I'm plenty aware of it. 30% is still way too much. So is 20%, and so is 17%. If they're gonna have a national sales tax, the Constitutional maximum needs to be no higher than 10%. The goverment must live within its means.
Posted on 02/08/2003 5:56:38 PM PST by Bigun
White House Floats Idea of Dropping Income Tax Overhaul By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 — President Bush, having already set off a firestorm over his proposals to cut taxes and revamp retirement accounts, suggested today that the time might be near to drop the income tax as a whole and replace it with some form of consumption tax...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Keep talking like that and some big rich guy is going to hire you at a darn good salary.
Remember that these groups all have a vested interest in scaring us away from a reform of the current system.
I know we need money to run government (Of course what the governmnet should be doing and "IS" doing is a whole other subject) but Damn it is outrageous that I must Pay someone to tell me how much I owe! Fix the damn thing hell... burn that crap know as the IRS code and send those hoodlums packing! Make it simple either on the frontside or backside it doesn't matter just don't make it a damned chore!
One thing to keep in mind is that all the money would probably go to DC then back to the States. Not a great idea, is it. I want the States to keep what little power they do have.
Linder's NRST proposal, does away with federal administration (e.g. IRS) and places the administration and collection of the NRST in the hands of the States.
H.R.25
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 01/7/2003)
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 was thinking about him just the other day!! Any news on the investigation into the fire? I hadn't been looking for it, and I may have missed it.
No, its not initially, but it eventually becomes one. A retail sales tax large enough to fund the Federal Colossus (as well as State and Local coffers) will be one consumers will strenuously avoid. Since it only appears at the retail level, consumers will skirt tax collecting retail outlets. To defeat such avoidance, the Government will need to add the tax at each stage of added value. Thus we end up with a Value Added Tax (VAT). That's how it happened in Socialist Europe.
You haven't told me how much of your $1.78 unleaded consists of tax.
I'm plenty aware of it. 30% is still way too much. So is 20%, and so is 17%. If they're gonna have a national sales tax, the Constitutional maximum needs to be no higher than 10%. The goverment must live within its means.
So? At 30% taxation, we're still serfs and slaves.
"But how are we going to buy votes?" said the Congressmen and Senators.
hell on earth for liberals.
20% is still way too high, and will still fund an intrusive, excessive government. 10% maximum, by Constitutional amendment.
Nah , at least not for long.
It is one thing to shear the Sheeple while they are not looking (Payroll Deduction of taxes) it is another to have them shear themselves.
Thus we end up with a Value Added Tax (VAT). That's how it happened in Socialist Europe.
Quite the contrary, Europe ended up with VATs as a consequence of the treaty requirements of forming the EU, in addition to any existing taxes (generally income taxes). At no time was it intended as a replacement for national retail sales taxes.
Now if you were describing the reforms to corporate income taxes:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/foundationmessage03-00.html
"Under the WTO definition of the term, a sales tax is an indirect tax, as is an European-style VAT. The economic equivalence of an European-style VAT and a subtraction-method VAT is well-established. A subtraction-method VAT is essentially identical to a business income tax except that all purchases of plant and equipment may be expensed, rather than depreciated as under current U.S. law."
or the consequences ofr enacting the Flat Tax, I could agree:
None other than the father of the flat tax, Robert Hall of Stanford University (along with Alvin Rabushka), in his 1995 Ways and Means Committee testimony said, "The Hall-Rabushka flat tax is a value-added tax."
Which was pointed out again in additional hearings in April of 2000:
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/fullcomm/106cong/4-11-00/4-11kotl.htm
"Robert Hall, one of the originators of the proposal(Flat Tax), who describes his Flat Tax as, effectively, a Value Added Tax. A value added tax taxes output less investment (because firms get to deduct their investment.)"
"The Flat Tax differs from a VAT in only two respects. First, it asks workers, rather than firm managers, to mail in the check for the tax payment on that portion of output paid to them as wages. Second, it provides a subsidy to workers with low wages."
The Flat Tax; Chapter 3, by Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka
| In our system, all income is classified as either business income or wages (including salaries and retirement benefits). The system is airtight. Taxes on both types of income are equal. The wage tax has features to make the overall system progressive. Both taxes have postcard forms. The low tax rate of 19 percent is enough to match the revenue of the federal tax system as it existed in 1993, the last full year of data available as we write. Here is the logic of our system, stripped to basics: We want to tax consumption. The public does one of two things with its income—spends it or invests it. We can measure consumption as income minus investment. A really simple tax would just have each firm pay tax on the total amount of income generated by the firm less that firm’s investment in plant and equipment. The value-added tax works just that way. But a value-added tax is unfair because it is not progressive. That’s why we break the tax in two. The firm pays tax on all the income generated at the firm except the income paid to its workers. The workers pay tax on what they earn, and the tax they pay is progressive. To measure the total amount of income generated at a business, the best approach is to take the total receipts of the firm over the year and subtract the payments the firm has made to its workers and suppliers. This approach guarantees a comprehensive tax base. The successful value-added taxes in Europe work this way. The base for the business tax is the following: Total revenue from sales of goods and services less purchases of inputs from other firms less wages, salaries, and pensions paid to workers less purchases of plant and equipment The other piece is the wage tax. Each family pays 19 percent of its wage, salary, and pension income over a family allowance (the allowance makes the system progressive). The base for the compensation tax is total wages, salaries, and retirement benefits less the total amount of family allowances. |
FLAT TAX, VAT TAX, ANYTHING BUT THAT TAX; Duke Law Magazine, Spring 96:
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.