|
Once again I have to say: READ IT.
And I think we might be talking about two separate things here. You mention the VAT. I am not talking about that at all. I am talking about a national sales tax. Two different animals. The VAT is the 'pretty baby' of the liberal left, like Hillary Clinton. I am not proposing we use that model. I agree with you on that one. But I am talking about a simple sales tax as opposed to an income tax. Yes, there is always pain when systems change. Some will come out ahead, some behind. But if old people come out a little behind because they are living on savings, well, why should we care really? They will all be dead soon anyway. So, before too long it will become a more fair system. No, seriously, perhaps some provisions could be made to make the transition smooth, and more fair. Lonny B -- "Rock stars! Is there anything they don't know?" Homer Simpson "DSK" wrote in message . .. "Lonny B" wrote You should actually READ the national sales tax proposal. I have read a lot of it. ... It includes a monthly rebate to all citizens for taxes paid on necessities of life. And you think that's a good thing? As good as being able to keep your money in your own pocket in the first place? There are many other provisions that make it the only fair way to go, IMHO. Why? Nothing about it strikes me as fair, and it's rife with opportunities for corruption. It is the gov't sticking it's hand into th ewallet of every person, every business, in every single transaction throughout the land. It is as good as a proclamation that all money belongs to the gov't, they just let you keep a little of it temporarily. The worst thing about the VAT system is that it strangles economic growth. ... The current system is not working. Agreed. But it would be instructive to look at how our current tax system got the way it is. We started off with very sensible and fair (IMHO) taxes, then the gov't needed more money so they jacked them up... then people gave money to their representatives to get special exceptions for themselves & their business, which got written into the laws. Now we have literally tens of thousands of pages of tax law. The problems are not so much with the tax system itself but with the use of it as a patronage system. And will Congress give up this patronage? I doubt it very much, and if a VAT is passed it will become the same sort of multi-headed python, for the same reason. Congress likes it perks, & it likes screwing over the average citizen so as to hand favors to it's pals. Another implication of our current system, which the gov't very much enjoys, is that *everyone* is always in violation of something or other. This represents a wonderful way to exercise political power. ... However, many lawyers and accountants make their living off of the complex system under which we currently operate. And I suppose the administration of a VAT system does not require hardly any bureaucracy at all? I think you should take a closer look. katysails wrote: Jewelry counts as a necessity, right? Yes, of course. So does sailing gear. And everybody should get a free gallon of epoxy resin, once a month... Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Lonny B wrote:
Once again I have to say: READ IT. And I think we might be talking about two separate things here. You mention the VAT. I am not talking about that at all. I am talking about a national sales tax. AFAIK the national sales tax bills all got buried and are either dead & replaced by VAT bills (3 proposals currently in committee) or are morphing into a VAT. ... Two different animals. The VAT is the 'pretty baby' of the liberal left, like Hillary Clinton. And "liberal lefties" like Phil Gramm and Bill Archer. Why does any political discussion *have* to turn into a hate fest? Have you been programmed to foam at the mouth for the name "Clinton"? No, seriously, perhaps some provisions could be made to make the transition smooth, and more fair. There's the problem right there. Congress isn't interested in "fair" even if it could be agreed on what that is. Congress is interested in 1- slanting tax codes towards their buddies & allies (ie campaign contributors) 2- preserving their perks & prorogatives... basically maintaining or increasing their own power. Neither of these two trends is new, and I doubt they're going away. One of the founding principles of U.S. gov't is to clearly outline what the gov't *cannot* do and we need to stick with that... increase it IMHO. The best tax reform I ever heard of is making a law that all Congressmen have to file their own taxes, be audited as though they were average citizens, and suffer double penalties if any are due. The seond best proposal is that the US tax code be hand written in large block print on a 3x5 index card. Lots and lots of ways the system *could* be better... most are pie-in-the-sky. The ways currently being hammered out by Congress are most likely to make it a whole lot worse. DSK |
Dave wrote:
Let's be fair here. On the other side of the fence, there are many who seem to foam at the mouth for the name "Cheney." Really? Never noticed that myself... even many avid Bush supporters that I know seem to regard Vice President Cheney as somewhat of a weak link, or even an outright crook. Both men are pretty well documented liars, so mendacity is a wash. Dick Cheney never got a blowjob in the Oval Office, and Bill Clinton never stole $100 + millions from the taxpayers and then cussed out people for asking him about it. All flesh is weak. I guess which one offends you more depends on your personal code of ethics. DSK |
True, but apparently they now have a cure for rabies.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:20:18 -0400, DSK said: Why does any political discussion *have* to turn into a hate fest? Have you been programmed to foam at the mouth for the name "Clinton"? Let's be fair here. On the other side of the fence, there are many who seem to foam at the mouth for the name "Cheney." The seond best proposal is that the US tax code be hand written in large block print on a 3x5 index card. Reminds me of the simplified tax return: "How much did you make? How much did you spend? How much do you have left? Send it." |
The worst thing about the VAT system is that it strangles economic growth.
