Greenspan Touts Idea of a Consumption Tax

[newportdadde]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050303/ap_on_bi_ge/greenspan_20

Here we go again. SS privatization, Bankruptcy Bill and now they are floating around the consumption tax again.

When will the 98% of us wake up from our American Idol and Survivor hazes long enough to realize that the top 2% now having punched us in the gut are attempting to drown us and kill off the middle class completely and push the lower class even further down. See the late 1800s for an idea of the future we are heading towards.

[Skink]

1. Greenspan is becoming dangerous.....

Today's moment of zen..I feel I must warn against excessive surpluses.

[indepat]

36. I would not dignify him by calling him a shilling partisan w***e.

[Mugsy]

57. Sorry, but I've been a C-Tax fan for years.

When done properly, a Consumption Tax is the ONLY fair and sustainable tax system. It is the current system that contributes to all of the abuses and inequities in our tax system.

By making "staples" (food, milk, electricity, non-prepared foods, etc) and "raw materials" tax exempt, the poor can manage their taxes even to the point of paying nothing. Whereas big-ticket items like luxury cars, boats, etc, will collect more in tax.

A C-Tax also collects taxes from hundreds of "missed sources", such as unreported gambling winnings, illegal drug sales or other crimes where the "income" goes unreported.

By NOT taxes raw materials, you avoid "double taxation", making the final product too expensive. This is the problem with the VAT (Value Added Tax) imposed in places like England, making everything unnecessarily expensive.

And just imagine what an economic boom it would mean for manufacturing not to have to pay taxes on the stuff they produce.

The most unfair alternate tax system is the "flat tax" that shifts the burden to the poor.

The subject is too involved to discuss in detail here, so I recommend reading "The Zero-Sum Solution" by Lester Thurow:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671628143/qid=1109951206/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/102-7919290-0179368?v=glance&s=books

Greenspan has it right.

[ben_packard]

63. Just a thought

Where would you draw the line on 'essentials' that are tax free. A consumption tax surely would hurt the middle class most of all, as I was under the impression the rich generally save a larger proportion of their income and the middle class spend. Only taxing luxury yachts and the like won't bring in much revenue; the majority of the non essential items will be things bought by the middle class and rich much more equally than their respective incomes.

[oneighty]

2. Yes

Place a ten percent tax on food and clothing. Increase tax on gasoline and utilities. That ought to cover the "lucky duckys". A ten percent tax on rent would be great too.

That leaves open a tax on O2 consumption/CO2 production for future use.

180

[yellowcanine]

3. How European of him. I thought the Pubs didn't like the European

approach to taxes. The VAT tax is a very European idea and as far as I can tell it hasn't helped to promote economic growth there.

[Skink]

5. But don't tax the internet.......

This way poor people without credit will pay all the taxes. Gas either until we can figure out a way to fill up on line.

[seasat]

20. Most European countries also have income tax.

We actually have a similar setup but our consumption taxes are administered by most states in regressive sales taxes instead of at the federal level like in Europe. Greenspan borders on being a Ranydroid in his ideas. A regressive consumption tax on top of the regressive state sales taxes would hammer the middle class.

[etherealtruth]

24. I'm beginning to believe dismantling the middle class...

...is the goal.

[HereSince1628]

4. Deficit...the mother of tax inventions

returning to a legislature near you.

[KharmaTrain]

15. Home School 'Em

We have a referendum trying to make up a 3.5 million dollar shortfall thanks to this regimes tax giveaways to the rich and the "no child left" behind scam. This doesn't even take into account future drops as the job and real estate markets have gone into depression thus shrinking the local tax base further.

Repugnicans love defecits. When the government borrows, it has to borrow from someone. Yep, there's Chinese and Japanese and French and Germans ready to get those notes at a nice return, but so do our large lenders. Not only that, they want the debt to grow larger since that means every month all they get are their minimum debt service (just like a credit card)...and then add what isn't paid to the principal and the debt rolls even higher. Nice scam...and wanna bet the Carlisle group has several big note holders?

[Hasaler]

43. Starving the Beast is the goal

They want to run defecits so that they can present a reason to abolish government programs that they don't like.

Isn't consumption the fuel that feeds our economy? If consumption is reduced, doesn't the economy die? The lower and middle class drive the economy with their consumption. Millions of people buying a DVD player does more for the economy than one person buying a yacht.

