Hey Americans! and for the rest too I guess

[Baltius]

Originally posted by supervike
So, why retail tax as opposed to just a flat income tax?

The reason the tax is done as a retail tax is that it is able to tax all of the people who don\'t currently even file any taxes. Drug Dealers/other criminals and many people who work \"under the radar\" still contribute in this system as they all purchase clothes etc.. Also all of the illegal immigrants end up paying into the system as they also have to buy things. The idea behind retailers suffering is somewhat problematic. The theory is that because people have not had Social Security and Income taxes taken out of their paychecks they have more income and the tax isn\'t so hard to pay. The numbers seem to indicate that most people would still see more money in their pockets even after paying the higher retail tax.

 

[supervike]

Good points Baltius!

Although I still heavily lean towards the flat tax (which could start only AFTER a certain amount of income money is made, thus not taxing those in poverty)....but the national retail tax sounds effective as well....

Why can\'t we just call a vote on it? lollol

 

[dauber22]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
We saw this very recently in the supreme court decision, that ruled a city could seize someone\'s land in order to sell it to a private devloper, hoping to bring in more revenue.
A decision that had nearly every state in the union rush out and pass laws to prevent exactly that from happening.

Ummm... Unfortunately not EVERY state MY wonderful state rushed to find ways to exploit this decision Sing it with me now:
I-i-i-i-i-i-i Love New York!!!

 

[vincegamer]

Well, of course not EVERY state.

Oklahoma already had it in the constitution that Eminent Domain could only be exercised to build roads or expand agriculture.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by vincegamer
The court acted like an editor.
Someone found a loophole and exploited it.
Someone challenged it to the court.
The court said \"yes, that\'s a mistake all right. But it is not our job to write laws, just to settle arguments over what the written words mean.\"
Legislatures then corrected the loophole.

But could they not have interperated it in which the spirit the law was written?
They do that with the Constitution all the time.

 

[vincegamer]

statutes do not have the same weight as the Constitution; particularly state statutes. Also, there is much less available in resources for determining the spirit if Connecticut\'s eminent domain statute. Basically the law said the municipality can take (and pay for) property of an individual \"for the public good.\"

All the Supreme Court did was say it\'s up to the Legislature of Connecticut, who wrote the law, to determine what \"public good\" means. The Connecticut Legislature said it means almost anything they want, including in order to bring economic prosperity to a depressed geographical area at the expense of a handful of individual land-owners.

 

[dauber22]

Originally posted by vincegamer
Well, of course not EVERY state.

Oklahoma already had it in the constitution that Eminent Domain could only be exercised to build roads or expand agriculture.

Yeah, it\'s very similar in Texas. My point was though that New York was one of the few statees that rubbed their hands and smiled gleefully at the decision rahter than being appauled by it. :no: One of the first things they did was use it to \"seize\" and void the lease agreements of the current tenants of a mall near here in order to allow for an expansion of the mall on to property that they seized from a group of other businesses.

I can just imagine the 3 guys that run this state having a party to celebrate the decision. \"Man!! Now we can just take ANYTHING we want and give it to ANYBODY we want. The Supreme Court says so!!!\"

 

[philologus]

Please forgive the threadomancy:

Originally posted by vincegamer
I do agree that the perception of higher prices would be a problem.
However, many states manage to get by without an income tax, so it\'s not unprecedented.
A flat tax has the appeal of being easy and understandable.
I would support it if only as a step to the starting point again. You can believe there would simply be a slow roll back to what we have now since tax incentives are the only real way the government has of directing behavior.

Vince: The biggest roadblocks I see to the Fairtax is that Tax Exemption for many organizations (e.g. churches, rights groups etc. ) is the best means govt. has to restrict participation in politics. Secondly The IRS is an effective tool for tracking Americans, technically the census is voluntary. How else would politicians collect information on the populace. I don\'t think it\'s a coincidence that every person who testified against Clinton was audited the following year by the IRS