If that price is avoided there are no brakes on the growth of government, the ultimate result is the end of freedom through creeping socialism."
Sure, but I'm not sure what your point is re tax reform.
A fixed fee to be paid at the polling place would be a much more simple
A look at the 26 amendment, kills that one.
AMENDMENT XXIV
Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.
One part of the population is very much aware that it pays heavy taxes. One part is very much aware that it does not.
They outvote us at present precisely because of the ability of Congress to play shell games with the tax burden:
Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000
According to the most recent U.S. Treasury Department figures, in 1997 the top 1 percent of income-earners (those with income of $250,000 and higher) paid 33 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of income-earners ($108,000 and over) paid 52 percent, and the top 50 percent ($36,000 and over) paid 96 percent of income taxes. Guess what the bottom 50 percent of income earners paid?
If you're among those who pay little or no federal income taxes, what do you care about tax cuts? Moreover, if you think tax cuts pose a threat to government handout programs, you might be openly hostile and support Al Gore's silly "risky scheme" talk. So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?
but I'm not sure what your point is re tax reform.
Until a majority of the voting electorate perceives the true burden of taxation in this country, we will be continued to saddled with growing government the the most basic political maxim of them all:
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
Right now we seem to be a bit shy of the mark when 70% of the voting public is clamoring for more from government looking for the top 40% of income earners to foot the bill.
An NRST which is a single stage single rate tax on the retail sale all new goods and services makes sure the electorate preceive the real cost of their goodies.
That is the function of the NRST, even putting aside the basic moral reasons laid out by Alan Keyes for considering such a tax:
Alan Keyes: the income tax a slave tax that should be abolished as a moral imperative, and replaced with a National Sales Tax:
Keyes on Taxes & Government Spending:
- "The income tax in effect makes us vassals to the government – the politicians decide how much income we can keep. No mere “reform” of this slave tax, such as flattening the rate, can correct its fundamental denial of control over our own money. Only the abolition of the income tax itself will restore the basic American principle that our income is both our own money and our own private business - not the government's."
- "Replacing the income tax with a national sales tax would rejuvenate independence and responsibility in our citizens. True economic liberty and moral revival go hand in hand."
- "A national sales tax would also put the American citizen back in control of national fiscal policy. The best way to curtail government spending is to cut taxes, because they can’t spend what they don’t get. But with a sales tax, we could deny funds to a spendthrift government – and give ourselves a tax cut – whenever we make the private choice to alter our spending and saving habits."
Alan Keyes Interview with Des Moines Register:
- Conservative commentator Alan Keyes said Thursday one of the first things he would do as president would be to replace the federal income tax with a national sales tax.
- The Republican presidential candidate said he favors a national sales tax of about 23 percent that would also replace the payroll tax that pays for Social Security.
The intent of the structure of the individual income tax is for political and social control not revenue collection. The Individual Income tax is maintained to establish and hold every person in the country perpetual legal jeopardy.
Seems to me the NRST bears the same burden.
The key is to educate people to the alternatives. Moving 20%+1 of those 70% back in favor of less government will turn the tide of where we are going as far as size of government, a visible tax reaching the full economic strata of voters can accomplish that.
However, to enact legislation such as the NRST takes far less when there is a determined plurality, especially when they also happen to control the pursestrings to campaigns and candidates. Doesn't take all that many determined voices persistently pounding on Congress Critters, reminding them of which side their bread is buttered on (that 40% of income earners paying the freight) to turn the trick on legislation.
Just a few persistent folks can make for big change if they are determined to do so. It mainly requires a very squeaky hinge to get the oiling done.
The bills are already out there, its up to us to be pushing the agenda. Silence just means nothing will happen on any front.
Here are the bills written and introduced for you. What are you standing around waiting for someone else to act for?
Billy Tauzin offers one solution, a 15% retail sales tax that replaces all income taxes but doesn't touch SS/Mediscare payroll taxes, that comes close to meeting the essentials of what it takes to reverse trend?:
H.R.2717
Sponsor: Rep Tauzin, W. J. (Billy)(introduced 8/2/2001)
Title: To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity for families by repealing the income tax, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.John Linder (R Texas) offers a more comprehensive bill to kill all income and payroll taxes outright, and provide a revenue neutral replacement:
H.R.2525
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 07/17/2001)
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
I grant it is not likely to happen right away, but there are advocates for the NRST within the administration's cabinet and advisors when the time is ready for a push in that direction.
