[ER]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131693,00.html

This has probably surfaced here before, but any opinions on this? I for one will welcome any sort of tax reform and I'd like to see the IRS shrink significantly or be abolished all together. Our current tax-system is too much of a political tool for politicians who are willing to buy votes by promising to shift the burden of the taxes onto a segment of the population.

[ccwilli3]

yep, bring it... Let me take home all my pay (thats right, 100% of it, except SS) and just get taxed on what I buy.

Sounds good.

[cbr99xx]

Originally Posted by ccwilli3

yep, bring it...

+1

[nedro]

Who's retarded enough to believe that if they came up with a NST, they would also reduce our income tax (let alone get rid of it)?
Bueller? Anyone?

[ER]

Originally Posted by nedro

Who's retarded enough to believe that if they came up with a NST, they would also reduce our income tax (let alone get rid of it)?
Bueller? Anyone?

Ummm, that's part of the bill that is being lobbied to the President. The idea is to replace the IRS and our current system with a consumption tax, allowing people to keep all of their income.

I don't think it's going to get enough momemtum to make it since the Left is fighting it pretty hard. I think what it will do though is allow for an aggressive rehaul of what we have now. My guess is perhaps we'll get a flat-tax rate along with some sort of a limited tax on goods that are considered non-essential (such as food). The IRS will be drastically reduced but not eliminated. That's just my thought.

I read an excellent point from a Lefty on another board that Bush really has about 6-12 months to get this done because as the '06 elections for the Senate come, those who are running will be less likely to do something so drastic with their careers on the line.

[cbr99xx]

Originally Posted by nedro

Who's retarded enough to believe that if they came up with a NST, they would also reduce our income tax (let alone get rid of it)?
Bueller? Anyone?

Well... I wouldn't be "retarded" enough to support a NST if it didn't do away with the IRS. That being said, I'm also not "retarded" enough to believe that a NST will ever come to light in my lifetime. This idea has been thrown around for quite sometime now and from what I've read the kinks are far from being ironed out.

[nedro]

Please remember that when a bill as it is goes into congress rarely ever even resembles its own ideology once they get through with it.
A little nip here, a little tuck there. And we now have an additional tax. Not a replacement tax.

[bubba]

you should have seen the ads here for the democratic seat for the senate. she was advertising that the republican dude was going to tax everybody 23%. it caught my attention REAL quick, but then remembered the sales tax.

she was trying to enrage the local voters with that crap. therefore i voted against her and that was the only reason i even voted in that section of the election. what a slut

[G-Force Junkie]

Originally Posted by ER

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131693,00.html

This has probably surfaced here before, but any opinions on this? I for one will welcome any sort of tax reform and I'd like to see the IRS shrink significantly or be abolished all together. Our current tax-system is too much of a political tool for politicians who are willing to buy votes by promising to shift the burden of the taxes onto a segment of the population.

So you voted Libertarian, right?

[ER]

Originally Posted by G-Force Junkie

So you voted Libertarian, right?

Brother, if they ever got their act together I'd yank the Libertarian handle every time. Until then, the Republicans are almost always the next best thing.

[ER]

Originally Posted by bubba

you should have seen the ads here for the democratic seat for the senate. she was advertising that the republican dude was going to tax everybody 23%. it caught my attention REAL quick, but then remembered the sales tax.

she was trying to enrage the local voters with that crap. therefore i voted against her and that was the only reason i even voted in that section of the election. what a slut

It's the same logic that is often applied to rhetoric like "tax-cuts for the rich". Nevermind the fact that the "rich" are currently paying a higher percentage of their salaries because we have graduated tax-curve and that EVERYONE who is currently paying taxes received a break, Bush still cut taxes for the rich.

It's misinformation - they often rely on emotions rather than fact.

[G-Force Junkie]

Originally Posted by ER

Brother, if they ever got their act together I'd yank the Libertarian handle every time. Until then, the Republicans are almost always the next best thing.

So the right course of action is to continue to vote between a douche and a turd sandwitch...either way, your going to elect a douche or a turd sandwitch. Grab some sack and vote how you believe is right, or at least quit bitching when you knowingly vote for someone that doesnt represent you.

[ER]

Originally Posted by G-Force Junkie

So the right course of action is to continue to vote between a douche and a turd sandwitch...either way, your going to elect a douche or a turd sandwitch. Grab some sack and vote how you believe is right, or at least quit bitching when you knowingly vote for someone that doesnt represent you.

The Libertarians don't have their acts together for several reasons. First, they can't agree on a national defense policy. Some believe in keeping our military inside our borders only while others think we should act pre-emptively. Second, they believe that issues such as abortion and such should be legal and allowed. They don't support most of my moral views. For these reasons -- and perhaps a few others -- I'll vote for Bush.

