Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Tax Code May Be Facing a Full Rewrite
LA Times ^ | Nov. 7, 2004 | Warren Vieth

Posted on 11/07/2004 2:07:53 AM PST by FairOpinion

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161 next last
To: Woodworker
Let me add to that Fair Tax eleminates ALL federal taxes on busineses and corporations.they will intern lower their prices on their products (as much as 22%) to compete for market share.

That means a 23% NRST on purchases would be a wash.

61 posted on 11/07/2004 7:53:12 AM PST by painter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

Heck, the first simplification should be the abolishment of the Alternative Minimum Tax. Low hanging fruit I say.


62 posted on 11/07/2004 8:10:25 AM PST by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice
It only serves to make the middle class pay a higher portion of their wages in taxes than all other groups.

You pay it now in everything you buy. Who do you think absorbs all the taxes the "rich" and the corporations pay ?

63 posted on 11/07/2004 8:12:00 AM PST by smokeyb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

WOW is that quite the undertaking. I love our president- there is nothing he's afraid of.


64 posted on 11/07/2004 8:14:54 AM PST by lawgirl (Proud 2 time voter for George W. Bush as of 7:21 AM CST, November 2, 2004. LUVYA DUBYA!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lawgirl

This will break the back of socialism!...GO W!!!!!!!


65 posted on 11/07/2004 8:16:10 AM PST by rrrod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

It's going to be pretty tough with tariffs off the table. Without massive spending cuts (which seem politically impossible) you need to make up revenues somewhere. A flat tax with a high standard deduction has the best chances in my opinion. A 20-30% sales tax will bring an underground economy.


66 posted on 11/07/2004 9:32:14 AM PST by sixmil (11/2/2004 - And there will be great wailing and gnashing of teeth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer

Free the American people from IRS/IRC government tyranny! Support the FairTax...


67 posted on 11/07/2004 9:42:53 AM PST by ApesForEvolution (Tag Line Conservationist Week)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

DUMP the stupid thing. Flat tax.


68 posted on 11/07/2004 9:43:51 AM PST by Libertina (We praise You Lord, You have granted America a Christian leader!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

YEEE-HAAAA!!


69 posted on 11/07/2004 10:58:02 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sixmil

A 20-30% sales tax will bring an underground economy.

No more than the 40%+ income/payroll tax does now!!

Tax Evasion: The Underground Economy

The FairTax and Tax Evasion
Opponents of the FairTax like to assert that a federal sales tax would increase tax evasion. It is more likely, however, that the FairTax would increase tax compliance while reducing compliance costs at the same time. It is impossible to argue in good faith that the current approach is doing its job since the problem is getting worse with the passage of time despite major and ever more intrusive attempts to address the problem.

***


Some of the problems regarding the underground economy that exist under the income tax would remain under the FairTax, particularly those involving cash transactions made in the illegal economy or with the explicit intent of evading taxation. However, as the costs of compliance shrink and the perceived fairness of the tax system increases, some of the hostility to the tax system will decline. People who are in noncompliance because they perceive the present system as unfair or illegitimate may choose to comply with the FairTax. Most importantly, because of lower marginal tax rates, the benefit from lawful tax avoidance or illegal tax evasion will be much less at the margin relative to either the present system[15] or competing alternative tax systems, such as the USA Tax or flat tax[16], that have higher marginal tax rates, particularly on wages or self-employment income.[17] Research has confirmed the intuitive relationship between higher marginal tax rates and higher rates of evasion.[18] Lower rates, all other things being equal, imply lower evasion because the benefits from evasion decline while the costs of evasion remain comparable.

