Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Holy Sh*t  (Read 4261 times)

Bman

  • Guest
Holy Sh*t
« on: August 01, 2004, 10:25:23 PM »
Not sure what to make of this:

http://drudgereport.com/rnc.htm

MaroonOut2005

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1666
  • Attending: Notre Dame
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Holy Sh*t
« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2004, 10:47:29 PM »
Wow, I am with you there.  I honestly don't know much about the details of it, but I've always thought a flat tax should be something to be considered.  The national sales tax is interesting.  However, I think it might discourage people from buying... I don't know.  Very radical ideas, though.  I'll be waiting to see this develop further.

Thanks and Gig 'Em,
Jason

jrhc1210

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • 3.85/Oct
    • AOL Instant Messenger - jrhc1210
    • View Profile
Re: Holy Sh*t
« Reply #2 on: August 01, 2004, 10:52:37 PM »
Wow. I've read about the benefits of a consumption tax before--first off, you start collecting taxes money from the black market, which is a huge boon right there. Second of all, it rewards saving/investment, because only consumption is taxed (which in turn is a HUGE help with the economy). Thirdly, it does a much better job of being "fair": the poor are taxed on practically nothing, as food and clothing aren't taxed, whereas the rich pay taxes on all of their luxury goods etc (and middle america doesn't get taxed on those savings for college).

So a consumption tax, if implemented properly, would bring in MORE tax dollars while ENHANCING the economy and being properly properly progressive. I always thought it's too good to be true. If Bush/GOP really push hard for this...it would certainly differentiate him from Kerry for the undecideds.


Bman

  • Guest
Re: Holy Sh*t
« Reply #3 on: August 01, 2004, 10:55:07 PM »
I'm uncertain about what I think about this from a policy standpoint. But I think its' almost certainly bad from a political one. The American people don't react well to revolutionary calls to abolish government agencies. I think this will make Bush look radical. in fairness, this article provided no evidence that Bush shares Hastert's views on this.

Engilaw

  • Guest
Re: Holy Sh*t
« Reply #4 on: August 01, 2004, 10:56:41 PM »
woah.

aboynoir

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 110
  • English Literature / 3.Something / LSAT in June
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Holy Sh*t
« Reply #5 on: August 01, 2004, 11:01:26 PM »
Crazy.

mukhia

  • Guest
Re: Holy Sh*t
« Reply #6 on: August 01, 2004, 11:15:09 PM »
I'm pro-VAT!

jrhc1210

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • 3.85/Oct
    • AOL Instant Messenger - jrhc1210
    • View Profile
Re: Holy Sh*t
« Reply #7 on: August 02, 2004, 07:37:21 AM »
I'm uncertain about what I think about this from a policy standpoint. But I think its' almost certainly bad from a political one. The American people don't react well to revolutionary calls to abolish government agencies. I think this will make Bush look radical. in fairness, this article provided no evidence that Bush shares Hastert's views on this.

People don't like radical changes, agreed... but the IRS is so villified in American society that I think this would be the exception to that rule.

L1

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1130
    • View Profile
Re: Holy Sh*t
« Reply #8 on: August 02, 2004, 10:00:59 AM »
I agree w/ jrhc on this.

I think that it would make the system fairer. If everyone is paying for products that they use, it would be pretty hard for wealthy corporations and individuals to get out of paying it since it's pretty straight forward- buy the product, pay a tax, don't buy the product and pay no tax.

However, I think that politically it is not feasible. People will be skeptical about the tax rates for individual sales. For instance, what if buying stock is being tax at 8%, while buying a car for the price of $500-%10,000 is taxed at 13$? It'll appear as if the products that the rich purchase are taxed less heavily, whereas the products that the poor/middle class buy at taxed more heavily. In turn, we've done nothing but waste thousands reforming the system and continue w/ the same old political system of favoring a certain group. Also, you have to keep in mind that the powerful lobbyist group and political doners, known as lawyers, will certainly oppose this. Tax lawyers are some of the best paid lawyers b/c they benefit from the complexity of the current tax system. They, of course, will be the ones that will lose if the current system is reformed since there will be little need for them.

I think a flat tax is much more feasible and fairer than a VAT. In Russia, they have a flat tax set at 13%. It has attracted a lot of investment into Moscow. Overall, I think it is administered pretty fairly. However, hardly anyone in Russia pays their taxes, but that is more of an administrative problem. Although a problem like that is much less common in the US, you will always need a bureaucracy to make sure that everyone is paying their taxes.

mukhia

  • Guest
Re: Holy Sh*t
« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2004, 11:15:20 AM »
Giraffe makes a good point - flat tax is probably more feasible than VAT; however, despite the wonders of Russia's flat tax on its economy and those predicted for Iraq, neither country really had to deal with the issue of an established tax code and legions of lobbyists who are not willing to let it go.  Russia also has a lower corporate tax rate and provides smaller businesses with more lucrative options in terms of taxation.  It's no surprise then that investors would look outside of the US to invest - even France has a lower corporate tax rate.

At any rate, I think the current taxation system is too convoluted and unfair - we can't be certain that those who can afford to hire fancy accountants and lawyers are evading their fair share of taxes through this loophole or that.  Besides, it costs too much to administer and encourages investments for tax purposes rather than sound economic ones - a flat tax system would provide more entrepreneurial incentives and dispense with the double taxation of income earned and then invested.  It would also force those tax lobbyists and accountants to pursue more "productive" rather than "creative" work. Hong Kong has employed a flat tax for many decades and will probably sway China into that direction permanently simply due to the fact that it has been one of the fastest growing economies for a long time.  With China adopting a flat tax, where do you think businesses will want to invest?