In essence, take the Republican party and merge in the hands-off, limited Government philosophy of the Libertarians and you have my ideal candidate. I believe that, aside from civil rights, the Conservatives of the previous generations were more like this.

Take a history of my posts and find where I b!tch about President Bush's actions. I'll voice disagreement with some things, but I know what I'm getting when I vote for him. Did you consider this or everything else I've written above when you told me to grab sack and quit b!tching?

[G-Force Junkie]

Thats the point, you cant have your perfect canidate all the time. You hve to vote for the one that fits you the best. You seem to agree the the Repubs and Dems, in their 100+ year history, have blown the government out of controll into a huge, money sucking albitross. My only point is your part of the problem if you keep voting for these people. Take it easy

[oldfogey]

Can't resist a comment from the land of 17.5% national sales tax (VAT) and maximum 52% combined income and social security taxes. Oh, and very few exemptions from income tax (no mortgage tax relief), capital gains tax exemption of around $11k per annum then taxed at your marginal income tax rate and inheritance tax at 40% on amounts of over $400k.

We tax frequently, at every opportunity, and not too much at once to avoid making people vote out the politicians in power. We're still one of the lowest tax regimes in Europe because we don't tax employment like most others.

You're already runninga big government deficit and paying for a war that isn't going to go away quickly. Tax is usually higher in times of war. Running a deficit might make sense during a recession, but at the end of a long period of economic growth, well, you'll have to pay for it some time.

The question is not, who likes paying taxes, but what is the least economically disruptive form of tax you can add? Sales tax is good, it's broad, it can't be avoided, it hits everyone, it's easy and cheap to collect. Better hit consumers than employers, better hit consumers than savers. NST makes sense in some form in most economies. Note, however, that it is degressive, it hits poorer people proportionately more than richer. So most core goods (food, rent, children's clothing) for poorer households are often exempt to counter this disadvantage.

[ER]

Originally Posted by oldfogey

Can't resist a comment from the land of 17.5% national sales tax (VAT) and maximum 52% combined income and social security taxes. Oh, and very few exemptions from income tax (no mortgage tax relief), capital gains tax exemption of around $11k per annum then taxed at your marginal income tax rate and inheritance tax at 40% on amounts of over $400k.

We tax frequently, at every opportunity, and not too much at once to avoid making people vote out the politicians in power. We're still one of the lowest tax regimes in Europe because we don't tax employment like most others.

You're already runninga big government deficit and paying for a war that isn't going to go away quickly. Tax is usually higher in times of war. Running a deficit might make sense during a recession, but at the end of a long period of economic growth, well, you'll have to pay for it some time.

The question is not, who likes paying taxes, but what is the least economically disruptive form of tax you can add? Sales tax is good, it's broad, it can't be avoided, it hits everyone, it's easy and cheap to collect. Better hit consumers than employers, better hit consumers than savers. NST makes sense in some form in most economies. Note, however, that it is degressive, it hits poorer people proportionately more than richer. So most core goods (food, rent, children's clothing) for poorer households are often exempt to counter this disadvantage.

Great post. The proposed NST is designed to give back a rebate every month to every tax-paying American to offset the cost of goods that are considered necessary (i.e. food). So ideally, those with less income can avoid paying any taxes at all by sticking to buying only what they absolutely need. If they choose to spend their money on beer, cigarettes, and big TVs, then they'll start getting hit with high taxes.

I will be the first to admit that, along with tax reform, we will absolutely have to start working to reduce the size of our Federal Government. It's huge. I keep on going back to special interests, though, and what it would take to cut spending. Most of the pork we have goes to groups that lobby the government hard and heavy; they're not going to have their funding cut without a fight. Which politician is going to have the guts to take on a juggernaut-lobby and have his/her political career destroyed? It's just not going to happen.

[ER]

Originally Posted by G-Force Junkie

Thats the point, you cant have your perfect canidate all the time. You hve to vote for the one that fits you the best. You seem to agree the the Repubs and Dems, in their 100+ year history, have blown the government out of controll into a huge, money sucking albitross. My only point is your part of the problem if you keep voting for these people. Take it easy

Man, I completely agree but since the Libertarians can't get off of the ground, I have to vote for what I believe to be the best from the available choices. Do I risk voting for Harry Browne or whoever runs for the Libertarian seat (putting aside moral issues for a moment) when someone like Kerry could win? If you think Bush spends poorly, wait until someone like Kerry or Hillary rolls their Government health-care plans into Congress.