Quote:
|
I have seen figures (although I can't find the link) that the tax could need to be closer to 30% rather than 23% because the below the poverty line rebates would produce a revenue deficit. Even at 30%, I would support it.
|
I haven't seen those figures. However, here's a thought: 23% is supposed to cover everything. And this bill is supposed to encourage savings.... These two are mutually exclusive. Consider that 23% is projected to fund the government at
current consumption levels. But this form of taxation encourages saving, so consumption levels should go down. If consumption levels go down, 23% is not going to cover everything; it will need to be higher. Now, I haven't seen anything that addresses this apparent contradiction, but it seems to me to be a very serious consideration.
With that said, I still strongly support the bill. I don't care if it has to be 50%, the fact remains that the IRS will be gone and I will control my taxes. Those who have the ability to delay gratification will reap the rewards of a fiscally prudent lifestyle. Those who can't (and they will be the majority) will begin to realize that the more the government spends, the more taxes they have to pay. Since they'll never be able to control
their spending habits, maybe they can convince Congress to control its.
Quote:
|
I think they should allow tax on used goods, though.
|
I disagree. This is like the capital gains tax: an unfair tax with no basis in logic. Tax on an item is collected when it is sold, the first time it is sold. I can see the argument for taxing the added value to an item, e.g. you buy a beat-up 57 'vette, refurbish and rebuild it and sell it for twice what you paid - perhaps a tax on the value added would be reasonable. However, attempting to collect tax on EVERY sale would create a bureaucracy 100 fold larger than the IRS with far more government intrusion. Can you imagine detailing what you sold in your last garage sale?
Besides, think of the social good that can come from this. Wouldn't there be far more interest in purchasing used goods and reducing landfill waste? How many industries would spring up to rehabilitate items that we simply toss away now? There has got to be a mountain range full of resources that we are simply not tapping into.
I think you're unduly worried about corruption. I understand your points and agree with your logic. I just think you're underestimating the amount of corruption that goes on in the current system.
You may disagree with this strongly, but I think people want to pay taxes - as long as they believe the taxation is fair. Most people wouldn't walk out of a restaurant without paying, even if they knew they could. The vast majority of people wouldn't take something they didn't pay for, even if they knew they could get away with it. I believe it would be the same with taxes. As long as the public understands what they are paying for, and believe they are paying a fair price for it, they will not seek to avoid paying.
As it stands now, most people believe the other guy is paying less - he has a better accountant, or hides his money in a foreign country, or lies about his income, or simply doesn't pay because the government thinks he's too poor (in the meantime he has a color T.V. in every room, owns his own house, his own car and eats more than he should). None of us believe we're being treated fairly so we all seek ways to avoid as much as we can.