From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie
Lines: 66
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <1993Apr16.164750.21913@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

>In article <9304151442.AA05233@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:
>>      Well, it seems the "National Sales Tax" has gotten its very
>
>>      own CNN news LOGO!
>>
>>      Cool.  That means we'll be seeing it often.
>>
>>      Man, I sure am GLAD that I quit working ( or taking this 
>>      seriously ) in 1990.  If I kept busting my ass, watching 
>>      time go by, being frustrated, I'd be pretty DAMN MAD by 
>>      now.
>>      
>>      I just wish I had the e-mail address of total gumby who
>>      was saying that " Clinton didn't propose a NST ".
>>
>
>Actually, Jerry Brown essentially did...and Clinton, in his demagogue
>persona, condemned Brown for it in the crucial NY primary last year.
>
>However....
>
>Why don't the Republicans get their act together, and say they
>will support a broad-based VAT that would have to be visible
>(the VAT in Canada is visible unlike the invisible VATS they
>have in Europe)
>and suggest a rate sufficient to halve income and corporate
>and capital gains tax rates and at a rate sufficient to give
>the Clintons enough revenue for their health care reform, 

       The Republicans are, in general, fighting any tax increase.
There is also worry that a VAT would be far too easy to increase
incrementally.

       (BTW, what is different between Canada's tax and most of
Europe's that makes it "visible?")

>and
>force an agreement with the Democrats that the top income tax
>rate would then be frozen for the forseeable future and could
>be increased only via a national referendum.

       This would require a constitutional amendment, and Congress
enjoys raising taxes too much to restrict themselves like that.
(Besides, with the 2/3 majority necessary to pull that off you'd 
have a difficult time "forcing" anything like that.)

>Why not make use of the Clintons to do something worthwhile...
>shift the tax burden from investment to consumption, and get
>health care reform, and a frozen low top marginal tax rate
>all in one fell swoop.

       Primarily because it's a practical impossibility to "freeze"
tax rates.

       However, this is something that bothers me.  We're always talking
about "consumer confidence" and "consumer spending" as gauges for the
economy.  If they really are important, wouldn't shifting taxes to
consumption provide a disincentive to spend money?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"