[chomskysright]

59. see Krugman: starve the beast: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/04/opinion/0

[Divernan]

6. For Republicans, no tax can be to regressive.

nt

[timneu22]

67. Nice grammar

Enough said

[Ms. Clio]

69. Grammar flames, the pathetic retort of those who can't refute an argument

'Nuff said.

[Solar]

7. the rich screwing the poor

is there any better example?

[timneu22]

61. I don't see it that way

There is no rich-vs.-poor, us-vs.-them attitude here. Consumption tax is the best way to go.

[TheFarseer]

8. Shut up and set the interst rates

Do I even need to go into how this will stiffle consumer spending? Does 100% of everyone's money have to go into the stock market before these people will be happy? Maybe we could go to an economy where no one has any cash. We all carry around stock certificates with which we can buy milk at the grocery store or a sweater at the mall.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

9. I e-mailed Barbara Boxer...again.

I've sent a brief e-mail to her every time someone from the Bush camp has tried to resurrect this travesty.

Seriously, folks...the Social Security scheme is NOTHING compared to this one.

RENT will be taxed.

DOCTOR and DENTAL visits will be taxed.

BUSH'S BASE will have FAR MORE left in their bank account than YOU after you are both finished "consuming" for the year.

John Linder (R-GA) came up with the original proposal, and it has the backing of Dennis Hastert, who promoted Linder immediately after the 2004 election so that he would be in a more advantageous position for pushing this through.

Every economist who's looked at Linder's "math" (23% added to local state taxes) has said it WILL NOT WORK. A more realistic number is 40-50%.

So here's my example, once again: in Silicon Valley, where I live, I pay 8.25 sales tax. Add 50% to that, and your tax...on ALL GOODS AND SERVICES...becomes 58.25%.

SO...if you pay $1200 / mo. rent, your NEW rent will be $1899 / mo.

If you are UNEMPLOYED, and living off of your NEST EGG, and that nest egg is made up of money you EARNED and deposited in your bank AFTER you paid income taxes on it, Bush will have the right to "DOUBLE-DIP."

That means that if you paid 33% income tax on it when you EARNED it, when you SPEND it you will pay an ADDITIONAL 58%, which means...

...sit down, kids...

YOU WILL ULTIMATELY PAY 91.25 CENTS TAX ON EVERY DOLLAR IN THAT "NEST EGG."

Under the current model you would pay the initial 33% income tax plus 8.25% when you spend it, for a total of 41.25%.

Extracting an additional 50 cents on the dollar from hard-working Americans isn't "simplifying the tax code"...it's HIGHWAY ROBBERY.

Start calling. Start e-mailing. Or sit still and wait for this little proposal to stick its boot straight up your ass.

[Chipper Chat]

27. Thanks for the analysis.

I've always despised that woman who is sitting to the left of Dubya as he smirks "I call you my base." Yessiree - under this plan she will pay NO TAX at all - and she can continue to be titillated by Bush's banter (as we are kicked out of our no-longer-affordable rental houses and join the growing number of 'murkan homeless).

[TheEconomist]

39. Wrong math

While Im no fan of this plan either, it needs pointed out that your math is entirely wrong. You dont add percentages to get the real tax rate. If you were taxed initially at 33%, that would leave 67% remaining. The 58% tax would then be multiplied by the 67%, not added to the 33%. So if you made 100k, you would pay 33k, and then pay 58% of the remaining 67k, or 38860 leaving you with 28140. Thats a lot more than your incorrect math which would leave you with 8,750

[timneu22]

62. Your math is fuzzy

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/ConsumptionTax.html

To see how this works, first consider what happens with the income tax to a person with $10,000 of pretax income. Assume for simplicity that the only tax bracket is 25 percent, that the market (pretax) interest rate on bonds is 5 percent, and that inflation is zero. Under the income tax, the individual pays $2,500 in taxes no matter what he does, and then can consume $7,500 of goods and services now. Or he can save $7,500, investing it in bonds paying 5 percent interest. In the first year the individual earns $375 interest (5 percent of $7,500), pays 25 percent of that ($93.75) in taxes, and is left with $281.25 of after-tax interest income. Added to his original $7,500, he now can consume $7,781.25 of goods and services, or 3.75 percent more than a year ago. Note that the market paid the individual 5 percent to postpone consumption. But the income tax reduced what he received to 3.75 percent.

