Well, other than the fact that FOX lost the NHL contract (to ABC), they were making the "glow puck" a bit less painful -- e.g., only "glowing" the puck when it was out of camera view (down on the near-side boards, for example). But those "vapor trails" really needed to go...
I'll accept progressive taxation on the day they decide that you get one vote per dollar spent on taxes. After all, the ones paying the high taxes apparently have the most to gain or lose from the system anyway, right? And since they're the ones paying for it, perhaps they should get the most say... at the very least multiply their votes by their marginal tax rates.
(Note for the sarcasm-impaired: I'm not actually suggesting this but using it as a response to the mentality that those who earn more somehow should be required to proportionally pay more.)
The remote's a pain to set up, but mainly because it's designed to be extremely flexible. Once it's set up, it's easy.
Sounds like something else I've read about on/. -- frequently, in fact -- now what was it again... hmmm.. pain to set up... designed to be extremely flexible... darn! If I could just remember...
Actually, we've had this discussion on Slashdot before, a few months ago...
First of all hidden taxes already place that burden (higher tax rate as a result of higher consumption as a percentage of income) on the shoulders of those who spend a larger percentage of their income on consumption, so on the balance that doesn't change. If a "rich" person chooses to save and/or invest, then he or she is doing the economy a favor, providing capital for business to provide more and better paying jobs.
Next, consumption is a better overall measure of ability to pay than income is. It is also a much more stable source of revenue for the government. (Income can fluctuate significntly, but consumption always remains somewhat constant.)
Third, the rebate mechanism makes the system more progressive, while giving everyone the same marginal rate. (In the AFT plan, a family of four can spend $22,500 a year and have an effective tax rate of 0%.) The rebate is preferable to exempting any retail items because the latter opens the door for the lobbyists to get back into corrupting the system for their benefit. Also, if everyone pays tax on every purchase, even if their effective rate is at or near zero, they will have a greater stake in keeping government accountable. (It's the perception game again, but in reverse.)
Finally, there are the freedom aspects to going to a sales tax. Under such a system, the tax system can't be tinkered with to give anyone a preference based on age, gender, race, sexual preference, social/ecomoic status, etc. -- i.e., no more class warfare via the tax code. No one needs to provide the government with an accounting of their finances. (The only information needed by the government is the number of adults and children residing at your address for the rebate.)
Also remember that many of the hoops the tax code makes you go through is so that you can perform certain activities with pre-tax money (health care, professional development, retirement savings, charitable contributions, etc.) -- under a sales tax plan, all income is pre-tax until you decide to spend it.
The issue of what to block is always a tough one, which is why I mentioned "common-sense" rules to allow for the filters to be bypassed on request for specific information. At least until the filtering software gets several generations smarter about what it's doing.
No one has an inherent right to Internet access. The libraries and schools offer it as a research tool, according to their rules of usage. If you can't afford a computer of your own, you will have to make do with the restrictions placed on publicly-funded computers. Does anyone have an inherent right to a radio, television, or telephone? Why should Internet access be different?
Ah, but look beyond the static numbers and on to the tends. The violent crime rate in the UK is increasing faster than in the US (where I believe it might even be decreasing) -- it's just that the UK has a long way to go to "catch up". And in the US, there's a strong correlation between the level of gun control and violent crime, i.e., that violent crime increases as gun control increases and vice-versa.
You totally miss the point. If taxpayer money is being used to fund the computer and the access, then the government has every right to dictate what acceptable use of that resource is. You want to surf for things blocked by your library or school? Get your own damn computer and ISP, don't expect me and everyone else to pay for it.
School and library funded computers should be used for research purposes, and using filtering software to do that is a reasonable approach. (Common sense should also come into it -- a student should be able to request the filter be disbaled to reach a site normally blocked if there is a good reason behind it.)
On the other hand, Gore's approach really is creepy -- compel ISP's to provide an ability to track users so that parents can snoop on their kid's activites? It ain't censorship, but it is draconian.
Remember, it's one thing to say that government resources have restrictions, it's quite another for the government to force private industry into doing its will, no matter how good the intention.
