by Kevin_C » Sun 16 Jul 2006, 20:01:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Liamj', 'E')rr, in an effort to rehabilitate the thread for Kevin (don't be shy lad),
I read so far some good old fashioned 'i hate taxes' reactions (duuh, dat road growed dere all by itself), some support but, and plenty of cynicism about any tax replacing another. How is replacement hardwired into the proposal you're keen on, Kev?
I'm not shy, well not usually. Was away for a bit, then I left the thread alone when it went on its tangent. Although it was amusing to read.
I'm not actually sure what you are asking about replacement. So I'll just explain why replacement.
The goal is to reduce the massive bureaucracy on the government side that the government spends hundreds of millions on. The number of collection points would be greatly reduced as would the amount of money the IRS spends processing it.
Then we totally remove any bureaucracy on the tax payer side that isn't needed for fraud prevention. Reciets from new goods are the only signs of taxes that people deal with. The hundreds of millions that are spent per year arranging taxes stay in everyone's income instead.
The taxes cost of investing goes away. That should help encourage new investments.
Then there is the other idea on the subject. If you want to prevent something, tax it. Income tax prevent income. Taxes on investments prevent investments. On the other hand taxes on spending cause better spending habits.
As far as replacement goes, I would oppose this if it isn't total replacement. I don't like the idea that corporations would send the cost of the tax in the product to the consumer and then have a federal sales tax on top of that. It isn't a good idea.