Or you could, again, not have the government pay itself and call it revenue. That would meet the requirements of the BEA just fine.
Actually it wouldn't as the BEA demands the same level of tax revenue to be produced as the law it replaces. The only way the BEA allows reduction of tax rate, is by cutting budgeted appropriations to pay for cuts in taxes collected. The liberal "pay for tax cut", game which is the driver of all this. Get rid of that game, which is the oppositions card in the hole to kill any tax reform bill, and you can get rid of government taxing itself.
But then you would have to increase the sales tax rate.
So you want to make citizens to pay more? Just to satify your sense of the fitness of things. I don't.
The reality is the tax rate would actually be able to fall if it weren't for the BEA, as the expenditure of goverment for goods and services would fall commensurate with the repeal of income and payroll taxes.
Problem is CBO static analysis methodology demanded under the BEA prohibits projecting tax rates on dynamic analysis of the economy.
And that's the whole point, isn't it. Funny accounting so hyou can sell this shell game and worry about the consequences later.
The funny accounting is imposed by political reality, as emboddied by the BEA, and which democrats use to great affect in thier attacks and tax reforms and tax cuts of any substantive kind.
I agree wholly the NRST would be much better off without government taxing itself, for the tax rate would actually end up lower, under a dynamic supply-side analysis of the economy. BEA and liberal opposition assures that will not be the route this or any other consumption tax bill will take until the day we can overcome 2/3's vote in both sides of Congress to void the revenue neutality provisions. DOA is the way the Dem caucus would like to make this bill through their BEA club. A goal you seem to share with them.
You might take a look at the list of HR25 sponsors sometime and ask yourself why you see very few democrats among the 46 co-sponsors listed. Those with a visceral opposition to this bill make up an interestingly composed caucus in Congress.
I have been trying to follow this and other threads about the NRST. While not being perfect, I believe the NRST is far better than the tax system we currently have in place.
It seems fairer, and more apparent that the current system.
It is much more efficient, cutting out over 200 billion dollars of compliance costs and reducing the number of collection points by almost 90%.
It takes away power from the legislature to social engineer taxes and aid special interest groups and returns that power to the people. Kinda like the Boston Tea Party. Do we really have a say what our Congress does now or do the lobbyists and special interest groups control that?
Taking note from Alexander Hamilton, it seems a consumption tax is a far better idea than any others so far proposed.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_21.html
....Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.
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. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, ``in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four
.'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them....
In a branch of taxation where no limits to the discretion of the government are to be found in the nature of things, the establishment of a fixed rule, not incompatible with the end, may be attended with fewer inconveniences than to leave that discretion altogether at large.
...................
What is your main argument against the NRST and are you happy with what we currently have?