The point everyone is missing is that when talking about such-and-such a group paying X% of the taxes, is that we're only talking about individual income taxes here. When you factor in the total cost of federal taxes (exise taxes, Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes, higher costs due to pass-through of corporate income tax in costs of goods and services, etc.), you can see that everyone is paying more taxes thatn they might think. The lowest quintile still pays about 5% effective rate, even though that have about a -7% individual income tax rate -- the highest quintile's individual income taxes [after deductions and credits] is 16%, but their effective overall rate is 29%. (1999 projected effective rates from the Congression Budget Office)
Everything else is perception only. It's far easier for the government to raise taxes as long as they can convince the majority of the people that "someone else" is paying for it.
The only way to simplify the tax system and to make it truly fair is to eliminate hidden taxes (e.g., exise taxes and corporate taxes) and double- or triple-taxation (e.g., inheritance taxes), and impose a single rate on everybody with some form of exemption. (The exemption would "untax" the poorest people and basically make the rest of the system progressive.) I personally prefer the mechanism to be a retail sales tax with a rebate mechanism.
Anyone who believes that Gore is some sort of brilliant thinker while Bush is an idiot has been spending too much time listening to media spin and not enough actually looking at the candidates and their histories.
If you go to the academic record, they were both mediocre (at best) undergraduate students, with Bush having a slightly higher GPA while taking a slightly tougher courseload (including "Mr. Environment" Gore's 'D' in basic science). But Bush managed to earn a Havard MBA -- Gore dropped out of Vanderbilt twice in graduate programs, once in divinity (after he failed most of the courses he took in a program he got an early rotation home from Vietnam for) and once for law (I don't know what his grades were there -- he left to run for Congress).
Ok, so coursework isn't always the best example. But Gore's reputation for brilliance comes more from being very detailed as opposed to having original ideas. And seeing whom each candidate has surrounded himself with as advisors tend to make me think that Bush may really be the smarter one, especially in where it matters for a President. I personally prefer a delegator to a micro-manager. (Also true in business... but I digress...)
Of course, the real reasons to vote for someone are basic competence (I think either candidate is competent), trustworthyness (Bush beats Gore hands-down here), and issues (all depends on your own philosophy). There may be many reasons to vote for one candidate over the other, but please don't fall for the "Gore is brilliant and Bush is stupid" line as a factor in your decision.
Absolutely... let's see, what could real events be...
Web Server Configuration: Starting with an x86 box with an empty hard drive, contestants attempt to turn it into a web server that serves up (committee-provided) dynamic web pages. Installation and configuration would have to be done within a specified time limit (could have "sprint" and "marathon" versions); the winner will be the one whose machine handles the most hits without drops or crashes. Allowed equipment: CDs of "stock" OS, applications, and development tools (including source, if desired).
Web Server Configuration (Matched Sprint): Same as above, but head-to-head competition to be the first to handle a predefined traffic load.
(Replace "Web-server" with firewall or DB server, again time limits or matched sprints to be measured against server metrics.)
Legacy code challenge: contestants will be given a program with little, no, or possibly contradictory documentation and will need to be the first to modify the program to either add a new feature or to fix an existing bug (event variations).
(Any ideas, folks?)
IMPORTANT NOTE: Any competitor not testing positive for caffeine will be immediately disqualified.
It's no so much that, as it is that in the cases of Mandarin and Hindu, that the languages, while spoken by a large number of people, is still very mch so a regional language, because there are no predominantly Mandarin or Hindu speaking aras in other parts of the worlds (other than certain neighborhoods in larger cities).
English (or some variant thereof) is still a primary or secondary language in large economic centers spaced all over the world, thanks mostly to British colonialization and the reach of American industry. As long as a significant portion of international commerce is run through these centers (US, Canada, England, Hong Kong, Australia, etc.), English will remain a dominant "world" language.
--
After actually reading their web pages...
on
Personal Helicopter
·
· Score: 2
Cost: expect the first models to be very expensive, and geared toward military and other government organizations -- they hope that when a personal model comes available that it will be priced roughly the same as a high-end sportscar. It is very unlikely that there will be thousands of these whipping around your hometown anytime in the near future...
Safety: this looks to me like the reason they're taking as long as they have been -- they seem very concerned about it, and have significantly over-engineered the system to make sure that operating conditions will be well below tolerances. It looks like it would be far more likely for your car to "break" catastrophicly than for this thing (e.g., four turbines and apparently the ability for [limited] powerless flight). They also plan to have an HUD, not sure what it will entail, but it should hopefully prevent airborne collisions.
Training: users will be required to be trained (I couldn't find any specifics on what that will ential), and a retinal scan will be used to enable the device for flight, to ensure only authorized users can fly the thing.
