Re: National sales tax (was: Re: Neutral taxation?)
In a message dated 1/17/03 9:47:31 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Here's my prediction of what will happen: a 20-30 percent sales tax > >will be implementen - but because of massive fraud (making headlines, > >etc.), the sales tax will be changed to a VAT (valua dded tax) like we > > >have in Europe. When Britain went from sales tax to VAT, the number of > > >public administrators 6-doubled - and the number of affected private > >entities 19-doubled > > > >jacob braestrup > >Danish Taxpayers Association At that Iowa speech of Senator Lugar's I saw how quickly a national sales tax might devolve into a vat. one person complained to Lugar that if he bought a mower for his home he'd have to pay the tax but if he bought it for his business he wouldn't and that didn't seem fair. another conservative republican then suggested that the tax be broadened to cover both and viola! we were already off to the races down the slippery slope to a vat. just imagine now how much more quickly liberal Democrats would arrive at the bottom. DBL
Re: National sales tax (was: Re: Neutral taxation?)
--- Susan Hogarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Has there *ever* been > an instance where one type of tax has entirely replaced another, or even > replaced in some 'revenue-neutral' fashion for even a few years, the tax > it is proposed to 'replace'? Yes, prior to the Civil War, the US government several times enacted a direct tax on real estate and slaves. That helped to finance the War of 1812. As the Constitution required, it was paid in proportion to population (enumeration). Congress attempted such a direct tax in 1861, but now the western states objected. Their per-capita wealth was much lower than that of the richer northeastern states. So Lincoln pushed through the first income tax. The direct tax on real estate was never again implemented. With the passage of the 16th Amendment, Congress could now enact a tax on land rent without regard to population. Indeed, the Articles of Confederation authorized taxes from the states based on their land value. But now, this physiocratic concept has been forgotten and is no longer understood. It is still sound economics. Milton Friedman has called the tax on land value or rent the "least worst" of all taxes. Adam Smith said so too. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: National sales tax (was: Re: Neutral taxation?)
Susan Hogarth: > I could really get behind a national sales tax if I really thought the feds would have the balls to try to extract 20-30% at the point of sale - especially in a 'progressive' fashion. Would poor people be issued tax-exemption cards? > Here's my prediction of what will happen: a 20-30 percent sales tax will be implementen - but because of massive fraud (making headlines, etc.), the sales tax will be changed to a VAT (valua dded tax) like we have in Europe. When Britain went from sales tax to VAT, the number of public administrators 6-doubled - and the number of affected private entities 19-doubled jacob braestrup Danish Taxpayers Association
Re: National sales tax (was: Re: Neutral taxation?)
In a message dated 1/16/03 8:47:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >This brings to mind an historical point which has been tugging at me - >perhaps someone here will know the answer offhand. Has there *ever* been >an instance where one type of tax has entirely replaced another, or even >replaced in some 'revenue-neutral' fashion for even a few years, the tax >it is proposed to 'replace'? Well I won't say "never," but I know of no such case in American history. Typically Congress passes some new tax or taxes during a war, then sometimes the new taxes persisted after the orginal justification for them had passed. During the Civil War Congress raised tarrifs drastically, and imposed an income tax and an inheritance tax. After the war it let the income and inheritance taxes lapse, but kept the higher tariffs. The new tax regime was weighted much more heavily toward tariffs than the previous system, which relied proportionately more on "internal" excises, but Congress had used both types to a fair degree before, and tariffs did not replace excises. Likewise during World War I the income tax of 1913, which had raised little revenue at its inception, replaced tariffs as the single largest source of federal revenue, but it didn't replace tariffs, and indeed, during the 1920s shrunk back below 50% of federal revenue. While the income tax burst onto the scene rather suddenly as a major source of revenue (as it had during the Civil War) it just didn't replace another source of revenue entirely. Even today the federal government still collects revenue from tariffs (and excises). So Susan raises an excellent historical point I hadn't really considered in discussing alternatives to the income tax: there's never been a sudden wholesale replacement of one major source of federal revenue for another. I've always thought it was an unlikely prospect anyway, and now I'm clearer as to why. DBL
National sales tax (was: Re: Neutral taxation?)
DBL: <> This brings to mind an historical point which has been tugging at me - perhaps someone here will know the answer offhand. Has there *ever* been an instance where one type of tax has entirely replaced another, or even replaced in some 'revenue-neutral' fashion for even a few years, the tax it is proposed to 'replace'? I am curious because of all the talk of a national sales tax floating around. Besides the black market issue, I have a hard time believing any new tax would replace the federal income tax, and a harder time yet believing the combined burden of both would be lighter than that of one. I would like to see a healthy black market, though! :) I could really get behind a national sales tax if I really thought the feds would have the balls to try to extract 20-30% at the point of sale - especially in a 'progressive' fashion. Would poor people be issued tax-exemption cards? Susan Hogarth Triangle Beagle Rescue of NC www.tribeagles.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
