Posted on 02/01/2004 4:31:37 PM PST by Voice in your head
"You forgot the FAA, which is currently in the Dept. of Transportation."
I wrote to eliminate the whole department. That would include the FAA.
Excise taxes and auctions. Tax alcohol, tobacco, recreational drugs, lottery winnings, and pornography, to start off. Sell all federal lands that are not needed for government infrastructure. Sell all infrastructure not within the bounds of limited government. Income taxes account for about half of federal revenue. If the changes outlined in this thread were to happen, then the budget would shrink by at least half.
I am a Constitutionist or minarchist. We need a limited govt as described by the Constitution. It needs some money to get the job done.
As to sin taxes vs tariffs:
(1) you define sinful substances as alcohol, tobacco and porn. OK....problem is the defintion of sin will change. Are you a religious person? In a few years maybe churches become non gratia. Like your SUV or pickup? Lot of people don't. Can't forget firearms and ammo....can't ban them due to that pesky 2nd but they can sure tax them into oblivion.
Further, taxing only a portion of the population for govt services all will benefit from is immoral. That is cost shifting and is no different from the welfare costs the productive currently bear to support the non producers.
(2) yes tariffs are a tax. It is a cost which will be added to the price of that particular item and is therefore a user tax. That makes it fair (fair based on the assumption that some minimal level of govt is required).
Regards
J.R.
I'll hit on something that I should have hit on in the previous post - I do not advocate "sin taxes". It just happens that advocates of sin taxes favor taxing certain items and I think that those choices of items make sense. But, I do not base my opinion of what items should be taxed upon some religious or other busy-body/do-gooder type of viewpoint. I favor a tax system in which you can choose to not pay, or to pay much less, without significantly altering your lifestyle. Alcohol, tobacco, etc are abundantly produced and consumed and make for a reliable source of revenue, but if people choose to stop purchasing them, to avoid taxation, then those people's lives will not significantly change. It makes more sense than taxing baby formula or sugar and it makes more sense than charging tariffs on steel and oil. I think that to tax the most unnecessary of items is most in line with promoting the general welfare.
Also, I think that tariffs are the worst type of taxation, because of their unintended consequences: retaliatory tariffs and increased lobbying by American businesses who want tariffs on their foreign competitors, to compensate for their substandard performance.
Tariffs cannot be ruled out, because they may be necessary, but I do not think that they should be the first or only option. If we do need to impose tariffs for additional revenue, then the careful selection of which products to impose tariffs on should be based upon the following criteria:
1) the importance of the product to the average American's lifestyle (the lower, the better)
2) the cost of collecting the tax versus the revenue collected (most efficient)
3) the effects upon the overall economy (least negatively)
4) the degree to which the tariff impacts upon the prices of similar products in the US (less impact, the better)
Those criteria seem to be most in line with promoting the general welfare, in my opinion.
The most ideal items to impose tariffs on would be on those items that are distinctive by virtue of only being made in foreign countries, such as Persian rugs, French Champagne, collectible items from Saddam's Palaces, etc.
"Further, taxing only a portion of the population for govt services all will benefit from is immoral. That is cost shifting and is no different from the welfare costs the productive currently bear to support the non producers."
How do we avoid this? There will always be the "buy American" crowd and there will always be a lower class. Tariffs will not result in those groups paying taxes.
"(2) yes tariffs are a tax. It is a cost which will be added to the price of that particular item and is therefore a user tax. That makes it fair (fair based on the assumption that some minimal level of govt is required)."
Fair does not equal best, because there are many methods of fair taxation. I think that my proposal is fair, because it is voluntary even within the context of a normal life, and it is better than imposing tariffs.
In regards to user taxes, I think that the best form of charging users is to have a user fee. For example, if you copyright an invention, then you pay the associated administrative fees; if you are in immigrant applying for a Visa or citizenship, then you pay the associated administrative fees; etc.
A moral judgement on your part.
Alcohol, tobacco, etc are abundantly produced and consumed and make for a reliable source of revenue, but if people choose to stop purchasing them, to avoid taxation, then those people's lives will not significantly change
Another moral judgement. You also seem to be aware that when the tax on these "unnecessary"items becomes too high the tax revenue will go down. People will either quit using the items or the black market will step in. Your plan will not provide enough revenue for a limited fedgov.
As to tariffs, the US enjoyed its greatest prosperity from the end of WW2 to the mid 70's. That with tariffs averaging 24% and total foreign trade below 14% of GNP.
Regards
J.R.
No. It is my interpretation of the preamble to the constitution. As I said, assuming that some taxes are necessary, "I think that to tax the most unnecessary of items is most in line with promoting the general welfare."
"You also seem to be aware that when the tax on these 'unnecessary' items becomes too high the tax revenue will go down. People will either quit using the items or the black market will step in."
Right. That is why care should be taken to not levy taxes that are so high that they encourage such behavior.
"Your plan will not provide enough revenue for a limited fedgov."
So far, this is what I've put forth as a potential plan in this fantasy limited government:
"Tax alcohol, tobacco, recreational drugs, lottery winnings, and pornography, to start off. Sell all federal lands that are not needed for government infrastructure. Sell all infrastructure not within the bounds of limited government."
"...I think that the best form of charging users is to have a user fee. For example, if you copyright an invention, then you pay the associated administrative fees; if you are in immigrant applying for a Visa or citizenship, then you pay the associated administrative fees..."
"Tariffs cannot be ruled out, because they may be necessary, but I do not think that they should be the first or only option. If we do need to impose tariffs for additional revenue, then the careful selection of which products to impose tariffs on should be based upon the following criteria:
1) the importance of the product to the average American's lifestyle (the lower, the better)
2) the cost of collecting the tax versus the revenue collected (most efficient)
3) the effects upon the overall economy (least negatively)
4) the degree to which the tariff impacts upon the prices of similar products in the US (less impact, the better)"
"As to tariffs, the US enjoyed its greatest prosperity from the end of WW2 to the mid 70's. That with tariffs averaging 24% and total foreign trade below 14% of GNP."
What's the point? Tariffs lead to prosperity? Prosperity can co-exist with tariffs? Something else?
I'm not sure what you're asking. I think that some taxes are necessary, so the government must determine what to tax. Since our government was established, in part, to promote the general welfare, and since taxes are only destructive, then the choice of what to tax should be based, in large part, on what least detracts from the general welfare.
"What is you opinion on the meaning of general welfare? Do you go with original intent or subsequent SCOTUS rulings?"
General welfare of the people is their state of health, security, happiness, prosperity. The general welfare of the people can only be improved by the people. The government can only promote the general welfare of the people by striking a balance between maximizing the freedom of the people and providing maximum protection of their rights - rights being all acts except those which impose force, fraud, or corruption against another person or his property.
I'll be out of the net until next week - headed to the field.
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.