Much is made from the fact that a federal sales tax would place the responsibility for tax collection with the retailer, a sector of the economy in which small businesses are better represented. Small businesses are viewed as more likely to evade taxes since the owner, and beneficiary of tax evasion, is more likely to also be responsible for keeping the books and filing the tax returns. While there is, of course, some truth to the proposition that evasion rates among small businesses are higher, it is highly implausible to suggest that evasion would increase under the FairTax. First, those small businesspersons that are inclined to cheat on their sales tax are probably already cheating on their income tax and would be inclined to do so under any tax system. Second, the economic importance of small firms in the retail sector is usually grossly overstated According to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), small firms only account for 14.9 percent of gross receipts by all retailers, wholesalers and service providers.[19] Since the gross receipts of wholesalers would not typically be subject to tax, the true scope of the small "problem" companies is smaller still. However, sole proprietorships, perhaps the most likely to evade tax under the present system and under the FairTax, are not included in the JCT figures.


Share of Total Gross Receipt by Firms with less than $1 million of
Gross Receipts
[20]
($ millions, 1993)


Industry


Entity Type

Firm Sales Under $1 mil.

Firm Sales All Firms

Small Share Percent
Retail and Wholesale Trade C Corp. 116,929 2,663,541 4.4%
Services C Corp.  91,383 610,438 15.0
Retail and Wholesale Trade S Corp. 358,566 959,501 37.4
Services S Corp. 98,721 283,680 34.8
Retail and Wholesale Trade Partnership  22,938 112,112 20.5
Services Partnership 30,783 187,588 16.4
Total Combined 719,319 4,816,860 14.9


Third, the necessary corollary of the tax collection point being concentrated at retail establishments, rather than with individuals or other businesses, is that there are fewer points where revenue agents must concentrate their enforcement efforts. The collection points in the FairTax system would be perhaps 10 percent of those under the current income tax system or other alternative tax systems.[21] Because the number of collection points is so much lower, if enforcement funding is held equal then the audit rate for potential evaders would increase considerably, and the likelihood of them being apprehended is correspondingly higher. In other words, the risk of detection would increase and risk-adjusted cost of evasion would increase. Increased evasion due to the greater concentration of small businesses in the retail sector would be outweighed by greater compliance due to greater simplicity and perceived legitimacy of the tax system, from reduced temptation due to lower marginal tax rates, and from higher risk of detection due to a smaller taxpayer population. Fourth, some small business owners evade taxes because they feel the present system is unfair or overly complex and burdensome, or that they have been wronged by the system.  They are much less likely to feel that way about the FairTax. Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, the marginal benefit from evasion will decline under the FairTax since the marginal tax will decline. Thus, the incentive to cheat will decline markedly.

Any one of the 118 million income tax filers can cheat the income tax system today, and a great many do so. Under the FairTax, however, only retailers (about 14 million-tax filers altogether) would be in a position to cheat In addition, the vast majority of retail sales, 90 percent, are made by large firms that are less likely or find it more difficult to cheat. A retailer who cheats under the income tax system has very similar, if not the same financial gain, as a retailer who cheats under the FairTax system. If a retailer under the FairTax system, failed to report taxable sales, the government would lose and the evader would gain by an amount equal to the sales tax on the good or service purchased. In an income tax system, the government loses and the evader gains by an amount equal to the marginal income tax rate times the amount not reported. An income tax evader will see his taxable income go down dollar for dollar, for every dollar of income not reported. Typically, failing to report a small fraction of a business' gross income will be sufficient to drive its reported profit to zero.

Even if, however, we were to make the unlikely assumption that evasion rates would be higher under the FairTax system than under an income tax system, they would have to be much higher to justify the income tax's huge compliance costs (estimated to be over $225 billion in 1996), many of which are incurred by businesses and are deductible as a business expense. Moreover, if compliance proved to be a problem, information reporting along the lines of present law (1099's) could be implemented to facilitate cross-checking by government auditors. These 1099s would reflect the quantity of product sold to retailers. An auditor could then ensure that the retailer's books either reflected a sale of these products or that the products were in inventory. The FairTax requires all businesses (including non-retailers) to keep business records kept in the ordinary course of business that would aid cross checking by government auditors.[22]



Conclusion
Tax evasion will undoubtedly be a problem under any tax system. It is a major and growing problem under the current tax system, despite very substantial efforts and increasingly harsh treatment of the taxpaying public. Almost 40 percent of the public, according to the IRS, is out of compliance with the present tax system, mostly unintentionally due to the enormous complexity of the present system. This breeds disrespect for the tax system and the law, and makes a system based on taxpayer self-assessment less and less viable.