The key is hold on to the House, and get the Senate back. After that anything is possible. There is support on both sides of the political aisle for this kind of change, not enough to get past a filibuster yet, but even that can come with time and a decent makeup in the Senate.
Thing is, are you willing to push and take the time to educate yourself and your collegues and friends on these bills or are you going to sit back and expect others to pull the wagon.
Well sure. So pay them to not vote, instead. That would probably be more effective anyway, very palatable to the parasites.
"They outvote us at present precisely because of the ability of Congress to play shell games with the tax burden."
They ouvote us because the franchise is universal.
"Until a majority of the voting electorate perceives the true burden of taxation in this country, we will be continued to saddled with growing government the the most basic political maxim of them all"
What is this "true burden"? Can the parasites be made to understand it?
Why do you think the parasites will ever vote to tax the things they consume?
"The intent of the structure of the individual income tax is for political and social control not revenue collection. The Individual Income tax is maintained to establish and hold every person in the country perpetual legal jeopardy."
Agreed -- and Keyes is certainly right about the income tax being a slave tax.
What is this "true burden"? Can the parasites be made to understand it?
Yah, by tacking on a tax 30% tax on top of the shelf price of their beer when they spend that welfare money at the retail counter and collect it on all groceries, medicines, baby's diapers, doctors visits, and that branny new cadillac they like to sport out front.
Figure it out, 23% of the total payment for new goods and services, is 30% tacked on to retail price.
That is the Visibility of an NRST instead of what is done now, which is half hidden or pretends to be an insurance or pention contribution, or tax levied on a business hidden in price never to be seen.
Why do you think the parasites will ever vote to tax the things they consume?
First: parasites don't vote for bills, other than those Congress Critters looking for campaign contributions.
Second: more than 51% of us aren't parasites and it doesn't take 51% to push a Congress Critter, just a determined 5% or less yelling in their ears to make sure they hear no campaign contributions if they don't pass the bill.
Third: The other parasites like money, everyone rich and poor receive a prepayment of NRST on the povertylevel of consumption, based solely on household size. Everyone gets the money, but everyone also pays the full retail tax rate on all new goods and services, NO EXCEPTIONS, NO EXEMPTIONS. The key is perception of paying the tax everytime any individual buys something new.
The tax pre-payment is called a Family Consumption Allowence (FCA) and serves the same function as the personal exemption of the income tax system plus an additional function of removing the reason for exempting some products from being taxed. The difference is you get it at the beginning of each month and get to give it back in the form of NRST charged at the retail register when you're out spending your ill gotten gains. PARASITES spend all their money, OTOH it could be used it to enhance personal savings and investment instead of paying taxes with it by those who do not spend all they receive.
Business/production related purchases are not taxed under the NRST, and Only an endpoint retail sale is taxed.
Retail Businesses understand the advantages not having to compute and plan for income/payroll taxes and the lesser cost of compliance associated with collecting and remitting retail sales taxes over the current system of taxes.
Other Businesses pay no NRST on their business purchases and with income & payroll taxes out of the picture a business can concentrate on production and making a profit instead of how to outsmart the IRS.
He who controls the gold, makes the rules in campaigns. You just have to make yourself heard and make sure that business knows which side their bread is buttered.
PARASITES don't fund campaigns.
Maybe it was wording to that effect. Whatever. It's a correct statement whoever said it.
One could fairly say that the Roman Republic lasted (depending on definitions) between 210 and 314 years, total.
The traditional dating used in Roman history, AUC, ab urbe condite, did not define the Republic, and included also monarchy, oligarchy, and occasionally dictatorship.
The Republic is usually deemed to have started after Cincinnatus, considered to be the father of HIS country, refused the dictatorship for the second time.
To the NEA: Quo usque tandem abutere, ani, patientia nostra?
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.