My question would be, what would stop them from re-instituting the income tax once this is passed? I can easily see the politicians saying we need to reinstate the income tax, temporarily, to cover: War A 911 type event New Schools Poor Folks Gas Supplementation Old Folks Utility Supplementation National Health Insurance I can probably come up with many more reasons also. Oh, and we all know what temporarily means.
Why would they do that if they are taking in as much revenue as they did with the income tax? And if we the people allowed them to do it, shame on us. It will be a battle to repeal the 16th amendment. If it passes, it would be a real battle for them to reinstate it. Once people start taking home 100% of their paychecks and saving much more money, IMO public opinion would make reverting back to the income tax system political suicide. As for war, we spend $265 billion a year doing everything associated with filing our annual income taxes. Hmmm, that's a couple of years worth of war, ain't it?
Let me see if I am understanding your question. You're asking why would politicians ask for more money (from the wealthy only I'm sure, the class envy crowd) to do, in their opinion, good works for the poor and hard working Americans? Something like a one time, save social security tax? Maybe a one time health care initial funding tax? A politician not need more money? Please! There are a ton of pork programs that would immediately be attached to these new one-time taxes. I can hear boring Al Gore saying, "Let's develop a surplus funds tax to cover shortfalls and emergencies. A pool of funds that are available only for times of dire need." With the class envy of this country anyone who earns over $200,000 would be avail for this special tax plan that the politicians would try to convince us is actually a tax cut for the wealthy too. How? They'd say that the wealthy were paying about 28% of income before where as now with the new national "Humanitarian Surplus" tax they'd only be paying say 15%. After all, they can afford it. They're wealthy. They can give back to this country... It would be the McCain/Reid "Surplus Tax" bill. McCain would support it if his name came first. That's his way of becoming part of history. And you actually think that we have some determination as to whether or not we're taxed. You've been asked if you can afford your tax burden currently? They came and analyzed your income to determine if you had the ability to pay a little more?
how does this plan deal with taxation of purchases made with savings - i.e., money that has already been taxed once or twice? anyway, as planned this has other problems: - withholding is key to compliance - take it out of people's pockets before they even have a chance to evade taxes. decentralizing it would obviously increase opportunity for evasion. - the actual rate that would be necessary would be much, much higher than 23% - those numbers in the "tax" line of an invoice would inspire a lot of creativity in purchasing methods. this may be preventable in a cashless system - but despite strong efforts such a system isn't here, yet. (although need for collection of a consumption tax may provide a convenient justification for further limiting the use of cash) - how would international purchases be taxed? even with a super-nafta type deal it would be logistically very difficult to collect from international vendors. this leads to individuals filing returns to pay it themselves, like the current system. - it's a disincentive to consume, and constant consumption is the prime goal of the US system.
Actually the question is bogus. Who decided the proposal was fair? It is not. ......................next question...........
You bring up good points. All I'm saying is that it's worth a try. Wouldn't you like to put an end to the current tax code and have more money in your pocket? Again, if it is ever implemented and the 16th amendment is repealed, politicians who try to revert back to the income tax and/or raise new taxes would be risking political suicide IMO. And if we let them get away with it, shame on us.
What makes you think taxing consumption is any more (or less) fair than taxing wealth or income? If I bought more food/electronics/clothes than you this year why is it fair that I also have to pay more than you for the war in Iraq, road construction, rebuilding of New Orleans or any other government program?
i am TOTALLY in favor of a flat consumption tax but i don't think it will ever fly...unfortunately. nar (realtors) would kill it. spendthrifts (most of america) would hate it. others would claim that it hurts the poor. i think it's perfect b/c it punishes consumers for over-consuming. folks who waste money could now waste more on taxation, a perfect solution.