On 15 Apr 2005 06:25:18 -0700, " email@example.com"
I assume you are replying to this:
My point is that the savings are so small that the ultimate gain to
the taxpayer is probably on the order of a fraction of one percent -
call it maybe $20 a year that you might save in lower costs. Realize
also that adding a sales tax will create *more* compliance costs since
there are more retail outlets than there are manufacturers. In the end
the guy paying the taxes will be neither better nor worse, we will
just be dealing with a different system.
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and
bring something to kill"
Looks like stuff from this site. A touch distorted I gather...
It also looks like the stuff the NDP peddle here in Canada. Just another
"New Democracy" I guess.
You will find similar ideas here. These ideas keep interesting company.
More proof that woodworking is far more interesting than politics.
Same as any other tax--it hurts one group worse than it hurts another. HR25
would hurts the people who are barely getting buy--under the current system
they don't pay much if any income tax, but they'd pay a higher percentage
of their income in sales tax than would someone who is well off, and it
might make the difference between "making it" and going broke.
In this case they try to correct that by giving each person a monthly rebate
in the amount of the tax rate times the poverty level. How well that will
work I have no idea, but it looks like almost as big a boondoggle as the
It is not possible to develop a fair tax code--anyone who thinks that any
given tax code is fair is deluding himself.
Your premise is wrong, therefore your conclusions are flawed:
Your implict assumption is that there is nothing that can be done about
"the poor" - that poverty is a societal constant both in fact and
numbers. This is flatly refuted by the last 200+ years of Western
society wherein the per capita poverty rates have been steadily falling
as a direct result of Capital Markets, Industrialization, and Personal
There are two kinds of poor people: the Intentional Poor - people whose
poverty is a direct consquence of their ongoing bad choices and
behavior, and the Unintentional Poor - people whose poverty is a matter
of circumstance, not their actions. The Intentional Poor remain so
generation after generation, and I couldn't care less about them - they
get what they deserve. The Unintentional Poor move up and out of poverty,
given any reasonable opportunity to do so.
If the tax structure quit punishing the most productive and wealthy
members of society - say with a flat sales tax coupled with mandatory
balanced bugets and a significant reduction in goverment spending -
there would be a non-inflationary economic boom the likes of which have
not been seen since the Industrial Revolution. Productive/wealthy people
either create new businesses, invest the money, spend the money, or save
it. In all these cases, there is a net increase in private sector growth
which leads to new jobs and wealth creation ... all of which benefits
the Unintentional Poor (nothing will help the Intentional Poor, nor do
we have any moral obligation to even bother trying - they are getting
precisely what they've earned).
The money being peed away by the various Government Swine (and their
pigglet constituents that feed at the trough) is gutting economic
growth. The rate of government expenditure is growing a significantly
greater rate than the rate of overall economic growth
(http://www.freetheworld.com/papers/Gwartney_Holcombe_Lawson.pdf ) - i.e.,
The percentage of the GDP absorbed by Government is growing. (At
the current rate, the day will come when the Government consumes
the entire GDP - we'll all be working for the Political Hacks.)
This means that money that would be productively used to create new
businesses, wealth, and *jobs* is, instead, consumed by a Leviathan
Government, which produces almost nothing useful other than getting
incompetent nitwits and alcoholics off the unemployment lines and
sending them to Congress instead. These missing jobs are the jobs that
the Unintentional Poor can't get. There is surely no greater punishment
for the poor than a growing and intrusive government.
In my experience, people who bleat about the plight of the poor, a) Have
never themselves experienced poverty, and b) Almost never actually care
all that much about people in poverty - they're just such a charming
cause to take up in the name of what is "progressive and right" while
soiling the liberty of everyone else...
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP /
<diatribe about how poverty is curable without actually bothering to present
the cure snipped>
Which all gets down to your seeing the current system as unfair but not
being willing to admit that your proposed alternative is unfair to somebody
Look, twit, I'm against all forms of taxation. I don't see HR25 as being
any real improvement over what we've got--soak the rich, soak the poor,
soak the middle class, soak the French, no matter how you structure it
somebody gets soaked.
Since I don't agree that just because I can make more money than somebody
else I should be penalized by higher taxation of my income so......
Just a thought, what if tax on purchases were progressive as prices
e.g., a $20K car has a 5% tax, a $25K car has 6% and keeps going up a
percent per $5K. Then the wealthy end up paying more in taxes than the not
so wealthy. If you don't like the taxes, don't buy it or buy a lesser
Of course, this would get complicated when applied to different things such
as food (should be exempt from tax) and clothing but could still work as the
cost of a clothing item increases, so does the tax. The poverty level kids
don't need a $150 pair of Nikes anyway (and neither do most people).
No more income tax, just a progessive use tax. It taxes the wealthy more
but only if they want to pay for it.
Gary (just another idea that sure to tick off someone!)
Actually, I think it's a grand idea. The tax code is already structured to
implement various forms of social policy deemed to be for the benefit of
everyone (e.g. it encourages the traditional family [married parents, one
wage-earner] and home ownership). Such purposes can be IMO much more finely
tuned with a sales tax or VAT than they can with an income tax, e.g.
- high taxes on Big Macs, but low (or no) taxes on fruits and vegetables
- modest tax on a basic Ford or Chevy, higher on a Caddy, whack the Beemers
- no tax on Levis or Wranglers, sky-high taxes on Calvin Kleins
- no tax on ground beef in the grocery, tax on a hamburger in a restaurant
- no tax on ground beef, modest tax on a sirloin, high tax on a filet mignon
Wrangling over what to tax and what not to tax will provide employment for all
the suddenly unemployed tax accountants and lawyers, too.
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
...And there, again, is the rub where I agree entirely with your
conjecture/solution :) That's what'll happen and, imo, effectively
preclude any major swing in my lifetime, at least.
One will replace one convoluted set of rules on one particular portion
of the economy with another, equally convoluted set of rules on
another. There's no hope of the government ever having the freedom to
simply impose a "clean" system given the number of oxes to be gored.
That's easy - we all have National Tax Debit Cards. Every purchase is
run through the NTDC along with however we wish to pay for the item. You
could elect to pay the tax at the point of sale or pay it at a later
date. If you didn't pay at the time of sale, the program could be set up
with choices for pulling the tax from various sources - you could have
the amount pulled from every paycheck; or you could have the Feds EFT it
from a bank account on a regular basis; or you could send in quarterly
payments on your account balance (OAC).
Doesn't that get yer panties in a bunch?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.