Consumption taxes and liberals

TownHall.com ^ | Feb.14, 2003 | Bruce Bartlett

[ancient_geezer]

I propose the only exceptions be genuine medical related expenses, education, housing and food.
Once upon a time the mythical "reasonable" person considered those (and only those) the necessities of life.

That just drives the rate up on everything left, andopens the door to the lobbiest and Congress to haggle over what is necessity and what is not for their particular interests. Not a particularly good introduction, seeing as that is one of the major problems with income taxes with special interest deductions, credits, etc.

KISS, is the definite watchword where taxes are concerned. As soon as you provide exception to the rule you invite perpetual tinkering behind the scenes and the monster we have today in the IRC.

[ancient_geezer]

When it comes right down to it, geezer, you STILL haven't explained how you're going to prevent masterbating monkeys like Daschle, Kennedy, Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein, Gephardt, etc. etc. from squawking and boogering up your bogus utopian tax scheme anyway.

Keep them in a perpetual minority. That's up to the electorate as it always was and always will be. "Eternal Vigilence" Willie Green.

In otherwords, we should never attempt to improve things because someone might come back and change it again. That is nothing more than the argument for status quo, which definitely operates precisely that way.

It's bad enough we already have excise taxes on Alcohol, Tobacco and Gasoline.

And you want to invoke additional tariffs on top of all that LOL.

The only thing you dipwads are going to achieve is putting Frist in a corner where he'll have to compromise, negotiate and cave-in.

Just more defeatism, and how do you expect to remove corporate income taxes and replace them with tariff's without relying on Frist and company?

Then we'll still be stuck with the blasted Income Tax on top of even more Excise Taxes on other items.

You support maintaining an individual income tax payroll taxes, and do nothing to remove or limit excises and in operation tariffs are excises imposed on imports. So what is your complaint again? I don't seem to be getting it.

The NRST removes both individual and corporate income taxes as well as all payroll taxes including SS/Medicare. Strange, that seem to be a decided improvement to me.

[Willie Green]

Keep them in a perpetual minority. That's up to the electorate as it always was and always will be. "Eternal Vigilence" Willie Green.

Yep. Precisely why any sweeping proposal to "Scrap the Tax Code" ought to be summarily dismissed, the same as proposals calling for a Constitutional Convention. Once it gets legs, who knows what atrocities will actually get negotiated behind closed doors? Only a moron would give them the opportunity.

[Myrddin]

define "wealthy".

The best definition I've seen was in a book titled, "Rich Dad, Poor Dad". The author defines wealthy as a condition where the income from your assets completely covers your all your costs of living and basic subsistence. You don't need to work to cover your food, clothing, shelter, utilities, etc. It doesn't necessary mean you are swimming in an ocean of disposable cash. You've simply reached a point of financial equilibrium that doesn't require further income to be stable.

[ancient_geezer]

Yep. Precisely why any sweeping proposal to "Scrap the Tax Code" ought to be summarily dismissed,

...

who knows what atrocities will actually get negotiated behind closed doors? Only a moron would give them the opportunity.

Planning on doing away with Congress now?

the same as proposals calling for a Constitutional Convention.

Seeing as it doesn't take that to repeal the tax code, that's hardly a germane comment. Though to do away with Congress how they operate would would probably take a good deal more than just that.

And you call me extreme!

[ancient_geezer]

who knows what atrocities will actually get negotiated behind closed doors? Only a moron would give them the opportunity.

One thing is certain, under a visible NRST, folks will perceive the result of changing anything, through an immediate change in the tax rate they pay when they shop.

Under the current system, Congress can merely modify deductibility for some to transfer tax burdens around sight unseen in fact making it appear we are getting tax reduction while hiding ever more taxes in inflation by modifying the details on business taxation and deductibility.

I'll take the NRST visibility putting light on the closed doors actions of Congress, allowing folks to see what is being done to them, over the current situation anyday.

[lewislynn]

You don't need to work to cover your food, clothing, shelter, utilities,

So according to the author of the article and the best definition you've seen as "wealthy" "most saving and investment are done by the wealthy"...BS! How many people/investors fall into that category?

[lewislynn]

Nothing in your spam laden post has any reference or relevance to what I posted.

[Myrddin]

You asked for a definition of "wealthy". I offered you a definition. By that accounting, most of us will never fit the definition of "wealthy". Most of us are too busy earning a living to make the right investments to achieve that point of equilibrium where we are financially independent.

Just because most of us will never accomplish that level of equilibrium doesn't mean we aren't saving money.

I fully agree with the concern that the NRST could be corrupted into a very targeted exercise in social engineering. We already see evidence of that with cigarette taxes being the most egregious. Don Perata was targeting gun owners with a proposed 5 cents per round tax in California. The environmentalists stuck us with CRV tax on soft drink cans and bottles in California. There is no end the the possibilities. Consider the nightmare of keeping millions of merchants updated on their current tax collection duties.

[ancient_geezer]

Of course there is the fact that any attempt to play such games in a broadbased retail sales tax, requires the government to either forgo taxes,(i.e. a taxcut), or to increase the rates for everyone on everything they do tax to make up the difference.

The latter not being a particuarly attractive thing to do, to negatively impact a majority of voters at the risk of a politician's encumbency.

[Myrddin]

I think the anti-gunners would slap a 50% tax on all guns and ammo without even flinching. The sheeple would be powerless to do anything about it. If you doubt that, then simply take a look at how many anti-gun laws have been successfully overturned. You can count the successes on the fingers of one hand.

[ancient_geezer]

Why do you figure it would be any more easy for them to do it under a general sales tax, that it is now when there is no sales tax to put such a tax on top of.

A sales tax in place would act to impede such activity more than the current situation.

[Myrddin]

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail. If the only means of taxation and social engineering is via targeted retail taxes, you will see a proliferation of special retail taxes. Instead of a progressively punitive income tax, the politicians will take aim at things "you don't need". Guns, SUVs, boats, tobacco, alcohol...pick your favorite target of social demonization.

Increasing a general sales tax might well be more difficult. A targeted sales tax that goes after items that are only accessible to people with substantial disposable income (aka "the rich") would not cause a general outcry. How many people complained about the "luxury tax" on large boats? Almost nobody. The "rich" responded by not buying the boats. The boat manufacturers responded by folding up shop. The idiots who foisted the tax on the boat "consumers" made less money and put lots of boat manufacturing workers on the street. The failed tax attempt was later rescinded.

[vannrox]

.

VECTIGALIA NERVI SUNT REI PUBLICAE.

.