For several years now, I have espoused a national sales tax as the best way to get an equitable tax going.
In my mind, I keep tweeking it and twisting it and adjusting it and IN THEORY it sure seems like the way to go.
Then I started to think about the psychology of it and I have what I think MIGHT be a killer to the notion.
Firstly, we have to exempt people under the "poverty level" or alternatively increase their income to compensate. Either way, this opens up a new "class warfare" avenue to disingenuous socialists to exploit. It won't be long until the "food stamp" economy takes control. This is where the black marketeers who are "exempt" will be found purchasing yaughts for a fee... under the table on the black market. It will start with small "who can argue with buying bread" type cheating for a fee and will end up with some purchasing automobiles under the table. This is just a SMALL problem though.
The real thing about it is that it won't work. The economy will tank real quick when people realize that just by NOT BUYING a few things in their lives, they are getting wealthy.
And now the KILLER. In a consumer society, I don't think that we could ever avoid a crippling "black market"... "tax free" you see. Then what do you do? The best example of a crippling black market would be the USSR. They are still paying for it.
So as much as I like my fancy-shmansy plan for a fair tax... it kind of stinks. Just another utopian bit of non-sense that looks good until you put it up against human greed.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyHow about a differentiated tax ?
For several years now, I have espoused a national sales tax as the best way to get an equitable tax going.
In my mind, I keep tweeking it and twisting it and adjusting it and IN THEORY it sure seems like the way to go.
Then I started to think about the psychology of it and I have what I think MIGHT be a killer to the notion.
Firstly, we have to ...[text shortened]... opian bit of non-sense that looks good until you put it up against human greed.
High tax on caviar and low tax on bread.
Naturally it all depends on how high a tax revenue you require to run your state.
If you want a largely state funded system like the Scandinavian wellfare states you can never bring the money home with a sales tax without opening a huge black market.
If you however need less funds then it could work, it's realy a ballance between how much you gain by tax evation and how difficult or risky it will be.
Originally posted by ScheelOn a "differentiated" basis, what then becomes the most attractive item on the black market? That which is banned (or priced out of the market) becomes the most attractive. This is the basis of the mafia getting rich during the 1920's era of prohibition.
How about a differentiated tax ?
High tax on caviar and low tax on bread.
Naturally it all depends on how high a tax revenue you require to run your state.
If you want a largely state funded system like the Scandinavian wellfare states you can never bring the money home with a sales tax without opening a huge black market.
If you however need less funds ealy a ballance between how much you gain by tax evation and how difficult or risky it will be.
And the guys who get rich on "caviar and wine" marketeering will find it quite easy to broker grain deals worth billions. So then the price of bread will do what?
Your idea of "limited government will bring limited or reduced need" is a fantasy as long as we insist on electing ego-maniacal fools to congress. They will ALWAYS use our money to buy votes. Always have and always will. If anything, I see the size of the IRS staying constant or perhaps increasing. The number of "taxed" units (you and me and all business) stays the same you see, and the opportunity to cheat increases substantially.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyElementary my dear Watson :
On a "differentiated" basis, what then becomes the most attractive item on the black market? That which is banned (or priced out of the market) becomes the most attractive. This is the basis of the mafia getting rich during the 1920's era of prohibition.
And the guys who get rich on "caviar and wine" marketeering will find it quite easy to broker gra ...[text shortened]... business) stays the same you see, and the opportunity to cheat increases substantially.
The most attractive item on the black market will be something that on one hand is small, valuable and highly taxed and on the other hand also have a large demand base, especially a large demand base among people who are willing to risk a penalty for obtaining it through illegal channels.
Caviar may fit the first requirement here, but people who crave caviar may also be less likely to go through the trouble of obtaining the good illegally – they can afford to buy it leagaly.
My idea of "limited government will bring limited or reduced need" may be a fantasy to you. But for me who believe that some sort of government is needed to keep my ego-mania in check it is a fantasy worth pursuing.
The alternative is run-away spending or despairing and abandoning government all together.
Originally posted by ScheelI think you and I would agree more often than we would disagree. I am a federalist and can see NO role for government in education, health care, retirement... and thousands of other things. I would insist on a strict constructionist interpretation of the constitution... if anyone ever bothered to ask my opinion. ðŸ˜
Elementary my dear Watson :
The most attractive item on the black market will be something that on one hand is small, valuable and highly taxed and on the other hand also have a large demand base, especially a large demand base among people who are willing to risk a penalty for obtaining it through illegal channels.
Caviar may fit the first requirement here ...[text shortened]... .
The alternative is run-away spending or despairing and abandoning government all together.
Unfortunately, nobody has ever asked me. 😲
Originally posted by StarValleyWyHow does your solution deal with overpopulation?
I think you and I would agree more often than we would disagree. I am a federalist and can see NO role for government in education, health care, retirement... and thousands of other things. I would insist on a strict constructionist interpretation of the constitution... if anyone ever bothered to ask my opinion. ðŸ˜
Unfortunately, nobody has ever asked me. 😲
Originally posted by Thequ1ckMe refuting my own notions of a national sales tax does just exactly WHAT to minimalise class differences?
Man, you got a rambleon! I liked the first part about minimalising
class differences but how does it address controlling a population
explosion amongst the working classes when conditions improve?
What role does government have in two people getting naked, sleeping together and having babies? As regards taxation?
What am I missing here? I think that the gas chambers for people who refuse to read is the best solution.
edit... and crap! now you have me doing it. There is no such word as "minimalising"... "reducing or limiting" are two perfectly good words. My bad! I should know better.
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
The real thing about it is that it won't work. The economy will tank real quick when people realize that just by NOT BUYING a few things in their lives, they are getting wealthy.
That's already the case. A tax on consumption just makes savings even more appealing. On the otherhand, what's the use of getting wealthy if you're not going to consume your wealth?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou didn't refute your own notion of 'creating a class war', it actually seemed
Me refuting my own notions of a national sales tax does just exactly [b]WHAT to minimalise class differences?
What role does government have in two people getting naked, sleeping together and having babies? As regards taxation?
What am I missing here? I think that the gas chambers for people who refuse to read is the best solution.
edit... ising"... "reducing or limiting" are two perfectly good words. My bad! I should know better.[/b]
the part of your policy you wanted to work. The rest of your argument seemed
to be centred around how the argument would fail.
Originally posted by telerionI am not wealthy by any means, but I have found a lot of happiness in giving away money to wounded soldiers these past few years. Except for the small fortune it takes to fly an airplane these days, I don't indulge in consumption. But hey! Everyone needs to do what they need to do. Getting old tends to focus ones mind on what they are leaving behind; a trail of cellophane and cardboard or being the best old-fart pilot on the block.
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
[b]The real thing about it is that it won't work. The economy will tank real quick when people realize that just by NOT BUYING a few things in their lives, they are getting wealthy.
That's already the case. A tax on consumption just makes savings even more appealing. On the otherhand, what's the use of getting wealthy if you're not going to consume your wealth?[/b]
😉
For example... my wife and I spent a total of $72.50 this year on ALL of our kids and grandkids for Christmas presents. The rest went to Fisher House and The Wounded Warrior Project. It ain't a lot, but it's what we have.
http://www.fisherhouse.org/
Originally posted by Thequ1ckmy useage of "class warfare" is the modifying clause (adjective in nature) to the word "avenue". You seem to take it as the subject. Sigh...
You didn't refute your own notion of 'creating a class war', it actually seemed
the part of your policy you wanted to work. The rest of your argument seemed
to be centred around how the argument would fail.
Oh well. Thanks for contributing. Your fine efforts at understanding the subject at hand is noted. Ahem.