Posted on 02/09/2004 6:48:54 AM PST by ancient_geezer
Tax laws grown far too complex By THOMAS C. MORRISON - IR Your Turn - 02/05/04 I have spent more than 40 years working with the federal tax code, first as a tax law student, then as an I.R.S. tax attorney, and then as a tax lawyer in the private sector. As we approach a new tax season, I am compelled to reflect on the obscene complexity of our federal tax code. Over time, most taxpayers have become fatalistically conditioned to accept this hopeless quagmire, watching the federal tax code along with explanatory I.R.S. pamphlets grow not by the number of pages, but by the pound. Neither the tax lawyers, nor the tax professors, nor the CPAs, nor the accountants fully understand the federal tax code. No credible tax professional will tell you otherwise. We muddle through endless complexities, enhanced by exceptions upon more exceptions. How many taxpayers still feel comfortable in preparing their own tax returns? For instance, how many nonprofessionals think they can adequately understand the complexities of at least six different capital gains rates, or of the phase outs for itemized deductions, or of the alternative minimum tax rules or of the applicability of kiddie tax rates (for just a few).
Don't blame the I.R.S. It is stuck trying to figure out what Congress has given them and it is no more omniscient than the rest of us in trying to figure out what all those words mean. Worse yet, the I.R.S. lacks needed resources to administer our overly complex tax laws. Without adequate resources, these laws can not be effectively administered. Without effective administration, revenues are lost and inequity results from lack of uniform enforcement. Congress does need to provide the I.R.S. more resources, but doing so remains self-defeating, as long as more verbal tonnage is added to the tax code.
If Congress cannot get the federal income tax code straightened out and pretty soon, it will die from its own weight, and without regard to the obvious inequity of its likely substitute, an arbitrary flat tax. Perhaps, the only way to achieve true tax simplification is for Congress to pass a new "two for one" tax law, requiring the deletion of two words for each new word added to the tax code. Or even better, why not demand a "common sense" tax law that would require each Congressperson to prepare and file his own tax form without any professional help, and if a senator or representative should make more than three mistakes on his self-prepared 1040, he would have to vote to repeal the law and replace it with a simpler one. What do you think?
Thomas C. Morrison is a Helena lawyer.
That's what the family consumption allowance (also known as a rebate) is for. Rather than go through all of the political machinations, lobbying, and social engineering of figuring out what items to exempt, a credit is provided to anyone who files for it (restrictions: must be a US citizen and not incarcerated) equal to the amount of sales tax on spending equal to the poverty line. The poverty line is chosen since it should represent subsistence-level spending.
The net effect is the same, but the FCA closes down opportunities for tinkering with the lists of what is and isn't taxable. Also, exempting certain items would force an increase in the rate for everything else.
I can't believe I let myself miss the part about it being a business lease.
What do you expect from someone who would take to himself the name of "Balrog" and the 666 reference of Revalations to the anti-christ no less?
The Balrogs originated as Maiar, beings of the same kind as Sauron himself. They were primordial spirits of fire that had allied themselves with Melkor in ancient times, and became the most feared of his servants, especially during the Wars of Beleriand in the First Age. Details of their numbers are hard to state with certainty, but there seem to have been relatively few of them - probably no more than seven.
In appearance, the Balrogs were man-like, but fire streamed from them, and they were swathed in dark shadows. They carried whips of flame and induced great terror in friends and foes alike. In the War of Wrath, Morgoth was assailed by the forces of the Valar. Most of the Balrogs were destroyed in that War, but some few escaped over the Blue Mountains and hid in Middle-earth. Durin's Bane, the creature that drove the Dwarves from Moria, was one of these.
His self proclaimed affiliatiations speaks volumes of his intents and methods.
What do you expect from someone who would take to himself the name of "Balrog" and the 666 reference of Revalations to the anti-christ no less?
Buzz, wrong again. Different referent.
His self proclaimed affiliatiations speaks volumes of his intents and methods.
Nope. But your prejudice and bigotry does.
Because it is a natioanl retail sales tax. Items are only taxed at the point of a retail sale. Business-to-business transactions are not taxed, otherwise, it would become a VAT.
Why is rent paid by a business excluded from the NRST?
For the same reason that all purchases for business use are excluded.
The rent that a business pays is of necessity passed on in the price of its products, all of which are reflected in personal consumption(retail) which is what is taxed under the NRST.
The NRST is not collect on that which is used in "legitamate business purpose".
