[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell

On that 23% sales tax: I found a link to a nonpartisan congressional analysis of a national sales tax, and it says that in order to collect the same amount of revenue as we collect today, the sales tax would have to be around 60%.

No one would ever have any incentive to skirt that!

[medicineman]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I'm not sure I understand how this disagrees with what I've said. Could you elaborate?

This is the point of the exercise: a system which taxes corporations (and other businesses), not "natural persons" (as opposed to factive persons). At this point it's more of a mental exercise than anything else, but could such a system work out if brought into reality? What sorts of effects might it have?

My idea was not to add, but to replace.

A C Corp can be looked at as a group of people conducting business under an umbrella name of <some> corporation. That corportation does not exist as an individual entity (in the realm of taxes). That members of that group cannot point to one another, or one they appoint as spokesperson, and say, 'you pay those taxes'. They are equally responsible. In that sense, real people, individuals, are paying the tax, not some anonymous corporate entity. The point of this is by saying, let corporations shoulder the tax burden, as though they were some unwordly thing, is that, afterall, they are comprised of individual persons. In essencce, you are not shifting the burden from persons to companies.
Were I king, I would allow all companies to exist free of taxes. Yes, individual shareholders would be taxed. I would use them as a mechanism of employment. To create working taxpayers. A great example of that is Lucent Technoligies. They're about to be taxed out of existance. They produce no product, per se, but excel in research and applied research. Taxing them at the same rate as Johnson & Johnson, or Bristol-Meyers-Squibb is foolish. Yet, they are still liable for the AMT (alterntaive minimum tax), which is really a maxium tax. (Since you didn't make enough to satisfy our tax requirements, you must pay this anyway).

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

No one would ever have any incentive to skirt that!

Yeah, it's too bad that there can't be some basic honesty about this. It's a really important issue. My sense is that Bush is about to turn towards this tax reform issue as we approach the 2006 elections. I believe his commission was supposed to release their recommendations on July 31 2005. I sincerely hope that they and he have some sound and honest proposals.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Good post Krusty. One other thing that jumped to mind is that, although they say they're going to abolish the IRS, there has to be some enforcement method for collecting the taxes and making sure that people don't sell under the table. I'm sure the temptation to evade the sales taxes would be huge. The IRS itself might go away, but something else would have to take its place.

But it won't be the IRS! Just like we got rid of the INS. We're getting new and improved acronyms!!

It's an UPGRADE!

Seriously, though, is this the same plan that has been proposed for years by Steve Forbes? It seems as though if someone who had a personality was pushing his plan, it would have gotten more attention.

I really don't know how I feel about this. I don't care for the system as it is now - it's too easy for some people to get around taxes, it's complex and hardly understandable without a CPA. I mean, if my accountant tells me I owe <insert number>, is there really any way I'd know better? And I went to business school (albeit in marketing.)

[davesimondotcom]

Oops...

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by BRussell

On that 23% sales tax: I found a link to a nonpartisan congressional analysis of a national sales tax, and it says that in order to collect the same amount of revenue as we collect today, the sales tax would have to be around 60%.

Is that replacing just the income tax or all taxes?

[davesimondotcom]

Answered my own question - that's to replace income, gift, estate and FICA taxes.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

But it won't be the IRS! Just like we got rid of the INS. We're getting new and improved acronyms!!

It's an UPGRADE!

Seriously, though, is this the same plan that has been proposed for years by Steve Forbes? It seems as though if someone who had a personality was pushing his plan, it would have gotten more attention.

I really don't know how I feel about this. I don't care for the system as it is now - it's too easy for some people to get around taxes, it's complex and hardly understandable without a CPA. I mean, if my accountant tells me I owe <insert number>, is there really any way I'd know better? And I went to business school (albeit in marketing.)

The Forbes plan, which he's still pushing, is still an income tax. This one that started the thread is a national sales tax. On the cover of the current issue of the New Republic, they also advocate a national sales tax to replace income taxes. It all just sounds too risky to me. It's a "risky scheme."

I'd seriously just like to see them reduce deductions and shelters. Not ideological, not trying to boost the economy or any of that nonsense. Just practical - it would be simpler for everyone and there would be less political favors built into the tax code.