Potential: 2nd Term Bush Revolution

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AZRickD

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2003
Messages
1,684
He said it again today in his acceptance speech. I wondered what was going on when Speaker of the House, Denny Hastert published his book which detailed a ground-up overhaul of the federal tax system. Then, last summer, we heard Dubya reiterate his plan to partially privatize the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security as well as dumping the federal income tax as we know it.

In today's speech, Bush claimed a mandate and touched on those two subjects.

I think he's serious. I think he wants to remove the yoke of government control that is the power of both the income tax and Social Security which allows government to spy on our financial affairs and control our behavior by offering us a few bucks in tax deductions and credits.

As a "conservo-libertarian" I can't say that I'm 100% satisfied with a Bush presidency, but the thought of a Kerry presidency and 1,000 pounds of rock on my chest sounds a lot worse than a Bush presidency and 150 pounds of rock on my chest.

All that, and four Supreme Court Justices. Not to mention four more years of not having to worry about being a felon for possessing the wrong rifle or magazine.

Rick
 
I don't hold out much hope for any major overhaul in taxes. To our credit we pay a lot less in individual taxes than most of the other major powers in the world. The thing is the money has to come from somewhere so no matter what you call the tax or where you say your taking it from its still your money becoming the goverment's money.

I have a lot more hope in that we will see some pro-gun legislation. We managed to elect some hard core pro 2nd Ammendment senators and hopefully we will see some payback.
 
I hope you are correct.

Honestly, though, it doesn't sound a whole lot like Dubya. I mean, I haven't seen anything from him that sounds anything like "less government, more freedom." He's certainly not a Reagan Republican in that sense. But, I could get on board with those changes. Personally, I'd love to forgo my claim to social security if it meant I didn't have to pay into it. I think I can use my dollars a hell of a lot better than the feds. I'd also like to be paid more money in my job instead of a lower salary with benefits. Again, I can find the best ways to use my dollars. 'Bout the only benefit to employer benefits are the group rates on insurance, but even that is starting to change.

Oh, well. One can only hope.
 
What if the replacement for income tax is a VAT?
Click to expand...
A VAT would be far superior to the income tax which is inherently evil since it allows (nay, requires) government to spy on anyone who makes money.

The thing is the money has to come from somewhere so no matter what you call the tax or where you say your taking it from its still your money becoming the goverment's money.
Click to expand...
The tax code also allows government to tweak with the behavior of over 100-million Americans who file by offering tax credits for approved behavior. The income tax has so much complexity that 53% of DC lobbyists are tax lobbyists. They are there because of the power that it represents. It is incorrect to blithely say that there is no difference between methods of tax collection.

My hope is for a national sales tax which is structured so that all tax money paid up to the poverty level is refunded (to everyone, even the rich guys). That way the libs who like the power that the income tax gives them can't (rigthly) say that a sales tax is regressive. Even an income tax is regressive since poor people pay the passed-on income tax of goods sold to them. A one-dollar can of beens has 30 cents of tax on it. Worse, those who work have to make $1.20 to take home that dollar used to buy the beans. $1.20 for a 70 cent can of beans.

Kind of puts that 25% sales tax (which would cover Social Security payments as well), into perspective.

BTW, that 6.25% of SS that your employer pays ? --- you actually pay it. It is figured in the cost to hire you. You just never see it. Yeah, it could be your money, or your boss could buy new equipment to make your job more productive. Or he could just pocket it, and use the money to buy a boat that your cousin was hired to paint, or a car that your uncle sold...

I don't want to turn this into a National sales tax debate, but it is an interesting subject.

And I do believe that Bush will push for this... he has a history of doing what he says he's going to do. It might not pass, but he'll advance the argument.

Rick
 
Here's an idea I heard that I"ll just throw out there - what about making the states raise the money any way they see fit? What if a law was passed that had every state pay its pro-rata share (based on population) of the Federal Gov't burden?

I think two things would happen: States would be free to levy a statewide sales tax, an income tax, gambling revenue or whatever they wanted in order to come up with the money to pay the Federal Gov't. Voted on by the people of that state.

Second, a lot of states would start asking: " Do we really need a federal department of <blank>" and hopefully we could start reducing the burden the HUGE federal government places on us everyday citizens....

Now, I didn't come up with the idea and I haven't explored every facet but wouldn't that mean you would have states for example that had very little farming within its borders, protest at the level of faming subsides the Fed hands out to "farming states"? Or the level of transporation dollars distributed unevenly... Hmmmm. Makes you think...
 
Revolution.. Bush.. I'm not holding my breath. I voted for him, but I'm still not thrilled by our choices.
 
Another point in favor of the VAT is that if you've got money coming in but you want to save it, transfer it to needy relatives, use it for some other emergency or otherwise protect it from taxation, all you have to do is simplify your lifestyle.