Now look at what happens under a consumption tax. If the individual consumes all his income, he pays the same $2,500 in taxes and has the same $7,500 to spend on goods and services. But if he saves all his income, he can invest $10,000 because he gets a deduction for all income saved. In the first year he earns $500 interest (5 percent of $10,000), leaving him with $10,500. If he wants to spend all of that now, he must pay taxes equal to 25 percent of the full $10,500, or $2,625. That is because all withdrawals from savings are taxable. After paying his taxes, the individual can consume $7,875 of goods and services. That is 5 percent more than the $7,500 he could have consumed a year earlier. The individual receives the full 5 percent market interest rate, and there is no tax distortion between present and future consumption.

[ben_packard]

64. Ouch my heah hurts ... So does this mean

that in theory those that can afford to save larger parts of their income will do well and those that have to spend most of their paycheck each month pay the price? Is that a fair analysis?

[timneu22]

65. The world is NOT rich-vs.-poor, us-vs.-them!!!

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brucebartlett/bb20030214.shtml

Furthermore, liberals make the mistake of assuming that those who are poor today will always be poor and those who are rich will always be rich. This is really their principal justification for income and wealth redistribution policies. However, new data reported in the latest Economic Report of the President show that there is substantial mobility up and down the income ladder.

The Council of Economic Advisers looked at what rate taxpayers faced in 1987 and again in 1996. Two-thirds of those in the lowest tax bracket the first year were in a higher bracket 10 years later, and more than half of those in the top tax bracket were in a lower bracket. In other words, the bulk of those who would be considered poor in the first instance were much better off a decade later -- a few even became rich, going all the way from the bottom tax bracket to the top bracket. Simultaneously, most of those who would be considered rich weren't after a few years -- 5 percent fell all the way from the top tax bracket to the bottom bracket.

The high degree of income mobility in American society is a key reason why many of the poor and middle class oppose high taxes on the rich -- 70 percent of Americans favor abolishing the estate tax, for example, even though it affects just 2 percent of the population. Implicitly, they know that they or their children might one day be rich and have to pay this tax. They also know that poor people don't create jobs; rich people do.

Adopting a consumption-based tax system will help more Americans become rich. That is another reason why liberals oppose it.

[Ms. Clio]

70. So it's "liberals" who make mistakes and oppose things

What a peculiar turn of phrase.

Aren't you a liberal? That's why you would be posting here, isn't it?

[ben_packard]

71. What are you talking about?

Tax effects people in different tax brackets (for which rich, middle class and poor are convenient short cuts) differently, so it's entirely justifiable to use such distinctions in this context. I'm not really sure what you're argument is regarding mobility. Poor people opposing taxing the rich because they hope to be there one day is another example of the ridiculous 'american dream' mindset that blinds people from what would help them. Rich by definition requires poor, there isn't going to be some mass upward exodus. Or perhaps you're argument is that it all evens out in the end? Please clarify.

[independent_mind]

10. You know... this is spooky...

You know... this is spooky...

Because as an Independent, I don't trust Greenspan at all. I just seeing him being apart of the bilderburgers or illuminati or some corrupt secret organization looking out for the corrupt.

I know it's strange, but that's what I think when I see or hear him.

[cthrumatrix]

11. all this shit is planned.... watch for a 23% Valued Added Sales Tax

you can hear the tax reform loonies on RW radio pumping it like it's the "second coming".... of course it's a tax hike.

[PA Democrat]

12. If people think sales for big ticket items like cars

are down now, just imagine what an additional 20-30% added onto the sticker price would do to car sales.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

17. The National Retail Federation knows that, and opposes it:

http://www.nrf.com/content/press/release2004/nationalsalestax.htm

[jdj]

40. yes, they ain't stupid.

because us poor people can get by, and everyone else with be screwed right up the pike.

We can go back to driving junkers until they quit, making food from scratch and growing our own vegetables.

Come on, rich assholes, fuck with us if you want the whole infrastructure of this country to go to hell.

[catmandu57]

37. Do you think that 23%

is the target, or the high end bargaining position? Start high so that they'll be able to attain the number they want and look like compromisers to the public.

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. That is the way they do things.

Every time we compromise, they get exactly what they want.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ms. Clio]

72. "You people?"

