Posted on 10/31/2011 6:40:27 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The intensity of the ongoing Republican presidential debates has a very uplifting silver lining. Specifically, the competition ensures a much needed discussion of the proper mode of federal taxation.
Texas Governor Rick Perry seeks somewhat of a flat tax, and the positive implications of such a move would be quite something. Not only would this reduce the price of work for most Americans, but it would make tax preparation a snap such that a lot of fecund minds whose employment is a function of byzantine tax laws would be released into more productive lines of work; the U.S. economy a certain beneficiary of such a scenario.
After that, a flat tax (not Perry’s unfortunately for now) presumes the zeroing out of the myriad economy-distorting deductions that amount to the federal government rewarding its likes and dislikes through the tax code. To put it very simply, tax rates – particularly on high earners today – are high precisely because deductions reduce the burden. A flat tax would remove politicians from the business of offering favors, and the certainty wrought by something flat would drive all manner of productive work to a higher level.
All this said, a flat tax remains a price. Worse, it’s a price placed on productive work effort. As it stands now, a flat tax would serve as a cost and penalty placed on economy-boosting endeavors. We’re used to being fleeced at various rates at this point, but the idea that our work costs us something per federal whim should horrify us, not to mention that a flat tax ensures that the vital few who do the most to enhance our economic spirits would pay the most to the federal government under such a regime.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
"So while we shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the near perfection that would be a flat tax, we should certainly aspire to something better. The most entrepreneurial nation on earth should not be taxing work, let alone taxing its most productive citizens the most."
______________
The problem with trying to propose (much less implement) a flat or consumption tax over the current progressive system is PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY ORGANIZED THEIR COLLECTIVE LIVES around the current tax code.
47% of the populace pay no taxes. There is going to be mass resistance towards any system that would require them to pay anything.
How is a sales tax NOT regressive?
Is that a serious question?
Perhaps you need to attend remedial classes with Stuart Varney to learn the definition of regressive.
NO form of “income” tax, be it flat, round, or square, is EVERY going to solve the corruption problem in Washington because it leaves in place the main ingredient for that corruption! The Washington crowd wold still be left to decide just what is, or is not, “income”.
The ONLY way to stop that in it’s tracks is to institute a tax system which would allow virtually all taxpayers to, as our founders intended, pay their taxes in a manner that is COMPLETELY anonymous to the government.
This can be done today simply by passing ONE bill currently before both houses of congress (HR25/S13) the FairTax bill!
EVERY = EVER
You will still need a FedGov™ organ to collect the proposed NRST.
BINGO!!!!!!!!
Gosh, 9-9-9 has both 3 flat taxes and a consumption tax. It seems to me that is a good start.
Wrong. 47% pay no income taxes, but they do pay plenty of other taxes. The taxes are just hidden so well they don't realize they are paying them.
If you buy cotton instead of cashmere a sales tax is not regressive. If you buy an Escort instead of a Jag. If you buy hamburger instead of caviar...
A consumption tax is unfair to the poor and beneficial to the rich who pay a far lessor portion of their income in consumption.
A flat tax is the fairest form of taxation. Everyone paying a fixed percentage of their income irregardless of how much they consume.
My only stipulation would be the first $30,000 of income be tax free. This helps those that are at the very bottom and close to the bottom since that deduction applies to everyone’s income, as you gain more income it becomes less of a percentage of your overall income.
I also think that there should be an amendment limiting the overall tax burden on citizens say at 30% (just picking a number here). Everything has its order of precedence so say Federal Government gets it’s take first then State, County, city/village in that order.
Somewhere, somehow we have to permanently limit the governments on how much they can tax us. The Constitution’s purpose was for limiting the government (despite what they tell you) and so that would be a good place to put this.
You have been reading far to much leftist propaganda!
The working poor currently pay the most regressive of all taxes on the very first dollar of their income in the form of payroll taxes. That would not happen with the sales tax and they would be in control of ALL of their income.
Secondly, the truly rich can today, under the income tax, order their lives in such a way that they can live like kings consuming like crazy while paying very little if any “income” tax.
Our founders were very learned men and every one of them felt that excises on articles of consumption, i.e. sales taxes, were the way to go.
The income tax comes to us straight out of the Communist Manifesto in the section dealing with how they should take over developed countries.
Can you guess which side of that argument I’m going to come down on?
Yes, it's a serious question.
What I mean to ask is: how will a sales tax not consume a larger percentage of a lesser income?
Can you provide a citation for any of your gratuitous assertions?
The problem with a flat tax based on income is that it's no damn business of the government to know what a person earns. The sooner we get them out of our paychecks, the better. Imagine taking home ALL the income you earn.
The working poor do in fact have social security and Medicare payroll taxes deducted from the very first dollar of their earnings currently and that IS very regressive.
The founders did in fact favor taxes on articles of consumption as their favored method of taxation. There are MANY proofs of this fact and I will offer two here.
"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed - that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them."
From Federalist #21
"A capitation is more natural to slavery; a duty on merchandise is more natural to liberty, by reason it has not so direct a relation to the person."
Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace Book.
The income tax did in fact come to us straight out of the Manifesto of the Communist Party second section, toward the end, item #2.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.