Buy cheap older cars. Own a smaller house. Whatever. It's under YOUR CONTROL - it's voluntary.

Oh yeah. Definately.
 
Bush endorsed the idea some weeks (or months) ago, and when I heard that I was overjoyed at the number of votes that would bring in. But I never heard it again. I would have thought that talk of eliminating the income tax would turn a lot of Dem's into Rep's overnight. What happened?

Did the Congressional Republicans tell him they wouldn't let him keep that promise? If so, why did Hastert bother to bring it up? Was it just to win his own race? Was it pretty tight?


Or, was it decided that the proposal would leave Bush open to charges of extremism or stupidity? (Candidate Kerry, "This President wants to cut taxes to zero in the middle of a war! He can't fund Medicaid/WIC/the NEA with this dangerous plan! He's mad, I tell you, mad!")
 
Actually, I have heard Bush mention it several times, including a stump speach at the Phoenix rally.

Now,

On to the Supreme Court

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/biographiescurrent.pdf

I'm thinking four SC Justices will be replaced by Bush.

Rehnquist is certainly feeling poorly, as noted in the news. He's 80 years old. Nominated by Ronnie in 1986.

John Paul Stevens is 84. Nominated by Ford in 1975.

Ruth Bader Ginsburge was born in 1933, and is a pup by comparison, but her health is at question as well.

Sandra Day O'Connor is also feeling poorly.

Removing these would make Scalia the guy with the most seniority.

Rick
 
On to the Supreme Court
Click to expand...

Rehnquist's retirement will be a great loss for all of us. Ginsburge is probably the most liberal and activist of all the SCt Justices. Seniority doesn't buy you anything there. "Chief Justice Thomas" has a nice ring to it.

For no reason other than this one, it was imperative for Bush to be reelected. If and when a decision on the Second Amendment is issued by the SCt, I don't want Ted "Splash" Kennedy, Hillarious Clinton or "Puff" Daschle to be on the bench.
 
I agree. The whole point is replacing the income tax.
"Chief Justice Thomas" has a nice ring to it.
Click to expand...
Fancy that. I listened to Laura Ingraham say that on her radio show today.

However, the road to the Supreme Court goes through the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Republican which the left would love to Chair that committee is Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. I just heard a clip from Arlen today warning Bush that he has to nominate, uh, "moderate" judges.

Arlen S. must not Chair that committee. I don't think he should be on that committee. Maybe Agriculture instead. That should really peeve the Pennsylvania Amish community. ;)

Rick
 
on VAT vs Income Taxes

The problem I see with VAT is that firstly, it will NOT replace an income tax, it will be "in addition to". They MAY reduce or even eliminate taxes on modest amounts of "earned" income but don't think for a minute that they will ever not have taxes on dividends, interest, and capital gains...

The political reality is - we'll have both a sales and an income tax, just like the poodles in europe do.

The other problem with a VAT - as a society we're getting older, aging, retiring, etc. A huge underpinning of retirement planning is having lower expenses in retirement.

And now, we're going to say to millions of baby boomers, "thanks for working and paying taxes all those years", "now that you're retiring, we'll shift the tax burden from wages to spending".

You work for 40 years and you still don't get off the tax rolls?

Will never happen!
 
Those on the esteemed forum who support a VAT: How many of you know what the VAT is, how it is administered, its historical and philosophical foundations, and its record in countries where it is implemented.

A VAT is not the same as a national sales tax. I favor a NST. I roundly oppose the VAT.
 
Waitone, from what I remember about Europe, the VAT is anytime a product changes hands thru the supply chain the value added is assessed and taxed. The end user gets whacked with a hefty premium at point of sale. The VAT is actually something like what happens in the long chain of sales that occur in USA. Farmer pays tax on wheat, mill pays tax on flour, bakery pays tax on bread, consumer pays tax on whole thing. Each seller rolls the tax into his sales price so the end consumer gets whacked with all the "hidden" taxes in his sale price. Of course, then state and local sales tax is added at register. :uhoh: A NST is simply once an item is bought by the consumer, a sales tax is assessed once and for all.

The FairTax, which I posted a few days ago, seeks to replace the byzantine US taxation system with a national sales tax. John Linder R, GA is one of the sponsors.
 
I've got a better idea...

Rather than add a VAT / NST on top of income taxes, why not replace the current system of taxation with the AMT.

For all the wailing about the AMT, and how unfair and complicated it is, its fundamentally a flat tax with few to no deductions. If it were not for the complexity of the underlying tax code that its based on, the AMT would be simple to compute, and could perhaps be a single page form.

Plus, the way its going, it sounds like more and more people will be paying the AMT anyway. My answer - keep the AMT and do away with the regular taxation system...
 
