Posted on 08/20/2007 6:22:57 AM PDT by John Galt 72
A Tax Break for Driving to Work? The Fair Tax Will Fix This
By Herman Cain
August 20, 2007
There is a little-known deduction in the tax code that 400,000 people know about, and by which they avoid $150 million dollars in taxes each year. The issue is not that most of us do not know about this little sneak-a-tax, or even the amount that the rest of us are picking up through a higher federal deficit.
The issue is that this is another example of how the tax code is used to encourage a desired behavior. The deduction encourages people to drive to work by subsidizing their parking costs. If you do not have to pay for parking at work you get zero deduction. At the same time, the Department of Transportation is planning to spend $354 million to encourage people to not drive to work by subsidizing their mass transit costs.
Thats right! Our tax dollars are working against each other.
Read the entire column here: http://www.northstarwriters.com/hc074.htm
There is no requirement to have any particular income or spending level to qualify for the rebate. Bill Gates can get it just like I can - like how Bill Gates and I both can take today's standard deductions and exemptions.
But as a private citizen, there is no longer any need to file a return of any kind w/ the IRS [save your annual rebate form to the analogous agency - if you want to accept it]. Whatever the problems, this situation would be a "damn sight" better than what we have now.
If you reject a proposal based on the assumption that it may eventually turn back into something as bad as we have now, you will not ever have an acceptable alternative. Anything could change back into what we have now!
Does that mean you actually support the graduated income tax?
So you may characterize me as a "fairtax" supporter, but it would be more accurate to call me an "nrst" supporter.
Have you ever been to Canada where they have a NSRT (or closest thing to it)
I live right across the border and THEY HATE IT WITH A PASSION
I prefer a flat tax as fairest of them all. Any of the choices are bad, but this one has the fewest pitfalls.
The singular likeness in this context is that both collect tax at retail.
An nrst collects tax once and only once at the point of final retail consumption and all tax is represented on receipt. A VAT however [like the flat income tax - or graduated income tax] adds tax at every stage of production, with the total tax being hidden within the final retail price.
Interestingly, the flat income tax is a VAT. Specifically, it is a subtraction method VAT.
Canada has a 36% corporate income tax and a 15-30% [iirc] personal income tax rate on top of the GST.
Canada doesn't have anything like the proposed nrst.
I’m not averse to the fair tax concept, and would prefer it to the current income tax scenario. The only way to change the rebate (or base it on means) is if the federal government is aware of your income. To be aware of my income I would have to share it with them. To share it with them would require the IRS.
If the Feds don’t know my income then they can’t means test it.
Honestly, I haven’t given it a lot of thought given the inertia the proposal has to overcome.
The whole idea is that the IRS goes away, so no one knows who’s rich or poor.
If that can’t be accomplished, then there is no Fair Tax.
Wouldn't that be poetic justice to use this "argument" against them! LOL
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.