What are you going to do about the ACA?

Originally posted by normbenign
National Sales Tax, but only after the repeal of the 16th Amendment so that we don't end up with both.

Advantages: No compliance reporting, or paperwork, efficient collection, almost no need for an IRS, gets to the underground economy, like drug dealers and prostitutes who buy stuff, but don't report income. Collection mechanism is in place already in ...[text shortened]... because of some of the above factors.

Also is less likely to be used for social engineering.

The organization behind

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

which is an advocate of a national sales tax to replace the federal income tax, puts the proposed national sales tax at 23%.

It is explained at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

that this would actually be a 30% tax as the bill now stands. It also says that the tax would be progressive on consumption and regressive on income. There would be a tax break on purchases up to the poverty level. This might explain the effect on consumption. Generally it would shift the tax burden toward the middle class. The wiki article outlines other alleged pros and cons.

While you may say the change would not be social engineering -- presumably because that term is used as a pejorative by conservatives -- there would be social consequences. In fact, that's the point of it.

Apparently the tax would not replace state income taxes nor would state and local sales taxes be affected.

Originally posted by JS357
The organization behind

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

which is an advocate of a national sales tax to replace the federal income tax, puts the proposed national sales tax at 23%.

It is explained at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

that this would actually be a 30% tax as the bill now stands. It also says that the tax would be progr ...[text shortened]... the tax would not replace state income taxes nor would state and local sales taxes be affected.

Let's face it, if the federal government keeps spending and expanding as it has for the last half century or more, it doesn't matter what type of tax or tax rates there are. Eventually we reach a point where the debt service consumes the entire GDP, and before that happens the government blows up into anarchy.

Other organizations advocate the VAT, which tacks on at every level of the movement of products and services. The problem really isn't what type of tax, but that governments are spending way more than the revenue they collect.

A few years ago the Fair Tax people were calling for 17% as revenue neutral. Note that the advantages I mentioned and which are probably repeated by the Fair tax folks, can't all be measured. Again, I think that carving out exceptions is how the income tax became so muddled.

Thing I like the best about the sales tax is that it is simple. You buy stuff, you pay the tax. NO CPAs, no Peachtree software, nobody cares where your money comes from, or how much you have or make. Pay for what you buy.

I've heard it said, and I believe it, that the underground economy in most large American cities is bigger than the above ground.

Originally posted by normbenign
Let's face it, if the federal government keeps spending and expanding as it has for the last half century or more, it doesn't matter what type of tax or tax rates there are. Eventually we reach a point where the debt service consumes the entire GDP, and before that happens the government blows up into anarchy.

Other organizations advocate the VAT, whi ...[text shortened]... it, that the underground economy in most large American cities is bigger than the above ground.

A criticism of the sales tax approach is that it will expand the underground economy. At 30% federal sales tax, it will be a huge incentive. It's not just evasion of taxes for illegal transactions. Barter of services and cash-only payment for perfectly legal transactions are areas that are generally under the radar.

But I feel confident that your real complaint isn't about the method by which federal revenues are raised.

Originally posted by JS357
A criticism of the sales tax approach is that it will expand the underground economy. At 30% federal sales tax, it will be a huge incentive. It's not just evasion of taxes for illegal transactions. Barter of services and cash-only payment for perfectly legal transactions are areas that are generally under the radar.

But I feel confident that your real complaint isn't about the method by which federal revenues are raised.

"A criticism of the sales tax approach is that it will expand the underground economy."

I don't think so. As with any tax there would be efforts to avoid, including hiding transactions. People do that to avoid a 6% tax. A lot of sales is not avoidable or hideable. The same folks who might disguise a sales transaction or engage in barter, work under the table today.

In short, the government will never catch all tax dodgers, but the sales tax imposes less dead weight on every tax payer. The avoidance schemes actually tend to benefit the overall economy, by helping provide less costly services, and innovative procedures.

Drug dealers are million dollar men. They currently are tax exempt. Their store bought stuff, including the fancy car would be now taxable. My main preference is based on the Constitution, which required direct taxation to be proportional until the 16th Amendment. The ratification of the 16th was questionable to say the least. I'd like to see that corrected.

It is true that my main concern is that we don't spend more than is collected outside of wartime.

Originally posted by normbenign
"A criticism of the sales tax approach is that it will expand the underground economy."

I don't think so. As with any tax there would be efforts to avoid, including hiding transactions. People do that to avoid a 6% tax. A lot of sales is not avoidable or hideable. The same folks who might disguise a sales transaction or engage in barter, work under ...[text shortened]... t is true that my main concern is that we don't spend more than is collected outside of wartime.

"It is true that my main concern is that we don't spend more than is collected outside of wartime."

So you don't believe in government bond debt? Even revenue bonds? All I am saying, because I respect your thinking, is that it can't be summed up in a few words.

Originally posted by sh76
I have a plan through my employer. I pay half the premium and the company pays the other half. Paying the premiums is annoying, but at least its with pre-tax dollars. My coverage is quite good, although hospital bills always find a way to become a pain in the neck.

I am not opposed to an ACA-like idea in principle, but I think the current plan is overly comp ...[text shortened]... n and increases bureaucracy.

I hope I'm wrong about the ACA, but I'm not optimistic about it.

There are those who may call you a RINO or even a socialist, for your comments. Yet, everyone should be open to healthcare reform, and everyone should be concerned about the ACA not being the best or most efficient way, and to propose and consider alternatives or revisions. For your radical GOP brethren, shutting down the government and forcing a US default seems to be an overreaction.

Originally posted by JS357
I am curious about US residents here. Are you:

1. On medicare?
2. Covered by a company group plan?
3. Have an individual policy with an Aetna, Blue Cross, Kaiser type of company?
4. Self-insured meaning not insured, and will continue that way?

other?

What about most people you personally know?

Me, I'm #1. My wife is president of a small corporation and it has a Kaiser group plan. So she's #2.

4

but i do not think i will have a choice by next year...

Originally posted by empovsun
4

but i do not think i will have a choice by next year...

You can pay the tax penalty.