Posted on 08/14/2004 10:58:52 AM PDT by forest
The article about the "True flat tax" seems to say that anything that doesn't transfer tax burden onto lower-income earners isnt worth doing. I don't get this mentality. Getting rid of taxes on capital gains and dividends would help the wealthy enough. I don't see the what's wrong with simplifying the tax code but not doing it in a way that would raise taxes on lower-income families.
I mispoke. What I was trying to say is:
Institute a national sales tax, and congress will raise it.
17% Flat Tax!!!!
You speak as though the Flat Tax and social security reform are mutually exclusive.
No just separate issues as far as any current proposals for a flat tax are concerned. The only legislation that proposes repeal of SS/Medicare taxes the HR25 NRST.
But even HR25, being a revenue bill, does not address SS reform, just the mechanism of how to fund it using retail sales taxes instead of payroll taxes, and establish a true "trust fund" in statute to pay monies into it.
I think they go hand in hand. They are both pro-growth. Letting workers invest their retirement money would be a huge boost to all of us, and it is extremely popular.
True, just as reducing growth of government and taxes go hand in hand however it is accomplished
I don't get why Bush hasnt touched this issue.
I suspect it has something to do with to much on the plate at one time, tax reform is extremely open to demogoguery, especially in an election year.
I think our economy would be somewhat stronger today if he had.
I'm not going to disagree there.
don't we have to get rid of the amendment that allows for the income tax first?
Actually .006 is six tenths of one percent or six one-hundredths of one. Per cent means per 100.
I don't see the what's wrong with simplifying the tax code but not doing it in a way that would raise taxes on lower-income families.
It can be done, but not with an graduated income tax. The problem with exemption is that it divides us into two artificial voting constituencies. Those participating in the tax system funding the government and paying the bills for they other half looking for more from government without perception of the burden imposed.
Think about it:
Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000
- So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?
The Honorable James DeMint (R-SC)
United States House of Representatives
APRIL 5, 2001
- "There has been a shift in the relationship between individuals and government, he argues, such that fewer and fewer are paying taxes at the same time that more and more are receiving increasingly generous benefits. If it becomes the case that most voters do not bear a financial burden for this largess, then there will be little to restrain--and significant political incentives to encourage--the continued growth of government.
A retail sales tax on the other hand can be structured such that everyone must participate in paying the tax thus are sensitive to the burden that excess government lays upon us all, while at the same time assure that tax on expenditure up to the povertyline is covered by a demogrant paid to all households regardless of income or wealth.
Don't get my hopes up. The taxes in Hawaii are already too freaking high.
HI doesn't stand for Hawaii... It stands for:
HI taxes
HI cost of living
HI property values
And LOW pay... Damned liberals ran this state for too long.
Not a chance. Not under this president or this Republican party, and certainly not under the Democrats.
Institute a national sales tax, and congress will raise it.
When every voter pays that increase laid out in black and white for them on their grocery receipts? Think about it, state legislatures pay all kinds of h'll to get a retail sale tax hike and put their jobs at risk everytime they do, especially where if are no products exempt from the tax.
That is one of the problems with the current system. Half the tax bill is hidden from sight embedded into consumer prices. Exemptions and EITC makes a joke of the other half for lower income levels.
You have half the citizenry voting for more government on the backs of the other half. While complaining that high prices are all due to those nasty ole corportation paying income and payroll taxes.
| "As a matter of fact, what the income tax does — and this is the debate that I think we always try to get into in order to let you and him fight, see — and the people of this country are led down a path where the actual control of their resources, which in the end is the control over their will, is handed off to the government." . . . "The government then manipulates that will in order to destroy the freedom of our electoral system through the income tax structure, and we call the resulting slavery a free system." "In point of fact, it is not as the founders understood, and the only way to restore real freedom is to give people back control over the income that they earn so that they won‘t, at the voting booth and in other phony issues, be subject to that manipulation." |
The income tax on corporations should be abolished. The most logical approach would be to replace it with a value added tax.
Consider two companies, one which is successful and makes 10% profit on revenues of $10 million, and the other which is unsuccessful and breaks even on revenues of $10 million.