Hmmmmmmm.

[montanacowboy]

13. The Rotted Corpse Greenspan

says NOW that deficits are dangerous, but, say What? he supports the idiot's SS scheme....

now idiot greenspan,what does that do to your deficits?

and the idiot keeps raising interest rates everytime you turn around..

someone better put this nutcase in a straight jacket

...but hey - him and his whore MSM wife are living the good life...

[grumpy old fart]

14. taxing the poor on their bread and water......just plain evil........

but keep them tax breaks for the wealthy comin'.

Guess which one is Bush, and which is poor folk.....

[W2Hague]

29. graphic

That is the coolest little graphic I've ever seen! Thanks for that.

D.L. Bruin
BruinDesign.com

[UdoKier]

16. Dear Republithug Alan Greenspan,

How is it that you are so consistently an asshole?

You forced Clinton to rein in spending during his first term to bring down the deficit, derailing many of his ideas for new programs, and yet you stood idly by as POS Bush ran up record deficits.

Tou talked down the economic boom of the late 90s as "irrational exuberance". You were right in that evaluation, but there is much more to be pessimistic about now - like the housing bubble and the flight of foreign investment, and the unprecedented income gap between rich and poor.

But what's your solution? A regressive consumption tax? What was that word I was trying to think of? Oh yeah, FUCK YOU!

If ANYTHING is needed, it's a new top tax bracket with a tax rate of 43% for people who earn over 200K per year, AND a hike in corporate taxes.

These corporations and wealthy people have seen their fortunes explode in the last 5 years while the rest of us have fallen behind. THey are most obligated to shore up the debt problem YOU and your CHIMP have created.

[Tafiti]

23. Shit...

...if corporations would even PAY their taxes! They set up these fucking off-shore accounts and basically launder their money back into the country to avoid paying taxes. We lose billions of dollars in tax revenue every year because of CORPORATIONS ALONE! It's fucking disgusting.

But anyway, I totally agree with you. Maybe THIS will wake up some of the Republican middle/lower class who vote for George Bush because he's a "Christian man", but are clueless as to what Republican economic policy/philosophy does to their livelihoods. This may be wishful thinking, however, since Rush Limbaugh is the 13th disciple of Christ, and his words are like gospel to them.

[Anakin Skywalker]

48. I Don't Think They Will Ever Wake Up.

The moruls people have never ever bothered doing their own research or even thinking about their economic situations. They just rely on their church leaders and the RW radio jocks to tell them who to vote for and what is right and wrong.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

53. Harry Reid said pretty much the same thing.

When he refered to Greenspan as a partisan hack

[UdoKier]

18. The implementation and increases in consumption tax in Japan...

... throughout the 90s had a demonstrable NEGATIVE effect on the economy, and is extremely unpopular.

Much as Koizumi has acted as Bush's lap dog in foreign affairs, Japan has been mimicking the US's "screw the poor" tax policies for the last decade, and just as in the US, it hasn't done any good.

[Art_from_Ark]

68. A few things about the Japanese consumption tax

It was first implemented in 1989 at a flat rate of 3%. The rate was raised to 5% in 1997, and has been at that level since. The tax is not levied on rent, but is levied on nearly all purchases, including such "consumable" items as postage stamps and rental contract renewals, so it is, in effect, a sales tax.

The timing of the tax introduction was a disaster, coming, as it was, at the beginning of the end of the "bubble economy". The Japanese economy fell into recession shortly thereafter, and remained in recession for most of the 90s. Certainly the consumption tax played a role, but there were several other factors that were also at work against the Japanese economy at that time, including wildly fluctuating exchange rates and the rapid saturation of the market with consumer goods.

Back to the consumption tax (or "shohizei" as it's known locally)...
Before implementation, there was no sales tax on store items, so it was like a 3% across-the-board state sales tax. So it was not, and is not, an additional sales tax, like the GST is in most provinces in Canada.

As for "screw the poor" tax policies, Japan has a long way to go before taxes on lower income earners are at the same level as American taxes. Some taxes are higher, like the annual car tax, which is based on engine displacement and is the same on all cars of the same class, regardless of value. The gasoline tax is also higher (and one has to wonder where this money goes, since it doesn't seem to be used for road repair). But property taxes are lower (for example, in my city the tax on a $150,000 home is less than $400/year), and national income taxes are much lower. There are also child subsidies available for lower income families, which have recently been increased from infant-2 years old to infant-3rd Grade. Very nice public housing is available for low income people. And elderly people do not have to worry about catastrophic illness wiping them out financially.

