What is your view on the National Retail Tax?

[Cletus_Vandam]

Lobbyists

I didn't go through all seven or eight pages of the thread, so if this was already brought up, sorry.

I think the biggest opponents of this type of taxation approach would be the tax preparation firms (the H and R Blocks, etc.) and legal consultants (attorneys) who rely solely on tax issues for their income.

Washington is full of lobbyists covering the spectrum from A to Z. I’m sure there are plenty of lobbyists buying Congressmen lunch and whispering in their ear about how much they will get in election contributions next go around if they “think” and vote against a national sales tax.

I think it’s a great idea. Problem is I think a lot of us also think that term limits are a good idea. But we’re not the ones casting the votes…

 

[SamSpade]

I didn't go through all seven or eight pages of the thread, so if this was already brought up, sorry.

I think the biggest opponents of this type of taxation approach would be the tax preparation firms (the H and R Blocks, etc.) and legal consultants (attorneys) who rely solely on tax issues for their income.

Washington is full of lobbyists covering the spectrum from A to Z. I’m sure there are plenty of lobbyists buying Congressmen lunch and whispering in their ear about how much they will get in election contributions next go around if they “think” and vote against a national sales tax.

I think it’s a great idea. Problem is I think a lot of us also think that term limits are a good idea. But we’re not the ones casting the votes…

I've never been all too certain of my position on term limits. We allow them for President, although I'm not sure why. But in the House and Senate, incumbents win as much as 90-95% of the time - not entirely sure why, but it doesn't seem terribly fair to me. Relying on the voting booth is not the only way, but it DOES exist for that purpose. Maybe there ought to be a better way to construct campaigning so that money and name recognition isn't the only thing that wins.

 

[Tonio]

Maybe there ought to be a better way to construct campaigning so that money and name recognition isn't the only thing that wins.

How about public financing of campaigns? I would structure it so that every candidate would have to put up a deposit. This would be set on a scale based on the office, maybe $1,000 for local elections up through $50,000 for Presidential elections. If they don't get, say, 10 percent of the vote, they forfeit the deposit.

Or, how about requiring TV stations to donate time to candidates, as a condition of their licenses?

 

[Larry Gude]

No public financing of campaings...

...I am totally oppossed to the government paying for the way it is viewed.

Here's a simple and full proff solution: (this isn't my idea but mention the name and it turns off 1/2 the people right away)

If it can't vote, ie a corporation or a group or a party or a foreign anything, it can not contribute to a candidate. At all.

If it can, IE, an adult citizen with full voting rights, that person can give every last dime to the candidate of their choice BUT it must be fully disclosed, right away.

You can give all you like to a party but the RNC and the DNC and the Green et al cannot give money or specific support for an individual. They can say 'vote Democrat/Republican/Green because our plank is best'.

That is one of the good things about McCain/Feingold. George Soros had to come out of the woodwork.

Candidates will have to appeal to you and I, not a union or corporation. Therefore the yare not beholden directly to a given special interest.

The corporation and union will have to appeal to us, not a candidate, therefore we, the people, are the special interest.

 

[ericw]

So, US companies don't want to gain a competative edge over foreign competition now?

Companies lower prices when they a) are financially solid enough to do so and b) there is competition. The competition is there already, so the driver would have to be a company's financial stability (they can afford the revenue intake hit to gain market share). If this tax idea reduces a company's taxes (it won't be a massive reduction), then I can see prices coming down, but I think DeMint's 22% is waaaaay optimistic.

Companies can charge whatever they want for a product. That's their prerogative and the Justice Dept can't do anything about it. Price-fixing is an issue when multiple companies conspire to raise prices of the entire market.

The 22% (or the more conservative 15% I suggested) is based on the idea that the corporate income tax, which is really paid by you and me, not by shareholders, would be eliminated, along with most of the compliance costs associated with the tax code. Corporate compliance costs are in the neighborhood of 50 cents per dollar of taxes, which is ridiculous. The government's enforcement costs would go down, too.

 

[ceo_pte]

Hmmm

I think it deserves a good study or two. I have some information on it. I haven't looked into it, but I did glance at it and it sounds fair.

This is a link to a website with information about the legislation. I didn't want to post the article that I have, but if anyone is interested, PM me and I'll e-mail it to you.

http://www.fairtax.org/