Tax once but only once; is one of the express legislative rules of HR25 for the courts and administrative authority implementing the NRST.
Nope. But your prejudice and bigotry does.
LOL You picked the name Balrog to represent yourself, NOT I. You are stuck with the connotations that the author of it gave to it, including your 666 appendage that falls right inline with it.
And the business is the end-user. Currently business-to-business transactions are not subject to sales taxes ONLY if the item is bought for resale. Will the NRST change those laws in all 50 states?
If it tweaks people like you, I am even happier about than I was before.
Any item used by the business in the regular course of business is not taxable by the NRST. The states would be required to change their laws to be in accordance with the NRST.
If it tweaks people like you, I am even happier about than I was before.
Glad to see you confirm my impression of you and your posts: no serious thought or reasoning, only "tweaking" for your personal entertainment.
Balrog666, despoiler and disruptor, fits that impression very well.
The states would be required to change their laws to be in accordance with the NRST.
Only if a state elects to administer the NRST through it's own agencies. A state need not conform if it wishes to maintain its own tax collection efforts separate the NRST.
In which case the Feds will arrange to administer the NRST separately from that state's tax collection efforts.
The choice is up to the state, as it must be under the Constitution.
Politics: The process of giving money to people who wote for you, from people who don't.
I think that clarifies WHY the tax code will NEVER be simplified.
If you wish to give up before you attempt to change, that's your perogative.
However, Last term there we only 7 co-sponsors for HR25 (NRST) in the House & no bill in the Senate.
Today, there are 43, and a Senate Bill introduced as well, with more House and Senate new candidates & older ones running on tax reform platforms, many specifically supporting the NRST.
In the end it is up to the electorate to push the issue, not the Politicians.
Politicians can be replaced, by voters. Special & business interests cannot vote, citizens do.
The key is letting citizens know that they aren't getting a freebee from anyone but themselves:
The Individual Income Tax return(1040) that captures everyone's attention each April, is merely a partial VAT accounting sheet the government cons individuals, held at ransom, into filling out. Its misdirection puts blinders on the eyes of the electorate, and totally distorts their perceptions as to the real impact of taxation in their lives.
Every man woman and child in the nation, pays federal taxes through that VAT.
DO YOU PAY YOUR INCOME TAX
AT THE SUPERMARKET?
by D. Sherman Cox J.D. L.L.M. Taxation
The full impact of the federal tax system(taxes in gross wage/salaries & other compensation + business income/payroll taxes) added onto the base(taxfree) price of retail consumption goods and services is 36% for federal taxes alone.
All wages and the taxes on them are paid for out of sales receipts to business,(i.e. consumption expenditure).
family consumption expenditure is gross income less taxes and savings.
Federal tax revenues collected as % of family consumption expenditure = fed/(1-state-fed-savings) =
23.5/(1-.235-0.102-0.012) = 36.09%
If we add in the cost of federal tax compliance, planning, litigation & enforcement, the percentage that truely represents the burden on the family due to the Federal income/payroll tax system, product prices are increased by more than 55% over taxfree prices.
Where Have All the Dollars Gone?
How the government robs Peter to pay him back.
By economist James L. Payne, Reason Magazine February '94When the overhead costs are added together, (24 percent compliance costs, 33 percent disincentive costs, and 8 percent other costs), they total 65 percent of tax revenue.
Current total Federal tax revenues are about $1900billion, more than $1,000 billion additional dollars are added on onto consumption prices due to the business costs of complying with the federal income/payroll tax laws.
The percent total current federal burden (taxes + compliance costs) of consumption dollars = 36*(1900+1000)/1900 = 54.95% economic burden added on to base retail(i.e. taxfree) prices.
Too bad that citizens don't get a receipt detailing those "hidden sales taxes" buried in their consumption purchases. If they ever did, some of those 70% of the public clamoring for more from government, thinking someone else foots the bill, might be tempted to change their mind.
To quote Colonel Sherman T. Potter: "Horse pucky!"
I have a friend who works for the IRS and he says the same thing: "Don't blame the IRS, we didn't pass the laws".
No, they just wrote the bills, lobbied for the laws and get to interpret them according to their own interests.
If ever there was a closed system, this is it.
Right. I was just simplifying -- I expect virtually every state would want to administer the taxes collected in their own state, but that's just my opinion.
I expect virtually every state would want to administer the taxes collected in their own state, but that's just my opinion.
One can only hope so, unfortunately it seems the states are all to often ready to abidicate their soverignty and authority to the feds nowdays at a drop of a hat.
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.