Landing footprint: any flat surface larger than a kitchen table.
From what I've seen, hiring is being done much more on a project-by-project basis, rather than evaluating employees for general "fit" within a company. It is almost as if manyy of these companies are essentially hiring contractors, not direct employees, although they will be given pay and benefits like direct employees.
Also, when hiring for a specific project, companies tend to be very paranoid about making sure they get a good person -- the process is expensive to start with, and firing someone just because they don't quite work out is difficult (not impossible... just time-consuming and expensive, generally) under current labor laws.
Of course, there probably are some of those other reasons that people have been mentioning, too (due to our lawsuit-happy world). I prefer to think of it just as the cluelessness of doing project-based hiring for direct employees.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple incompitence.
but is Java really fast enough for distributed applications?
The speed bottleneck in a distributed systems is generally the communications overhead (including marshalling of messages), and not the implementation language. Use the language that you are most comfortable with and best suits your needs. Java can be a good choice if multithreading and platform-independence (and Java is very good at platform-independence on the server side) are key considerations. C-family languages would be better if you need to rely on linking to existing object libraries. Et cetera.
Yes, you are being cynical, but not completely realistic. If the companies could get away with what you propose, they probably would. But they can't, for two very important reasons:
All it takes is one company within an industry to recognize that they can gain marketshare in exchange for a low profit margin per unit before a "price war" would begin. Most American businesses are very cut-throat and operate on narrow profit margins because of this. I expect they will be able to pad their profits somewhat, but the majority of their savings will get passed on to consumers.
It's in their best interests to keep the economy healthy. If prices did rise like that across the board, even though people would have more disposable income, the economy as a whole would be hurt, and their sales will fall.
You've set up a strawman argument. The regressiveness is explicitly addressed by the rebate. If you'd have taken the time to actually follow up the links I provided, you'd see how it actually works.
The rebate is based purely on family size, not on income. There goes the need for the IRS or similar agency out the window. No one needs to file a detailed financial statement of themselves to the government. I'd hope the./ crowd is libertarian enough to appreciate the significance of that.
Everyone gets the rebate. You, me, Bill Gates, the homeless person on the street corner, the single mother working two jobs. Everybody.
The calculation of the rebate is the tax rate times the poverty-level income line for a family of the given size (I believe with a minor adjustment so that married adults receive the same rebate as if they were two single adults). This rebate is paid in advance to any family that registers themselves with the Social Security Administration, which is tasked to handle the rebate. (The registration is not invasive, it's as much, or less, information that you need to provide to register to vote.) The rebate arrives monthly based on 1/12 of the annual amount.
The basic idea is, "$X (the poverty line) is what is required to buy subsistence-level items, therefore the first $X * tax_rate is exempted from the tax. Rather than force people to keep receipts and submit them for the rebate, we'll just assume eveyone spends that and rebate everyone. We'll also pay it in advance so that those who need it the most won't be hard-pressed until it arrives."
As I've pointed out, and AFT has tables to show this, the rebate makes the system progressive, not regressive. Bill Gates' effective rate is a fraction under the nominal rate (no one, unless they choose to not apply for the rebate, will have an effective rate of the full amount) -- a starving grad student has a zero or negative effective rate.
The rich do not get off easy. People generally have three choices with their money: invest it, spend it, or give it away. It's not being stuffed under any mattresses. Investment means an influx of capital into the workforce. (Combine that with the movement of foreign companies to the US [see another sub-thread] and that means more domestic goods available and more and higher-wage jobs.) If they spend it, it's taxed, and their effect rate is virtually the maximum. Or they give it away to someone who will put it to some form of productive use.
The current tax system is far more regressive than you might care to believe. The first $70,000 or so each person (not family, person) makes per year is taxed at a 15.3% rate for SSA/Medicare and 20-40% of the costs of goods are due to income taxes and their related effects on corporations. That puts someone who has to spend most or all of their income just to get by at a minimum of a 35% tax bracket, assuming they pay no personal income taxes!
The middle class pay the most, proportional to their personal wealth, than anyone else under any tax system I've ever seen. Under the current income tax, most poor people have (apparently) negative tax rates, and the rich have the ability to shelter their money. The middle class is left to pick up the tab.
The fact is, there is already a 20-40% price increase built into the costs of goods and services due to corporate taxes of all forms, the complaince costs of those taxes, and costs due to higher interest rates. Couple that with having to use after-tax dollars, I'd say the middle class is better off under an NRST.