[catmandu57]

19. The cat is out of the bag now

We had better start educating john q. on just what a VAT is and whose going to be paying if this pig sees the light of day.

[Emboldened Chimp]

21. Hey lurking Freeps: Greenspan, a republican, wants to raise your taxes.

And you call us tax-and-spenders? Chumps.

[cthrumatrix]

47. Bingo...this is just double speak for TAX INCREASE.......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ltfranklin]

51. Local sales taxes in the mix!

I read somewhere (whoops, bad phrase to start a post with!) that the states and federales are encouraging the local governments (city and county govs) to raise their part of sales taxes to the maximum, as a means to continue programs that the state and federales used to partially fund. So, Bush evidently doesn't want to raise taxes on HIS watch, but is more than happy to see states, counties and cities raise theirs. The end result will no doubt be a higher burden on the middle class and below, but since they're not HIS people, that's ok.

[Cleita]

22. Dear Greenie:

Your Prezidunce has demostrated over and over again that he has no fiscal responsibility so why would you want to give him even more money to squander?

Don't do it if you value your overly privileged life because there won't be an economy left after Bush leaves office and there will be no reason for your job.

[PA Democrat]

25. Consumption Tax would raise taxes for middle & lower income ranges by 51%

Under current law, federal income and estate taxes are progressive. That means that taxpayers with high incomes pay a larger share of their incomes in taxes than do middle- and low-income taxpayers. A national sales tax would be exactly the opposite. It would take a much higher share of the earnings of low- and middle-income
families than the wealthy would have to pay. That’s because most Americans must spend most or all of their incomes to make ends meet, while better-off people can afford to spend a much lower share of their incomes. Moreover, older Americans tend to spend a
higher share of their incomes than younger ones, which means that a national sales tax would be particularly burdensome on the elderly.

As a result, replacing most federal taxes with a national sales tax would mean very large tax increases on most Americans and very large tax cuts for the wealthy. The tables that follow speak for themselves, but a few important points can be highlighted:

# In virtually every state in the union, the bottom 80 percent of taxpayers would face much higher taxes under a sales tax. Nationwide, these tax increases would average about $3,200 a year.

# Put another way, on average the 80 percent of Americans in the middle- and lower income ranges would pay 51 percent more in sales taxes than they now pay in the federal taxes that the proposed national sales tax would replace.

# In contrast, the best-off one percent of all taxpayers nationwide would get average tax reductions of about $225,000 each per year.

http://www.itepnet.org/sale0904.pdf

[etherealtruth]

26. I just checked the CNN poll and most respondents...

... are voting in favor of a national sales tax.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1280802#1280972

I am consistently shocked (and sickened) by the people who will vote against their own self interest out of what appears to be ignorance (or is it stupidity?).

[PA Democrat]

28. A picture of the unfairness of a national sales tax

I don't know how to post a pdf file, so here's the link. It shows effective tax rates for Texans in various income brackets. I chose Texas because it has one of the most regressive state tax systems in the country.

http://www.ctj.org/whop/whop_tx.pdf

[jdj]

42. thanks, I printed that,

that about says it all.

[SammyWinstonJack]

30. Mind boggling ain't it?

:crazy: These idiots will fall for anything Chimpy shoves in their faces no matter how financially ruinous it is to them.

[PA Democrat]

32. Too stupid to realize they favor paying MORE in taxes

unless they are wealthy.

[Cleita]

31. Ignorance backed with untruthful propaganda and the lack

of time or desire to educate themselves on the issues.

[Terran]

33. In my experience, most people

don't understand the difference between a regressive tax and a progressive tax--they aren't even aware there's a difference. A lot of people like the idea of a national sales tax because they hate the IRS and would love to see income tax abolished. They need to be TOLD how bad this really is for them!