What if the replacement for income tax is a VAT?
Click to expand...
A Value Added Tax would be an improvement over the current tax system, but I don’t think Bush will be in favor of a VAT as it goes against his main objective of simplifying the tax system. I haven’t exhaustively researched a VAT in a long time but I do know that it does require a lot of paperwork mainly on the part of businesses. I prefer a VAT to an income tax, but if I had a magic wand to pick my favorite tax system it wouldn’t be a VAT.

Here's an idea I heard that I’ll just throw out there - what about making the states raise the money any way they see fit? What if a law was passed that had every state pay its pro-rata share (based on population) of the Federal Gov't burden?
Click to expand...
This was the original method and I think it is the most proper as it helps insure the balance of power between the states and the federal gov’t. Additionally it allows for greater individual control because how a person is taxed is determined at a lower level of government. Each state can choose the best method for that state to raise the necessary money. For example, Nevada might choose to heavily tax prostitution and gambling, Texas might tax hunting, Massachusetts might tax income or states might go for a sales tax of all goods and services. The main point is that each person has a bigger voice in choosing the manner in which they will give their money to the gov’t.
 
VAT

HCHHOCK PTEW, That was the sound of me coughing upa a huge load of mucus and spitting it in Disgust.

VAT is possibly the worst tax system ever devised. It penalizes productivity at every step. The greater the value of what you produce the more taxes you pay. The consumer with the least income pays the highest proportion of his income in taxes, because he spends the greatest percentage of what he makes. Its a regressive tax. It creates an even bigger beaurocracy for collecting taxes than we have now, and it will drive more manufacturing and service industries out of the USA.

The real answer is for the GOVERNMENT to spend less.

A progressive flat tax on income is better, cheaper, and simpler.

But the key is the GOVERNMENT MUST SPEND LESS.
 
It seems to me that the key points of a national sales tax are:

1. your income tax decreases, giving you more pocket money,

2. business taxes decrease, theoretically lowering the cost of goods, and

3. you get some type of reimbursement to compensate for tax on staple goods.

Obviously going to a pure NST would eliminate all federal taxes, freeing up tremedous amounts of business capital and salaries would go up. I've heard that a 23% NST would be more than compensated for by a 22% decrease in the cost of goods due to no coporate taxes and a 20ish% increase in wages due to no income tax. So basically the price of goods should stay fixed, while income rises. Toss in the "pre-bate" and the consumer comes out way ahead. Plus you have the near elimination of the IRS, saving the gov billions.

But how many people are involved in tax services like H&R Block? I bet there several million people who would be unemployed by going to a NST. Obviously with all the extra money floating around, consumer spending should rise, allowing most of those folks to get re-trained and enter into the expanding sales/manufacturing arena, but I don't see how a 50 year old tax attorney will be able to maintain his standard of living if he has to switch career fields. Probably gonna be a bit peeved at the gov, which is why you will never hear a positive statment about a NST from anyone working in the tax field.

Spliting gov income between a NST and income tax is the worst possibility, IMHO. We get an increase in the cost of goods (however modest), but we don't eliminate any of the cumbersome tax infrastructure. If there was a plan to gradually phase in a NST, that wouldn't be so bad, so long as a new pres couldn't easily nix it.

Personally, I think the concept of a NST and how it should work will be beyond the grasp of most Americans, and it will be easily demonized by those with a vested interest in keeping the tax structure the way it is and by the media interested in generating controvery (about anything) to sell headlines.
 
For those concerned about getting a national sales tax IN ADDITION to our current income tax, I believe the most popular current national sales tax proposal, the Fair Tax, includes a provision for repealing the 16th Amendment, thereby eliminating the income tax. This part is vital. I like the idea of a national sales tax myself, but I would not support its implementation at all unless it was a certainty that the income tax would be destroyed, never to return, at the same time.
 
I don't see how a 50 year old tax attorney will be able to maintain his standard of living if he has to switch career fields. Probably gonna be a bit peeved at the gov, which is why you will never hear a positive statment about a NST from anyone working in the tax field.
Click to expand...

Heh. They said the same thing when they switched from whale oil to kerosene and the buggy whip to the automobile. Somebody's ox is always going to be gored and they have to get over it. The only thing certain about change is it happens.

EDIT: For those who haven't seen it, here is the article on Is There a Fair Tax in America's Future? Check it out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Bush takes responsibility!
2
Replies
27
Views
935
wingman
W
T
  • Locked
Not Surprised - Social Security
Replies
5
Views
637
Wildalaska
W
D
  • Locked
Finally, the straight scoop on tax cuts!
Replies
6
Views
690
DRZinn
D
L
  • Locked
immigration "reform" on Bush back burner...?
Replies
4
Views
382
longeyes
L
P
  • Locked
Was Clinton More Conservative Than Bush?
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
corncob
C
Back
Top