misanthrope
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-05-05 02:58 PM
Original message |
Why have I seen little to no discussion... |
|
...on Alan Greenspan's proposal of a national sales tax? Does the proposition of a national regressive tax cause concern among anyone?
|
swag
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-05-05 03:01 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Maybe you've been looking during the wrong times |
|
LBN has had a couple of threads, including this one http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1280562Anyway, good for you for raising the scary specter again.
|
stray cat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-05-05 03:01 PM
Response to Original message |
2. They had an online poll on MSNBC |
|
I think over 50% of voters were in favor of it. I think people don't realize how regressive that tax would really be.
|
Bluebear
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-05-05 03:02 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Because we all didn't know about it? |
SnoopDog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-05-05 03:04 PM
Response to Original message |
4. I would say that a National Sales tax violates the Constitution |
|
My opinion:
There is no constitutional provision to enact a Sales Tax...only a tax on income...They would have to amend the Constitution to enact a National Sales Tax.
16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
|
TahitiNut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-05-05 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. I'd say that's correct. |
|
The Constitution specifically required that tax levies be apportioned among the states according to their population. Then came the 16th Amendment. The so-called "strict constructionists" tend to conveniently ignore this in their proposals. They jettison any "principle" they otherwise conveniently espouse as soon as it gets in the way of their predations.
|
flamin lib
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-05-05 03:14 PM
Response to Original message |
6. I had a friend who loved the flat tax. |
|
Said that it could be fixed at 17% and it would be oh so fair. I had him pull his last three years tax returns and figure the actual % of his gross income that was paid in income tax after deductions. It was 15%.
Changed his mind.
|
Career Prole
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-05-05 03:27 PM
Response to Original message |
7. It's popped up here and there... |
K-W
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-05-05 03:45 PM
Response to Original message |
8. I dont think it would ever happen. |
|
Edited on Sat Mar-05-05 03:47 PM by K-W
People would notice they were paying more. People dont like paying more. The promise of lower taxes is what keeps them in office.
|
rzemanfl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-05-05 04:26 PM
Response to Original message |
9. I think it was a stalking horse for Bush's Social Security assault |
|
to divert attention while he set up the "war room" and 60 days of bullshit plan, etc. From the little bit I read, even Greenspan admits it would be impractical to try to implement such a crazy idea.
I wish Bush would set up a "war room" to find Bin Laden (or get proof that he's dead). There's plenty of time to "fix" Social Security, he needs to fix the mess he's made of Iraq. The lying asshole drunk.
|
applegrove
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-05-05 09:53 PM
Response to Original message |
10. Because the WH plan to make us all apathetic with SS threats while |
|
offering no details or solution.... is succeeding in making us apathetic. Rove will wear out descent and then slip in the COMPLETE REGRESSIVE OVERHALL TO THE TAX SYSTEM.
Now if they add a VAT tax on top of the present system.. on luxury goods but not essentials... then that is super (we have it in Canada..it pays for health care).
So just like with SS. No need to replace SS with private investments... just add the income tax breaks to existing income tax and get people to save for the future that way.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 05th 2024, 08:24 PM
Response to Original message |