("a" and "c" are pretty well wrapped up, I think...)
b) The NRST is framed as an exise tax, not a direct tax. Therefore it is not a Constitutional amendment and the defunding of the IRS is a stauatory matter. The bill also includes a resolution calling for the repeal of the 16th Amendment, but that will still require legislative action separately, however, in the interim, they make federal income taxes illegal from a stauatory level.
d) I've got some friends helping me search, but I've found a reference to one of these surveys in an article from the Princeton Economic Institute -- the part of interest is:
In Japan, a survey of 40 of our top industrial clients in Tokyo revealed that 100% responded that they would shift sizable business including manufacture to the United States. This was not surprising since Japan is doing this already due to the high levels of taxation. But what was surprising was that 22% responded by saying that they would consider moving their LEGAL headquarters to the United States! Already several first section listed Japanese companies have moved their LEGAL headquarters to Hong Kong because of the 15% tax rate. It would appear that if the US were to adopt the PEI proposal, the next boom will not be in Asia, it will shift to the United States where the infrastructure already exists.
The PEI proposal is not exactly the same as the NRST (it seems to be more of a hybrid approach) but the principle is the same -- get rid of the corporate income tax and businesses will flock to the US.
I'm still looking for an online transcript, but the following quote comes from comments made by Rep. Archer (Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee) in 1996:
"A recent survey was done, in Europe and Japan, of the major corporations and I was astounded at the results. They were asked, 'If the US abolished its income tax and went to a sales tax, would that have any impact on your decisions?' Eighty percent of the corporations said they would build their factories in the United States of America. Twenty percent said they would move their international headquarters to the United States of America."
The unnamed survey or surveys he mentions has results very similar to the PEI research above, so it may have come from a more complete report from them.
a) Consumption taxes are also a more stable revenue stream than income taxes. My personal preference is for a single-stage, single-rate tax that makes the cost of government explict and the government more accountable to the citizens. Hidden taxes are just a way for the government to take in more money than you'd normally allow.
b) Absolutely. I'd fight any sales tax from the feds unless they eliminate the income tax at the same time. The 23% rate bill [HR 2525](that also includes SSA/Medicare taxes and ends all payroll taxes) I know for a fact defunds the IRS and makes federal income taxes illegal. I'm pretty sure the other bill [HR 2001] also does the same thing, but I'm not as familiar with it.
c) I've tried to answer the regressivity claim. The fact is, because of the hidden taxes already in the costs of goods and services, this shouldn't be much different than the current system in terms of burden of taxes, just more explicit.
d) I didn't bring it up so as to not worry our non-US friends. A survey of multinational companies showed that a move from the income tax to a sales tax would also mean a massive relocation of production facilities and (to a lesser extent) corporate headquarters to the US.
Using the (higher) 23% rate, this means their effective tax rate on the $60,000 is 14.6%
I should also mention that because of the rebate, the tax is actually progressive, not regressive. Someone at or below the poverty line pays no taxes and may even receive additional credit (as they do now with the EITC and other credits), while as spending increases, so does the effective tax rate, until it asymptoticly approaches the 23% level.
And to the other issue about the rich not paying taxes because they will invest rather than spend, this is a good thing becuase the investments will help grow business and increase wages (and therefore the tax base, which in turn leads to lower tax rates). Besides, when was the last time a poor person ever gave you a job?
Thanks for the info -- I'm more familiar with the Canadian system, which is a total mess. Between the GST and an income tax, how do Canadians actually ever manage to buy anything?
Look at the sites I referenced previously. They address all of these problems. I'll just hit some of the highlights.
As to the middle class... let's assume that the poverty line for a family of four is $22,000 and our middle-class family makes $60,000. Because all families, regardless of income get the rebate on the poverty level, the effective taxed income is $38,000, assuming that this family does not save or invest, spend on education (considered an investment), or buy previously-taxed items such as used cars, houses, appliances, etc. Using the (higher) 23% rate, this means their effective tax rate on the $60,000 is 14.6%. But this family is already paying 15.3% in payroll taxes (SSA/Medicare) alone, plus any income taxes.
Prices are actually fairly neutral under an NRST as replacement of the income tax. Competition will compel corporations to lower prices proportionally to costs lest they be undercut by competitors. Assuming an extrememly conservative 20% savings passed through to consumers, this yields an effective price of $1.04 for an item that costs $1.00 now. (Natually, a 23% savings would lead to a $1.00 price on a current $1.00 item.) If the savings passed through went to 30%, that same item would cost $0.91.
