🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <fred_sDtowvC.LC4@netcom.com> fred_s@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) writes:
>tporczyk@netcom.com (Tony Porczyk) writes: 
>
>>canoeist@netcom.com (Mark Zen) writes:
>>
>>>yup, but what about the poor, they spend all of their money just on
>>>things they need [generally], and then the _relative_ tax on them is
>>>much higher than the rich [or even "middle" class].
>>
>>Read the bill.  They would not be taxed.  Your objection is the obvious
>>one, and it is taken care of.  Even now you don't pay tax for food.
>>Under the bill there would even be a special provision for necessities.
>
>Waidaminut.   How do you NOT tax "the poor" with sales tax?  How would
>the merchant know he was selling to "the poor" as opposed to "the rich"
>so as not to charge the extra sales tax?

Excuse me - What are you arguing over ??

If you are talking about the Flat Tax, or the National Retail Sales Tax
proposed by Dan Schaefer (R-CO), then it already is taken care of in the
bill, and in a very simple fashion.

First, right now, even though no-one is charged sales tax on food, a
"necessity", the grocer does have to pay corporate income tax and his
tax bill is covered by the prices he charges.  So the poor have to pay
that much tax.

The Flat Tax and the National Retail Sales Tax rebates the tax on poverty
income through the payroll taxes.  The first $17,000 * 17% is tax-free.
So it doesn't matter that the poor person is paying tax - because it has
been or soon will be rebated back to him/her.

That is what I remember from what I have casually read.  You and I can
go inquire, look up, that precise part of the plan.  And before matters
are done, I suppose that the politicians will bend it to be even more
progressive - for example, taking back the rebate from the well-off.

>Politicians who are truly interested in releasing the screws to the poor which
>you cite would be getting rid of the loopholes, not introducing a wholly
>different form of taxation which is much harder to enact in a progressive
>manner.  Claiming otherwise flies in the face of logic.

I understand the object to be to create a tax that is simple to
understand, obvious in its provisions and the fairness of its provisions,
cheap to implement and which collects sufficient revenue.  Our current
income tax (and several taxes, too) is a mess-of-a-system to start from.

What is still needed are legal provisions that make it hard or impossible
for Congress to tack on provisions that favor special interests and that
make it hard or impossible for Congress to complicate the code beyond
understanding.  Those two concerns are closely related.

We also need protections that taxes will not be increased without the
consent of the people.

David Olson, my posting, my response.