Dave wrote: Could you expand on that? It's been over 35 years, but I still remember being surprised by an analysis in one of my economics courses that purported to show that a sales tax had fewer adverse effects on resource allocation than an income tax. That would surprise me too. For one thing, a sales tax (unless rebated... and the rebate is administered efficiently enough to at least recoup the administrative cost... not the way the gov't usually works) is regressive. It depresses consumption at all levels, and is most noticable across the bottom of the pyramid, where the greatest number of transactions take place. OTOH some economic niches would seem like a pyramid with no bottom... like the sail boat market... look at the total number of dollars spent on new 30+ foot sailboats versus 20- footers. Not a common example! ... How would the analysis of a VAT differ? A VAT is different because it is pushed to all levels of exchange in every step of the manufacturing, distributing, and sales matrix. Every one of these transactions is depressed, instead of just the final sale... is the effect the same? One (possibly) unintended effect is the boost to vertical integration of business. The gov't imposes various restraints, or boosts, profitably to a lot of businesses at many steps along the way, but do we benefit from an across the board benefit handed to the big corporations? Is this really the vaunted "free market" economy? In NC we are in the first stages of passing a state lottery. I think it's a bad idea, but is probably going to move forward anyway... so how about a Federal lottery? DSK |
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:35:51 -0400, DSK wrote
this crap: Both men are pretty well documented liars, so mendacity is a wash. Dick Cheney never got a blowjob in the Oval Office, and Bill Clinton never stole $100 + millions from the taxpayers and then cussed out people for asking him about it. All flesh is weak. I guess which one offends you more depends on your personal code of ethics. Sir, I call you a liar! Rush is always right. His research team is very good. His enemies listen to his program and look for falsehoods. If he told anything on his show that wasn't true, it would be in all the newspapers. His enemies have no mercy, as was shown by how they stole his medical records. Transcripts of his show are on www.rushlimbaugh.com If you think you are telling the truth, it should be easy to show me, and the rest of the world. This post is 100% free of steroids |
Dave wrote:
Best look in the mirror and wipe that foam off, Doug. I never drink while I'm driving. Oh wait, you're suggesting that *I* "foam at the mouth" at the mention of Cheney? You mean the way (say for example) Pat Robertson or Bill Moyers goes on and on about mostly imaginary evildoings of the Clintons? Let me remind you that I have never callously insulted the man, only recounted verifiable facts which happen to not be in his favor. If that offends you, I suggest you remove the mote from your eye ;) DSK |
|
"Dave" wrote
DSK said: For one thing, a sales tax (unless rebated... and the rebate is administered efficiently enough to at least recoup the administrative cost... not the way the gov't usually works) is regressive. It depresses consumption at all levels, and is most noticable across the bottom of the pyramid, where the greatest number of transactions take place. That in itself doesn't get you very far in determining which tax yields the more efficient allocation of resources, since reducing consumption should also increase saving and investment. So, if one's goal is to increase consumption, and thus sales and profits, one avoids a sales or VAT in favor of other taxes. OTOH, if one wants to reduce consumption to increase the $$$ available for investment use a sales or VAT. But if you are an idiot you do neither, you just borrow and spend whatever you want. |
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:25:10 -0400, "Vito" said: So, if one's goal is to increase consumption, and thus sales and profits, one avoids a sales or VAT in favor of other taxes. OTOH, if one wants to reduce consumption to increase the $$$ available for investment use a sales or VAT. But if you are an idiot you do neither Wrong again, Vito, but I haven't time to give you an entire course in basic economics. As usual you are mistaken but I don't have time to explain why. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com