Another place that will help everyone, especially the middle-class is interest rates. Interest rates will fall to the tax-free investment levels currently offered, because the lender need not pay income taxes on the interest he earns. Middle-class are more likely to benefit from lower rates on revolving credit-card debt, student loans, mortgages, and auto loans.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, other than the fact that FOX lost the NHL contract (to ABC), they were making the "glow puck" a bit less painful -- e.g., only "glowing" the puck when it was out of camera view (down on the near-side boards, for example). But those "vapor trails" really needed to go...
--
(Note for the sarcasm-impaired: I'm not actually suggesting this but using it as a response to the mentality that those who earn more somehow should be required to proportionally pay more.)
--
Sounds like something else I've read about on /. -- frequently, in fact -- now what was it again... hmmm.. pain to set up... designed to be extremely flexible... darn! If I could just remember...
--
First of all hidden taxes already place that burden (higher tax rate as a result of higher consumption as a percentage of income) on the shoulders of those who spend a larger percentage of their income on consumption, so on the balance that doesn't change. If a "rich" person chooses to save and/or invest, then he or she is doing the economy a favor, providing capital for business to provide more and better paying jobs.
Next, consumption is a better overall measure of ability to pay than income is. It is also a much more stable source of revenue for the government. (Income can fluctuate significntly, but consumption always remains somewhat constant.)
Third, the rebate mechanism makes the system more progressive, while giving everyone the same marginal rate. (In the AFT plan, a family of four can spend $22,500 a year and have an effective tax rate of 0%.) The rebate is preferable to exempting any retail items because the latter opens the door for the lobbyists to get back into corrupting the system for their benefit. Also, if everyone pays tax on every purchase, even if their effective rate is at or near zero, they will have a greater stake in keeping government accountable. (It's the perception game again, but in reverse.)
Finally, there are the freedom aspects to going to a sales tax. Under such a system, the tax system can't be tinkered with to give anyone a preference based on age, gender, race, sexual preference, social/ecomoic status, etc. -- i.e., no more class warfare via the tax code. No one needs to provide the government with an accounting of their finances. (The only information needed by the government is the number of adults and children residing at your address for the rebate.)
Also remember that many of the hoops the tax code makes you go through is so that you can perform certain activities with pre-tax money (health care, professional development, retirement savings, charitable contributions, etc.) -- under a sales tax plan, all income is pre-tax until you decide to spend it.
--
--
Ah, but look beyond the static numbers and on to the tends. The violent crime rate in the UK is increasing faster than in the US (where I believe it might even be decreasing) -- it's just that the UK has a long way to go to "catch up". And in the US, there's a strong correlation between the level of gun control and violent crime, i.e., that violent crime increases as gun control increases and vice-versa.
--
School and library funded computers should be used for research purposes, and using filtering software to do that is a reasonable approach. (Common sense should also come into it -- a student should be able to request the filter be disbaled to reach a site normally blocked if there is a good reason behind it.)
On the other hand, Gore's approach really is creepy -- compel ISP's to provide an ability to track users so that parents can snoop on their kid's activites? It ain't censorship, but it is draconian.
Remember, it's one thing to say that government resources have restrictions, it's quite another for the government to force private industry into doing its will, no matter how good the intention.
--
Everything else is perception only. It's far easier for the government to raise taxes as long as they can convince the majority of the people that "someone else" is paying for it.
The only way to simplify the tax system and to make it truly fair is to eliminate hidden taxes (e.g., exise taxes and corporate taxes) and double- or triple-taxation (e.g., inheritance taxes), and impose a single rate on everybody with some form of exemption. (The exemption would "untax" the poorest people and basically make the rest of the system progressive.) I personally prefer the mechanism to be a retail sales tax with a rebate mechanism.
--
If you go to the academic record, they were both mediocre (at best) undergraduate students, with Bush having a slightly higher GPA while taking a slightly tougher courseload (including "Mr. Environment" Gore's 'D' in basic science). But Bush managed to earn a Havard MBA -- Gore dropped out of Vanderbilt twice in graduate programs, once in divinity (after he failed most of the courses he took in a program he got an early rotation home from Vietnam for) and once for law (I don't know what his grades were there -- he left to run for Congress).
