I hate value-added taxes because it causes more problem with tax compliance, not less.
Posted on 02/20/2010 8:40:08 AM PST by wizard1961
Suggestion: change the tax code to stop taxing US jobs; instead encourage employment and smaller corporations.
I want to define a method that can be supported by the voters. Sadly, it will not be “pure” enough to be adored by any one group. The goal is not to make the perfect system, but a much better system. I propose we replace US Federal taxes with this method that will collect the same amount of money. Every corporate transaction, including sales to the public, will be taxed. A steeply progressive scale will collect much larger amounts from larger corporations. But, up to 75% of wages paid in the US to documented residents can be directly subtracted from the tax burden.
The current federal taxes discourage domestic employment. This is crazy. Selling a Harley that carries these taxes is harder in the US and abroad, because its foreign competition avoids those taxes. I want to eliminate jobicidal taxes, create a system that instead encourages employment, plus one additional goal: anti-trust. In addition to raising the tax rate for larger firms, I would add an additional multiplier to those “monolith” firms who dominate their sectors. The USA will be stronger when served by smaller, more agile firms who are not “too big to fail”
We might exclude certain items like food and drugs, and perhaps home owner mortgages. The transition would be challenging, and there will be many devils & details... but, as a concept, what do you think?
Horrid. We don’t want a ‘progressive’ scale, we want (and for Justice’s sake, need) a flat applies-equally-to-everyone tax.
hell no.
That sounds insidious.
The government should taake less money from the private sector, period.
I do not think it is the job of government to decide how big conmpanies are allowed to get.
I hate value-added taxes because it causes more problem with tax compliance, not less.
“We don’t want a ‘progressive’ scale, “
I want to be sure you realize the “progressive” part applies to giving bigger corporations a bigger reason to hire people in the US.
It does not target “the rich” but instead gives fortune 500 companies incentive to hire in the US. Thanks
“The government should taake less money from the private sector, period.”
This idea would not change the amount of money taken from the private sector.
“I do not think it is the job of government to decide how big conmpanies are allowed to get.”
Fair enough. I do think the consolidation of the banks, for instance, poses problems & is a significant risk to the nation. Thanks-
>>“We don’t want a ‘progressive’ scale, “
>
>I want to be sure you realize the “progressive” part applies to giving bigger corporations a bigger reason to hire people in the US.
In my experience the sort of scale you describe is called ‘regressive’... which brings up a question: why would you want to de-facto penalize small-business for being small? Especially considering the impact they have on the economy.
>It does not target “the rich” but instead gives fortune 500 companies incentive to hire in the US. Thanks
What would give them incentive to operate in the US, I think, would be an easy anyone-can-do-it flat-rate taxes with no exceptions/with-holdings. IOW, you wouldn’t need a law degree and an accounting degree to file taxes.
“why would you want to de-facto penalize small-business for being small? “
I intend the REVERSE: businesses making little money would pay no tax at all. The larger & larger you get, the more you pay — progressively more. But you can offset those taxes by paying wages in the US.
“What would give them incentive to operate in the US, I think, would be an easy anyone-can-do-it flat-rate taxes with no exceptions/with-holdings. IOW, you wouldn’t need a law degree and an accounting degree to file taxes.”
Simplicity would be good, but complexity for the fortune 500 companies is not an issue, they already retain CPAs and lawyers.
For individuals and small firms, the only filing might be to check the box: I collected less than 2 million dollars in 2010.
...That’s EXACTLY what a flat-rate would do!
Example, income tax:
Let’s say the tax rate is 10% (for simplicity’s sake).
A small business makes $1000, so $1000*.10 = $100.
A large business makes $10 Million, so it pays $10M*.10 = $1 Million dollars.
This has the added advantage of being both uniform and simple, and therefore decrease the ‘loopholes’/exceptions to 0. Also, any tax-dodging would be MUCH easier to find. (The IRS could be VASTLY reduced in size... even to the point of disbanding the organization, probably all it’s operations could be taken over by the FBI).
Similarly, what if we taxed higher incomes at a lower rate than lower incomes. Would that drive people to make more money, I wonder. I just propose these as experiments for one state to be a test to see what would happen.
I like the flat taxes & the fair tax etc. Here are the things I was hoping to address:
Businesses & individuals making under 2 million annually pay no direct taxes, facilitating job creation where new jobs are usually created.
Too Big To Fail — any sector where 85% of the revenues are collected by 4 firms... this is not a monopoly but it is unhealthy. I want to give little guys a huge relative advantage in those sectors. As a plus, if the Mega-Corps realign & spin off sub-divisions, this will create jobs.
US Wage deduction — while the big boys will be hit with huge taxes, they can avoid large portions by paying wages to DOCUMENTED workers. This encourages job creation.
I think this would create a snowballing surge of job creation and could return a great many manufacturing jobs to the USA.
No VAT tax ever!
A VAT creates a whole new bureaucracy that determines what is the “value” added at your stage of production.
Second, a VAT hides the tax from the consumer, so it can be increased easily while blaming greedy corporations for raising prices.
Third, a VAT discourages manufacturing in the countries that utilize such a scheme.
“A VAT creates a whole new bureaucracy that determines what is the “value” added at your stage of production.”
I did say like a vat, but I’d just tax the cash.
“Second, a VAT hides the tax from the consumer, so it can be increased easily”
True.
“Third, a VAT discourages manufacturing in the countries that utilize such a scheme.”
This method would do the reverse.
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.