Posted on 01/12/2015 6:05:13 AM PST by bestintxas
Under the new GOP Congress, the future looks bright for fundamental tax reform. So Republicans and thinking Democrats should embrace my modest proposal: The 0–10–100 Tax Plan.
“0” is the number of deductions that would be allowed: Zero. The home-mortgage deduction? Gone. Business-dinner write-offs? Kaput. Charitable deductions? Sayonara.
As soon as we permit one exemption, then we must include a second. And then a third. Americans quickly would become freshly mired in the unfathomable bog that governs taxes today. The best way to handle the 73,954-page U.S. Tax Code is to go Nagasaki on it: Every loophole left behind.
“10” is the flat-tax rate on gross income. What did you make in 2014? Send 10 percent to Washington, D.C. Period. See you next year.
The 10 percent rate applies to income, regardless of source. So wages, speaking fees, capital gains, dividends, royalties, stock sales, gifts, and gambling winnings would face a 10 percent tax in the year that the income is received. Estate income would endure a 10 percent death tax, from dollar one. While I know any death tax will annoy my fellow supply-siders, we live in a world of tradeoffs. Oxen must be gored from Left to Right to make this work.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
They are currently being cut. Its called the “Sequestor.”
And the only places they can cut is pretty much National Parks and National Defense.
So, exceptions for businesses ARE allowed - the costs to generate revenue such as mortgages, building improvements, etc...!
But, to the average American, they are just going to get screwed at a flat 10% - regardless of their need and necessity to have a mortgage, make building improvements, etc...!
- - - - - -
So the landlord is a business and gets to deduct taxes as an expense, the renter doesn’t have that tax on tax built into his rent. However the homeown does receive that tax on tax.
And so you see one of many reasons this won’t work and will not be passed.
Does the 10% replace just the income tax or FICA too? If the second I would be dancing in the streets. Also does the tax on “ stock sales” cover tge gross or the net capital gains?
The term “income tax” is not accurate. It is in reality a tax on labor and/or creativity.
I am not sure what your experience is, so please do not take this as a negative comment directed at you.
I can tell you that the “wink wink” expenses are pretty much a thing of the past. My accountants at work are complete jerks about my T&E expenses. And they have been for quite some time.
The age of the three martini lunch ended in the 80’s. At least in my industries (Telecom, Financial Services, and Publishing.)
If we cut the spending levels, then we can cut taxes. No need for tax reform at that point.
the current tax system is the one that both parties prefer. It is riddled with special crony favors for those who donate to keep them in power. To think it will be replaced with a better policy or an easier policy or a policy that is competitive on a world basis, is unrealistic. They will not vote to give up their money machine.
FICA is a different thing altogether.
If they allowed you to manage at least half of the FICA allocated from you (and the matching amount from your employer) you would see a flood of cash hitting the investment markets like has never been seen before.
IF they taxed the FICA rate on ALL income, at least from the contributor (not the matched employer rate) then you would see a significant improvement in the Social Security funds.
In addition, they should break out the SS Insurance from the Retirement funds. Once people see how high that is, and how it is robbing people from the safety of their retirement...there would be a revolt.
I completely disagree with this.
IF we’re talking reform, why are we keeping they same base, i.e. Government has first dibs on MY time, MY work, MY property?
This whole plan retains the master/slave system.
This is why I think Fair Tax is VASTLY better. When the government is dependent on essentially a user tax, i.e. ‘use’ of the free market to purchase retail goods, they need to INCREASE economic activity to increase their take. They are put in a position to make better the economic playing field. Incentives that work for the American public instead of punishing us.
In addition, this gives Americans power to “speak” to our Representatives when they do stupid crap. A boycott would really mean something. We could get their attention more often than every two years at election time. Small businesses would again have a voice. THEY being the collector of the sales taxes, would hold some power over the Feds.
This would also mean no Feds showing up at your door, no lawyers seizing your property for failure to pay taxes. We would be far more Free Men than under any Master/Slave readjustment.
In the history of the world, has there ever been a time when the slaves legislated themselves to freedom?
Slaves are only freed through conflict.
The Slaves have always held the true power. But in every slave revolt, the first couple of slaves to drop their hoes and sit down have been killed.
You wanna go first? Ha Ha....
Right. As soon as "the poor" have to pay a 10% tax on that $20,000, their welfare check will increase by 10% to compensate.
Then the Rats get power and raise it to 50%
your proposal, and it’s current incarnation is a major part of the problem - we have far too many people taking out of the system without putting anything into it. they simply have no interest in conserving money since none if it is theirs. if they pay something, then they have an interest in cost containment.
This involves the People changing the Constitution over the objections of the Government crowd.
Your cyinicism is noted. Read the Declaration of Independence again.
>So if you make $100K and spend $120K to do so, you still pay $10K in taxes.<
Having ran my own business, I can say that this happens more often than NOT - especially for job start-ups!
I understand, the “no exceptions” as a theory, but in reality, this would be a JOBS and INITIATIVE KILLER!!!
You have it exactly right. The notion of a tax on gross sales is the product of even a simpler brain-format than liberalism.
A tax on GROSS INCOME would utterly DESTROY 90% of people who took on any sort of risk. You could have a business that lost a lot or a little, but the owner who made $100K GROSS and suffered even a mild loss, say $20K, would owe $10K in taxes. As would the person who had a stompin’ business who made $50K in NET PROFIT on a $100K gross (like Microsoft does) would pay exactly the same tax.
For that matter, you could buy 2000 shares of a $50 stock ($50K) and puke it out when it fell 10 points. Your gross sales would be $80,000 so to add insult to injury, you would owe $8K in taxes on top of your $20,000 loss.
This is a dumb idea by folks who have zero concept of business operation and what it takes to get any sort of business started.
There is no way to make someone pay what they don’t have, and poverty level means that is what it takes for a single human to survive. There is nothing left of it to tax, take 10% and you either give it back in welfare or they die.
It would also encourage everyone to work at least enough to make that tax free 12K. They might learn to become productive and get a real job.
I respectfully disagree. Everyone needs to be made a taxpayer. Everyone must pay taxes so that everyone has a stake and an interest in shrinking the government. Everyone must pay taxes so that we eliminate the distinction between makers and takers.
If everyone pays taxes, then socialism dries up overnight.
That is my point. In theory, it sounds great; hell, in the past, I was screaming that this was a really good idea.
But, I stepped back and looked at the reality of it, and it would be inherently BAD for individuals and a complete KILLER to any new start-ups. Especially sole proprietors who do not, at least, file an LLC at the very beginning of their endeavor!
And the only places they can cut is pretty much National Parks and National Defense.
oh no....there's a whole lot more places to cut.
They only way to do that would be to eliminate welfare completely, and that wouldn’t ever happen.
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.