Ok, so coursework isn't always the best example. But Gore's reputation for brilliance comes more from being very detailed as opposed to having original ideas. And seeing whom each candidate has surrounded himself with as advisors tend to make me think that Bush may really be the smarter one, especially in where it matters for a President. I personally prefer a delegator to a micro-manager. (Also true in business... but I digress...)
Of course, the real reasons to vote for someone are basic competence (I think either candidate is competent), trustworthyness (Bush beats Gore hands-down here), and issues (all depends on your own philosophy). There may be many reasons to vote for one candidate over the other, but please don't fall for the "Gore is brilliant and Bush is stupid" line as a factor in your decision.
--
<BadPun>Well, whatever the events are, the DECathalon would have to be done on old Digital computers...</BadPun>
--
IMPORTANT NOTE: Any competitor not testing positive for caffeine will be immediately disqualified.
--
English (or some variant thereof) is still a primary or secondary language in large economic centers spaced all over the world, thanks mostly to British colonialization and the reach of American industry. As long as a significant portion of international commerce is run through these centers (US, Canada, England, Hong Kong, Australia, etc.), English will remain a dominant "world" language.
--
Safety: this looks to me like the reason they're taking as long as they have been -- they seem very concerned about it, and have significantly over-engineered the system to make sure that operating conditions will be well below tolerances. It looks like it would be far more likely for your car to "break" catastrophicly than for this thing (e.g., four turbines and apparently the ability for [limited] powerless flight). They also plan to have an HUD, not sure what it will entail, but it should hopefully prevent airborne collisions.
Training: users will be required to be trained (I couldn't find any specifics on what that will ential), and a retinal scan will be used to enable the device for flight, to ensure only authorized users can fly the thing.
Landing footprint: any flat surface larger than a kitchen table.
--
Oh, the latter, to be sure. (Spelling has never been a strong suit for me, especially while typing.)
Of course, I could hedge and claim it was my subconscious playing a joke on me...
--
Also, when hiring for a specific project, companies tend to be very paranoid about making sure they get a good person -- the process is expensive to start with, and firing someone just because they don't quite work out is difficult (not impossible... just time-consuming and expensive, generally) under current labor laws.
Of course, there probably are some of those other reasons that people have been mentioning, too (due to our lawsuit-happy world). I prefer to think of it just as the cluelessness of doing project-based hiring for direct employees.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple incompitence.
--
The speed bottleneck in a distributed systems is generally the communications overhead (including marshalling of messages), and not the implementation language. Use the language that you are most comfortable with and best suits your needs. Java can be a good choice if multithreading and platform-independence (and Java is very good at platform-independence on the server side) are key considerations. C-family languages would be better if you need to rely on linking to existing object libraries. Et cetera.
--
Unless she barbeques them first...
--
--
The rebate is based purely on family size, not on income. There goes the need for the IRS or similar agency out the window. No one needs to file a detailed financial statement of themselves to the government. I'd hope the ./ crowd is libertarian enough to appreciate the significance of that.
Everyone gets the rebate. You, me, Bill Gates, the homeless person on the street corner, the single mother working two jobs. Everybody.
The calculation of the rebate is the tax rate times the poverty-level income line for a family of the given size (I believe with a minor adjustment so that married adults receive the same rebate as if they were two single adults). This rebate is paid in advance to any family that registers themselves with the Social Security Administration, which is tasked to handle the rebate. (The registration is not invasive, it's as much, or less, information that you need to provide to register to vote.) The rebate arrives monthly based on 1/12 of the annual amount.
The basic idea is, "$X (the poverty line) is what is required to buy subsistence-level items, therefore the first $X * tax_rate is exempted from the tax. Rather than force people to keep receipts and submit them for the rebate, we'll just assume eveyone spends that and rebate everyone. We'll also pay it in advance so that those who need it the most won't be hard-pressed until it arrives."
As I've pointed out, and AFT has tables to show this, the rebate makes the system progressive, not regressive. Bill Gates' effective rate is a fraction under the nominal rate (no one, unless they choose to not apply for the rebate, will have an effective rate of the full amount) -- a starving grad student has a zero or negative effective rate.
The rich do not get off easy. People generally have three choices with their money: invest it, spend it, or give it away. It's not being stuffed under any mattresses. Investment means an influx of capital into the workforce. (Combine that with the movement of foreign companies to the US [see another sub-thread] and that means more domestic goods available and more and higher-wage jobs.) If they spend it, it's taxed, and their effect rate is virtually the maximum. Or they give it away to someone who will put it to some form of productive use.
