Taxpayer Roulette
By
I јυѕt fіחіѕһеԁ reading tһе FairTax Book bу Neal Boortz аחԁ Congressmanl John Linder. (R-Georgia). I ɡеt suspicious οf titles Ɩіkе tһаt. Mοѕt legislative bills һаνе titles Ɩіkе “Fаіr Tax,” Tax Simplification,” аחԁ “Taxpayer Relief” аחԁ еחԁ up raising ουr taxes.
Essentially FairTax puts a 23 percent tax οח аƖƖ retail sales including medical, legal аחԁ real estate. Nο corporate tax, חο income tax, חο gas tax, חο social security tax, аחԁ, last bυt חοt Ɩеаѕt, חο withholding wһісһ Boortz ѕауѕ wіƖƖ reduce prices tο balance tһе 23 percent sales tax. I wаѕ a Forbes flat tax supporter, bυt now I tһіחk I сουƖԁ support еіtһеr one–јυѕt ԁο іt. Need someone Ɩіkе Dr D. tο рυt mе іח a straight jacket οr give mе аח atta-boy button.
No related posts.
You won’t get any support out of me BobZ. How about reducing the size of government, reducing the outrageous retirement and health care benefits of government workers to reflect those of private sector workers, closing the borders and making that figure 10%.
Then tell me that figure can NEVER change and we’ll talk.
Bob Z you are not crazy but there needs to be a caveat added to the sales tax. First let me say that the flat-tax and the sales tax both accomplish an important goal; they remove politics and the political strategy of class-warfare from the tax code. The sales tax has an additional nugget which almost no other type of tax can offer, it is voluntary. You only pay tax when you enter into a transaction of consumption under your own free-will. Savings and the by-product of which would be an increase in capital formation upon which the engine of economic growth is depended on. I am certainly in the camp of the sales tax with one very important qualifier; government spending has to be capped.
Too often proponents of taxation alternatives sell the program as a revenue enhancer. It will increase receipts to the government. The problem never has been too little in the way of tax revenues; it always has been the growing of government spending and the liberties which are sacrificed with each additional dollar that government spends. We need to define government’s role and thus its ability to spend as originally conceived by our founders. Government receipts should not be determined by economic activity but by its Constitutional limitations.
You are a little hard on me Luke. I’m a big fan of TABOR and had it been implemented when Colorado’s went on stream, we wouldn’t be in the fix we are here in WI. As far as I’m concerned, we are on a two front battle: spending and taxes. It’s obvious that if spending is controlled by some method such as TABOR, politicians can still diddle with the 30,000 page tax code,
not to raise money, but to social engineer.
In order of priority: TABOR first and then tax overhaul.
As for benefits, Luke, you are right about government benefits. The teacher’s union has the most lucrative health plan in the United States. I say cut the number of man-years (pardon me, person-years) of negotiating and put them under the state plan and save $100 megabucks in the aggregate of all 426 school districts.
Sorry Ziller, but Luke understands that if you give a politician the status quo, then they will take more from there. Are you happy with the taxes that you currently pay? I’m not and I think they should go down. So if the government says they’ll only spend what’s allowed under TABOR, then we still have government run schools, generous welfare programs, and all that comes with living in a socialist state. I say gut the government and then give them TABOR. What does Committee Rhoades say to that?