We penalize the successful company by taxing away part of its profit of $1 million, and we reward the unsuccessful company by not taxing it at all (and we would give it a tax loss carryforward, if it had lost money!).
A direct tax on the revenue would be more equitable. Both companies dis $100 M of business, and both should pay the same taxes.
The usual argument that the successful should pay more in taxes does not apply to corporations, since they are not people and they are just a legal mechanism for collectively doing business. When they pay dividends to their stockholders, or when their stockholders sell shares at a profit, those dividends and profits should be taxed in a way that reflects our political judgement regarding the ethics of wealth distribution in society.
By taxing corporations the same based on revenues, we would not weaken the successful companies and we would not prop up the unsuccessful companies.
More unprofitable companies might go bankrupt sooner, but that would generally be a good thing since the profitable companies would fill their markets and become still more profitable.
If you would like to be added to this ping list let me know.
John Linder in the House & Saxby Chambliss Senate, offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and payroll taxes outright, and provide a IRS free replacement in the form of a retail sales tax:
H.R.25, S.1493
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.Refer for additional information: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
Hillary Rodham Clinton
(July 3, 2004)
I've been waiting to hear more about this since I heard Hastert on the tube last week mentioning it. If it does not happen it is OUR fault. I ,for one, am going to get the word out on this. Whatever you believe about politics, there is ONE truth. These people want elected. Let them know it will take a change in the tax structure of this country and MEAN it.
If this happens, you become a Democrat?
We won't let that happen!
When you were a child, you were a deduction for your parents. You enjoyed the additional monetary resources to make your life comfortable. Now, as an adult, you would deny the same benefits to other children. Self-centered attitude.
A similar argument can be made about property taxes to support schools. Why should people without school age children be assessed taxes to run the schools.
You have to understand this would be on every transaction but so what, its very very low. There are trillions and trillions of dollars in transactions every year. You can do away with the sales taxes and also the state income taxes. Its a very low tax rate but would generate massive revenue for the government.
Hey AG, how the hell are they supposed to eliminate the IRS while keeping the Income tax, even if it is flat?
There's only two ways to get rid of the IRS:
1. A NRST administered by the states
2. Re-institute apportionment among the states, just like it was for 125 years.
I'm a huge backer of #1, as we all are, but #2 is NEVER talked about.
However, and I've been thinking about this for quite some time, is simply passing a constitutional amendment stating that the federal government cannot tax, only states can? The federal government would retain control over federal spending and funding would be required from the states based upon their representation in Congress.
California has 54 congressmen, so they pay 12% of the tax burden. They say raise it however the hell they want!
This would encourage sooo many great things:
1. States would tend to elect fiscal conservatives to look after their own wallet.
2. representatives will oppose pork programs going to OTHER states.
3. (this is the really cool one) States would strive to find the most efficient way of collecting taxes in their state. That would probably be some sort of sales tax, which is good, but maybe states figure something even better out. What if a state found out that the most efficient way to tax was to apportion their OWN tax burden to the county level, of soem other idea we haven't even thought about???
Does anybody have thoughts on such a proposal?
I know you know this already....but let me remind you that not just the "wealthy" have cap gains/dividends. Many dollars get tied up in investment vehicles..that would have been freed..if it wasn't for capital gains taxes.
I've even seen people take losses in investments....that they once had short-term cap gains....but wouldn't take them because they didn't want to pay the tax. But in the end they ended up with principle losses........Idiotic, but true.
FRegards,
You are wrong about people having to pay their tax on April 15th. Those who have to pay estimated taxes have to pay every quarter, or face stiff interest and penalty charges, so it is each quarter that the sheeple would have to fork over the dough. But you are right, in that insurrection would result. Since many wouldn't have the amount on deposit in their checking accounts to pay the taxman each quarter, there would be lots of bounced checks, non-compliance, and a burdgoning tax criminal class. But your "Get rid of withholding" is a pipe-dream. We are a divided country - the power elite, and the paycheck to paycheck drones. The power elite hold the drones in thrall. A change in tax code would open the opportunity for the haves to reduce their taxes, and impose more burden on the drones.
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.