The current tax system is far more regressive than you might care to believe. The first $70,000 or so each person (not family, person) makes per year is taxed at a 15.3% rate for SSA/Medicare and 20-40% of the costs of goods are due to income taxes and their related effects on corporations. That puts someone who has to spend most or all of their income just to get by at a minimum of a 35% tax bracket, assuming they pay no personal income taxes!
--
The fact is, there is already a 20-40% price increase built into the costs of goods and services due to corporate taxes of all forms, the complaince costs of those taxes, and costs due to higher interest rates. Couple that with having to use after-tax dollars, I'd say the middle class is better off under an NRST.
--
b) The NRST is framed as an exise tax, not a direct tax. Therefore it is not a Constitutional amendment and the defunding of the IRS is a stauatory matter. The bill also includes a resolution calling for the repeal of the 16th Amendment, but that will still require legislative action separately, however, in the interim, they make federal income taxes illegal from a stauatory level.
d) I've got some friends helping me search, but I've found a reference to one of these surveys in an article from the Princeton Economic Institute -- the part of interest is:
The PEI proposal is not exactly the same as the NRST (it seems to be more of a hybrid approach) but the principle is the same -- get rid of the corporate income tax and businesses will flock to the US.
I'm still looking for an online transcript, but the following quote comes from comments made by Rep. Archer (Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee) in 1996:
The unnamed survey or surveys he mentions has results very similar to the PEI research above, so it may have come from a more complete report from them.
--
a) Consumption taxes are also a more stable revenue stream than income taxes. My personal preference is for a single-stage, single-rate tax that makes the cost of government explict and the government more accountable to the citizens. Hidden taxes are just a way for the government to take in more money than you'd normally allow.
b) Absolutely. I'd fight any sales tax from the feds unless they eliminate the income tax at the same time. The 23% rate bill [HR 2525](that also includes SSA/Medicare taxes and ends all payroll taxes) I know for a fact defunds the IRS and makes federal income taxes illegal. I'm pretty sure the other bill [HR 2001] also does the same thing, but I'm not as familiar with it.
c) I've tried to answer the regressivity claim. The fact is, because of the hidden taxes already in the costs of goods and services, this shouldn't be much different than the current system in terms of burden of taxes, just more explicit.
d) I didn't bring it up so as to not worry our non-US friends. A survey of multinational companies showed that a move from the income tax to a sales tax would also mean a massive relocation of production facilities and (to a lesser extent) corporate headquarters to the US.
--
I should also mention that because of the rebate, the tax is actually progressive, not regressive. Someone at or below the poverty line pays no taxes and may even receive additional credit (as they do now with the EITC and other credits), while as spending increases, so does the effective tax rate, until it asymptoticly approaches the 23% level.
And to the other issue about the rich not paying taxes because they will invest rather than spend, this is a good thing becuase the investments will help grow business and increase wages (and therefore the tax base, which in turn leads to lower tax rates). Besides, when was the last time a poor person ever gave you a job?
--
Thanks for the info -- I'm more familiar with the Canadian system, which is a total mess. Between the GST and an income tax, how do Canadians actually ever manage to buy anything?
--
As to the middle class... let's assume that the poverty line for a family of four is $22,000 and our middle-class family makes $60,000. Because all families, regardless of income get the rebate on the poverty level, the effective taxed income is $38,000, assuming that this family does not save or invest, spend on education (considered an investment), or buy previously-taxed items such as used cars, houses, appliances, etc. Using the (higher) 23% rate, this means their effective tax rate on the $60,000 is 14.6%. But this family is already paying 15.3% in payroll taxes (SSA/Medicare) alone, plus any income taxes.
Prices are actually fairly neutral under an NRST as replacement of the income tax. Competition will compel corporations to lower prices proportionally to costs lest they be undercut by competitors. Assuming an extrememly conservative 20% savings passed through to consumers, this yields an effective price of $1.04 for an item that costs $1.00 now. (Natually, a 23% savings would lead to a $1.00 price on a current $1.00 item.) If the savings passed through went to 30%, that same item would cost $0.91.
Another place that will help everyone, especially the middle-class is interest rates. Interest rates will fall to the tax-free investment levels currently offered, because the lender need not pay income taxes on the interest he earns. Middle-class are more likely to benefit from lower rates on revolving credit-card debt, student loans, mortgages, and auto loans.
--