Posted on 11/12/2004 9:45:11 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
>>>...there's talk of a revolutionary overhaul that could end taxes on the poor...<<<
Huh? How much do the poor pay in taxes now? Maybe he meant the middle-class....?
<><
The best thing about a national retail sales tax is that you can retire overseas tax free.
Who was the original poster?
They had better have exemptions (medicine and services) AND think this out very very very well. Remember the luxury tax just about KILLED the private boat business.
hawkiye
The best thing about a national retail sales tax is that you can retire overseas tax free.Except most other countries have a VAT.
Most of the countries I've looked at are mostly financed by income taxes. Which countries are financed mostly by VATs?
national sales tax = bigger federal government = bad idea.
Will getting "100% of their paychecks" be a new law?...I want free rent too.
They no longer have to withold nor declare their incomes (you either) hence the economy takes off.
Does that mean stockholders won't know what a company's earnings are?
I guess if no one has to declare their earnings, the Social Security checks will be like the one size fits all poverty rate rebate checks, everyone gets the same "benefit". Will the SS checks and the one size fits all poverty rate rebate checks arrive on the same day of the month?
The EU requires it's members to have a VAT of at least 15%. The UK has a 17.5% VAT. Of course they all use the correct way of expressing a VAT/RST, the tax exclusive rate.
I'm on that page also. Exempt basics from tax and get rid of the infrastructure needed to redistribute.
"....we also need to hear from the President's proposed commission on tax reform, etc before substantive moves can expected to occur."
AG, I heard from a very reliable source that there is no support on either side (D vs R) for setting up a commission. The track record for commissions in DC over the last 10 years has not been stellar, to say the least. The sentiment in congress seems to be that the idea of a commission was that congress had been sitting on this issue for years and that a commission would be a way of getting something going. It appears that congress is ready to say "OK, Mr. President, here's your 435 member commission; just give us our marching orders". One senator allegedly said that it would take two years for a commission to come up with findings and they want to move faster than that. That is very good news if congress is really serious about that.
"Such a radical shift can't possibly avoid being severely disruptive to those plans."
I would suggest that when the DJI doubles the first two years after the FairTax is implemented (as forecast by a couple of nationally known money managers), that will make it relatively easy to shift financial plans for those astute enough to adjust to the new economic environment.
Speaking of disruptive, what would happen of we allowed the current system to continue to grow like a cancer until it collapsed of its own weight? It is now more tha 60,000 pps. and at its current rate of growth will exceed 100,000 pps. by 2010 (assuming the entire system doesn't collapse before then). Signs are everywhere that the system is buckling under its own weight and complexity. Might not that be disruptive?
"Since I will still have to prepare state income tax forms, I'll still have a compliance cost."
Incorrect. Few, if any states will continue to tax income once the federal government abandons the system that state income taxes piggy-back on to.
"I do know that anyone who created a Roth IRA would be screwed, since all the money that was supposed come out tax free would now be taxed."
Anyone with their Roth money invested in stocks will see the value of their investment increase dramatically. That will more than offset any differentials in their taxes on consumption. Also, to the extent that they buy US produced goods, they will pay about what they would have under the current system. Retirement savings will fare very well under the FairTax plan.
"People would be somewhat more motivated to save their money rather than spend it, especially with a combined sales tax (in states with sales tax) that could easily approach 50%."
The definitive economic study on the FairTax, which was done by Dr. Dale Jorgenson, does show a small initial net decline in consumption. That net decline is comprised of a significant decrease in the consumption of imports partially offset by an increase in the consumption of domestically produced goods. I seem to recall that the first year net decline is about 9%. The second year the net decline is less and by about the 4th year, consumption is back up to where it would have been under the current system. Meanwhile, the economy is exploding, with GDP growth of 10.5% the first year, slightly less each subsequent year and by the time the growth levels off, the economy is between 1/4 and 1/3 larger than it would have been under a continuation of the currecnt system. Meanwhile, the dramatically increased demand for US produced goods combined with the massive migration of capital back into this country that had been stranded by the old tax system produce a period of unprecedented economic growth. We are talking about rates of GDP growth that are substantially in excess of those experienced in the 90s.
Please explain what you mean by "pps".
"If I had my way, businesses would pay no tax."
Then you should love the FairTax. The only federal taxes that businesses will pay are excises - which only account for about 4 - 5% of federal revenues.
"Please explain what you mean by 'pps'."
Pps. = Pages
Oh (yawn), that...
The NRST isn't gonna stop THAT...
You have to kill all the lawyers in DC first...
That's not going to happen.
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.