10 Outrageous Facts About the Income Tax

Cato Institute ^ | April 15, 2003 | Chris Edwards

[phil_will1]

You should check the link out - there is a graph of the pages of the system that is quite revealing. It validates what I have been saying for some time - the growth in complexity of the current system is unsustainable. If we don't get serious about Fundamental Tax Reform on a proactive basis, we will have to do so when the system collapses of its own enormous weight.

The second point is that this article by Cato does a good job of laying out a few of the problems with the current system (a thorough and exhaustive treatment would have been longer than War and Peace). However, their solution - the Flat Tax - is totally inadequate for the magnitude of the problem. It is the equivalent of treating a cancer patient with aspirin. These guys MUST be kidding.

[phil_will1]

tax reform bump

[upchuck]

BUMP!

[ZOOKER]

Heard a fellow on the radio this morning that suggested 10 members of the US Congress be selected at random and forced to figure their own taxes.

Any Senator or Representative that made a mistake was to be immediately executed.

He guaranteed that the tax code would be simplified by next April 15th. Sounds like it would work to me.

[TaxPayer2000]

suggested 10 members of the US Congress be selected at random and forced to figure their own taxes.

Any Senator or Representative that made a mistake was to be immediately executed.

AT RANDOM!???

That's discrimination! What about affirmative action? How can all the minority groups be assured they are properly represented?

Obviously the fellow on the radio has not thought this thing all the way through!

/sarcasm>

[ancient_geezer]

A Taxreform bump for you all.

"A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business; the eye of the federal inspector will be in every man's counting house....The law will of necessity have inquisical features, it will provide penalties, it will create complicated machinery. Under it men will be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the tax payer. An army of federal inspectors, spies, and detectives will descend upon the state."
-- Virginian House Speaker Richard E. Byrd, 1910, predicting the consequences of an income tax.

 

If you would like to be added to this ping list let me know.

 

Thomas Hobbes from Leviathan

• It is fairer to tax people on what they extract from the economy, as roughly measured by their consumption, than to tax them on what they produce for the economy, as roughly measured by their income.

[Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, XIII,c.14:]

• "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."

 

-- a free people that pays slave taxes to its government is willingly training itself for bondage.
Alan Keyes 1999

[jolie560]

...(spoof of Schedule A)...

"line 27 (Miscellaneous Deductions)---your deduction is limted by 2.5% (.025) of your Federal AGI on line 34, unless your deduction is listed as exempt in Publication 930 (Miscellaneous Deduction Exemptions). In that case, your deduction on line 27 is limited by 50% of the amount on line 22 (total income) less any excess charitable donations listed on Schedule A--line 17 (Carryover from prior year). This deduction may not exceed $5,000."

[jocon307]

"However, their solution - the Flat Tax - is totally inadequate for the magnitude of the problem. It is the equivalent of treating a cancer patient with aspirin"

Well what do you suggest, a "national sales tax" or VAT or "consumption tax'? I think these would be regressive.

Or are you a "one tax" person, like who was it? Henry George? Is that right? Only a tax on property? I'd go with that, but only if you restricted the franchise to those same tax paying property owners.

Let me know, je suis curious! (Like John Kerry, NOT! His motto, taxes: the more the better!)

[Abcdefg]

The Texas Constitution, not too long ago, said that those supported by the county were not allowed to vote. Welfare is administered by the county, I believe.
Also, those who paid property taxes were the only ones allowed to vote on bond issues. Of course, those provisions have disappeared from the document.

[lilylangtree]

What I find interesting as well as outrageous is that there is one very small statutory line that permits the govt to tax its citizenry.

[an amused spectator]

Heard a fellow on the radio this morning that suggested 10 members of the US Congress be selected at random and forced to figure their own taxes.

Actaully, this is the seed of a really good idea. Get your congressman and Senators on record. Do they figure their own taxes, yes or no?

[Balata]

bttt

[ancient_geezer]

I like the second half even better:

Any Senator or Representative that made a mistake was to be immediately executed.

I vote we use a guillotine :O)

[ancient_geezer]

Well what do you suggest, a "national sales tax" or VAT or "consumption tax'? I think these would be regressive.

Try the NRST, H.R.25 "The FairTax Act

All legal residents will receive a FCA equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services The FCA will be paid in advance, in equal installments each month. The size of the monthly FCA will be determined by the government's PovertyLevel for a particular family size, multiplied by the tax rate.

In otherwords every legal resident will receive the same amount regardless of income level in place of personal exemptions of the income/payroll tax system the NRST replaces.

The beauty of the FairTax is that you can control how much you pay in taxes. If you happen to save, invest or spend a portion on used [previously taxed] items, you can get your effective tax rate below 9%.

To illustrate the plan's progressive nature we can examine the tax burden that a family of four will have at various annual spending levels (as opposed to , annual income levels of the income tax).

 

[jammer]

Actually, I am a one-tax person. Take the federal budget which is effected (usually) in October. Divide that number by the number of citizens in the U.S. Each owes the resulting number. Bill Gates pays what I pay. The street bum pays what I pay. If a couple has 8 kids, that couple pays 10 "shares."

I get the same "benefit" from government as Gates and the street bum. Why should any of us pay more than the other?

That system is not only fair, but it would immediately put a halt to the designs of our voracious, free-spending (Republican, if I need to remind anyone) Congress and our Prescription Drug Welfare, vetoless (Republican) President.

[phil_will1]

"Well what do you suggest, a 'national sales tax' or VAT or 'consumption tax'? I think these would be regressive."

I favor the FairTax proposal, as articulated by Ancient Geezer in post #14. It is a National Retail Sales Tax, but it has a rebate to make it progressive. It is much fairer and simpler than the current system and has a myriad of other benefits over the Flat Tax, the current system and any other tax reform proposal.

[whereasandsoforth]

I wonder (often) why a sales tax is great for cities and states, but is wrong for the federal government. I'm not pushing for one. I'm just wondering.

[vannrox]

[vannrox]

[vannrox]