Posted on 11/06/2002 1:39:57 PM PST by Tree of Liberty
Neil Cavuto just interviewed Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., the director of the OMB, and Neil let it be known that he's hearing rumblings that Pres. Bush is considering a total re-write of the tax code and that SecTreas O'Neill is strongly pushing a national retail sales tax!
I have no idea if they're remitting although I suspect most are not or are unreporting. But in any case if I tell the VA authorities about my purchases, then I don't doubt the seller will have remitted enough to cover them. For your system to work, everyone would have to report all their purchases.
Principled: "Not so Bonaparte. Compliance would be higher, and costs lower."
____________________________________________________________
Went to the link you supplied. 23% sounds about right, including the exemptions noted. (I would call that a high rate, but that's just me.) I'm aware that proponents of the NRST believe compliance will be no problem, but considering how much sales tax evasion already takes place, I'm not convinced that they're right. But, as I said, even with these drawbacks, the NRST would be a great improvement on what we have now. Personally, I wouldn't bother with rebate checks to the needy. I'd just exempt those goods that are necessities.
For your system to work, everyone would have to report all their purchases.
Wrong. The business is responsible for collecting the tax. The purchaser bears no responsibility for the actions of the business. States do a competent job of collecting sales tax and watching over it. The national retail sales tax (NRST) would be much the same.
That's the problem. "Those goods that are necessities" as defined by Hillary Clinton and Barney Frank??
First "food and housing" (politically defined). Then "clothing". Then " medical care". Then whatever Lobbyists can angle for. Exemptions and Loopholes as far as the eye can see. Pretty soon you have a "sales tax code" every bit as complex as the current monstrosity.
The monthly Rebate (roughly $200 per month TO ALL, not just the "needy") is simpler -- and vastly less vulnerable to political manipulation.
And beyond that, it's just more libertarian (in the finest sense of the word) to Rebate the excess, and let Individual Citizens decide what constitutes our "basic necessities", than for Government to define it for Us.
BTW -That leads me to a question. What hair color do they put on the drivers licenses of bald men?Your query caused me to pull out my recently renewed KY driver's license and take a close look at it.
Interesting... there's no mention of hair color. I notice they've quit listing weight also.
Being both bald and overweight, I applaud these changes :)
For your system to work, everyone would have to report all their purchases.
Not at all. The only ones held liable for collection and remittence of the tax are sellers and they are required to save copies of reciepts issued for the goods they sell. It is up to the state tax authority to administer and enforce the povisions of the tax law and perform that level of audits and checks of operating businesses necessary to assure compliance.
Nowhere, is a final purchaser of goods to report anything at all.
For one selling retail, one of the requirements is to conform to the legal requirements thereof. If not then the risks are those you take on of your own will.
" ... to ensure that no American will pay tax on necessities, the FairTax plan provides a prepaid, monthly rebate for every registered household to cover the 23% consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level. This is how the FairTax completely untaxes the poor, and lowers the tax burden on everyone else."
If the story is true and if it gets going in Congress -- well the Democratic party is history. Burnt toast, hold the butter!
You know, I've brought a lot of arguments against the NRST in my time (back when I was "Uriel1975"). I am convinced that some of my arguments are still economically-valid (such as my argument for the "purchasing advantage" that Public Sector Demand would enjoy over Private Sector Demand under an NRST); I just now think that the benefits of the NRST vastly outweigh such abstruse and hard-to-calculate "disadvantages".
One of my more economically-intricate arguments was that the NRST would "disadvantage" the Tax Free Municipal market (I think you'll remember that one, "ancient geezer")... except that the recent "bubble" in Treasury Bond prices has left Triple-A-insured Tax Free Municipals yielding more than Treasuries!! (Meaning two things: 1. my earlier argument against the NRST no longer holds any water, and 2. smart American investors should sell their taxable Treasuries to the stupid Japanese and buy Triple-A-insured Tax Free Municipals instead).
I am glad to say, however, that I never once offered the ridiculous (no offense, "Palmer") argument that under an NRST, "everyone would have to report all their purchases".
That's like saying that "under a State Sales Tax, I would have to file a form with the Statehouse every time I buy a cheeseburger from McDonalds".
Meaning no offense to anyone, it's a dumb and silly argument.
Replacing the Income Tax with an NRST would be tremendous. Absolutely FReepin' tremendous.
But GWB would have to do a lot more than that to earn a "Rushmore".
Look at the Competition, fer cryin' out loud.
On the other hand, Reagan has already earned his Rushmore.
I'd pay green money to see Teddy Roosevelt (who never did anything more than infect the Republican Party with "Progressives" -- i.e., Liberals -- and help the Warmonger Democrat Wilson get elected in 1912) get his smirking face dynamited off that block...
...and Ronald "Tear Down This Wall" Reagan carved in his stead.
No. You don't get "around" an admendment.
You repeal the admendment, as the current NRST bills state.
Without the 16th amendment, the USSC has declared several times that an income tax is unconstitutional.
The IRS may survive as a bunch of G-6 bean-counters --but i doubt it.
I care. We have to earn their votes too.
actually, no ... we don't. what do we need: 100% of the black vote, or, oh, say, 3 or 4% of the white vote? ding. that's right ... if the republicans stopped alienating white voters with their me too gay affirmative action crap, well, the blacks could vote or not and it wouldn't make any difference.
simple mathematics.
***
Whoops, sorry. I guess I should read before I reply.
no ... you should think before you reply.
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.