[TheFarseer]

41. I think most people

think that a national sales tax would be 6-7% along the lines of the state sales tax, when in fact as others have mentioned it would be at least in the 20%s and more likely much higher. I know 1/5 or more of your pay disapearing out of every check is annoying, but most of that is not even federal income tax, but rather FICA, State tax, medicare etc. but as a wise man once said, "perception is reality"

editted for very poor spelling

[Anakin Skywalker]

49. It's All About the Moruls.

The yokels are obsessed with it. Hey, they WON in preventing gays from marrying so that's all that matters. I hope they are happy now.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

52. Your link does not take one to CNN

[etherealtruth]

56. Yes I know, sorry!

It was a cut and paste from another thread. By the time I realized what I had done it was too late edit.

Again, sorry for the inconvenience

[European Socialist]

34. I agree with all of you that Greenspan sucks...

But you shouldn't worry so much about them changing the tax system. In the 80's all this talk was going around too. There is too much special interest pressure from the accounting industry to make things simple.

[GOPBasher]

35. Greenspan is such an Ayn Randian asshole. nt

[vademocrat]

44. The thugs really want to repeal the entire 20th century!

No way did I ever think that in 2005 I'd be fighting against this kind of absurdity. I thought we'd be living on the moon and under the sea by now...

[Tighthead Prop]

45. Wow...

Throw out the Bill of Rights with the PATRIOT ACT...create the largest deficit in the history of the United States...1,500 Americans dead in an unnecessary war...hatred for non rich people and monorities...bigotry against those who are gay or not Christian...get rid of social security...now this. Quite a resume we have here.

As for the poll that shows people favoring this tax, thats just scary how ignorant people can be. Then again, they let this idiot have another four years in the White House, so I probably shouldn't be surprised.

[Vinca]

46. On a positive note . . .

who can afford to buy anything anyway? Nothing from nothing is nothing. (Wow - if that's positive, I need Prozac.)

[Deja Q]

50. Well, I'll fear for the day the poor stop killing each other and LOOK

at what is happening.

Never taunt an injured animal. Or corner it.

That's a recurring fact of life in all species. And they're hoping everybody simply commits suicide.

[Milo_Bloom]

54. Why the dems could lose this debate....

Someone mentioned above that a CNN poll showed most in favor of a VAT (the link went somehwere else, but I have little doubt there was a poll). People like the idea, because people like CONTROL and people need to start playing into that rather than trying to tell people why not having control is a good thing.

Understand... I am not saying VAT is a good thing or a bad thing, but what I am saying is that the debate is getting framed around the wrong side of the issue. Just stop and think about it for a second.

GOP says, with a 23% VAT YOU control how much tax you pay by how much you spend. The Dem comeback becomes, the current system is better, because you end up paying less taxes this way. The fact that is is true is MEANINGLESS. Every person thinks they are going to be the exception to the rule. They will be thrifty and wind up paying far less tax under this system. This is basic human nature. Everyone thinks they can beat the odds. It has kept gambling rolling as a business since... well, forever.

Rather than simply standing pat on the status quo, that most people hate because they have no control over how much tax is taken out of their check, why can't we brainstorm and come up with a PROGRESSIVE system that puts more control in the hands of the individual???

What about a progressive VAT? Can something like this be developed? Something like items from 0-->$50 = no tax, 50.99-->$150 10%, 150.01-->$500 15%, ETC..ETC.. I am not an economist so I don't know the numbers, but something that takes into account that a person with less means probably buys more items that generally cost lower, while a person of great means buys less items that cost more... it would still give people control, but make it more progressive.

What about proposing a stop gap refund??? You can't pay more in VAT than you would pay in income tax? You pay your VAT and then at the end of the year you get a statement of how much you paid and you can file for a refund if it is more than you would have otherwise paid in income taxes. Probably a paperwork nightmare... I don't know, but I do know that if the Dems just stand steadfast on status quo, there is a very good chance they could lose this debate with the people.

Don't let this become the big issue of 2006 where the Dems are fighting to keep the income tax system alive. That won't sell and deep down, you know it is true!

[Mugsy]

58. You should read my post above (near top).

There IS a right way and a wrong way to successfully implement a National Sales Tax that isn't regressive.

[Deja Q]

73. By how much we spend. In other words, they want to destroy the economy:

Our economy is driven BY spending.

And they know that.

[baron j]

55. Read my lips Greenspan...

No, wait--that is my middle finger.

[timneu22]

60. Consumption Tax is Good!

I believe you have an extremist attitude here. I don't see how a Consumption Tax could possibly be a bad thing. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/ConsumptionTax.html