The FairTax is likely to reduce rather than exacerbate the problem of tax evasion. The increased fairness, transparency, and legitimacy of the system will induce more compliance. The roughly 85 to 90 percent reduction in filers will enable tax administrators to address instances of noncompliance more effectively, and increase the likelihood that tax evasion will be discovered. The relative simplicity of the FairTax will promote compliance. Businesses will need to answer one question to determine the tax due: how much was sold to consumers? Finally, the dramatic reduction in marginal tax rates will reduce the gains from tax evasion. If the cost of noncompliance remains comparable (or even increases due to the increased likelihood of getting caught caused by the much smaller number of filers), then both the expected profit from and frequency of tax evasion will decline


70 posted on 11/07/2004 11:15:32 AM PST by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: sixmil; Libertina

A flat tax with a high standard deduction has the best chances in my opinion.

Lets take a look at that, An NRST maximum tax burden would be 23% on expenditure, if rate is adjusted to make the NRST revenue neutral with making Bush tax cust permanent, the rate would be on the order of 18-20% of gross consumption expenditure.

The Flat Tax of the Armey/Shelby proposal on the hand works out substantially worse since it leaves leaving all SS/Medicare, Federal Unemployment, excise taxes and tariffs in place and unchanged.

http://www.library.unt.edu/govinfo/subject/vital.html

Joint Economic Committee

Revenue Neutral Tax Rates for Alternative Allowances and Exemptions Under a Flat Tax
Standard Allowances Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
Single $13,100 $13,100 $ 6,550 $ 6,550 $0
Joint $26,200 $26,200 $13,100 $13,100 $0
Head of Household $17,200 $17,200 $ 8,600 $ 8,600 $0
Dependent Exemption $ 5,300 $ 2,650 $ 5,300 $ 2,650 $0
Revenue Neutral Tax Rate 19.9% 19.4% 16.8% 16.3% 13.1%

Source: Congressional Budget Office, 1995.


Under the Armey "flat" tax, as it is currently proposed,(HR1040 introduced 3/15/2001) a single person would pay:

7.65% ---- 7.65%(SS/Medicare) tax on wages/salary income below $13,600,

26.65% --- 19% + 7.65%(SS/Medicare) tax on wages/salary and other taxable income from $13,600-$75,000

20.45% --- 19% + 1.45% Medicare tax on wages/salaries and other taxable income from $75,001 up.

0% -------- on savings & bond income and stock dividends.

And that single person's business/employer pays,

19% ------ on earnings (Gross Receipts less allowed business deductions, exemptions and credits)

13.65% ---- 7.65% on SS/Medicare employment excises + 6% federally mandated unemployement excises levied on each employee's on wages up to $75,000.

7.45% ----- 1.45% on Medicare employment excises + 6% federally mandated unemployement excises levied on each employee's wages greater than $75,000.

Plus additional selective excises and tariffs dependant upon the nature of business engaged in.

Note: The base "Flat Tax Rate" is subject to meet revenue neutrality requirements under the Budget Enforcement act. The 19% rate stated in the Armey/Shelby Flat Tax proposal does not meet these requirements and would of necessity be adjusted upwards, and/or personal exemptions and business deductions be reduced to meet revenue neutrality criteria for enactment.

Further the Flat Tax is a VAT in the manner in which it transfers tax onto the consumer from business which is taxed at all stages of production and passed on to the consumer hidden in price of retail goods an services.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/fullcomm/106cong/4-11-00/4-11kotl.htm

"Robert Hall, one of the originators of the proposal(Flat Tax), who describes his Flat Tax as, effectively, a Value Added Tax. A value added tax taxes output less investment (because firms get to deduct their investment.)"

"The Flat Tax differs from a VAT in only two respects. First, it asks workers, rather than firm managers, to mail in the check for the tax payment on that portion of output paid to them as wages. Second, it provides a subsidy to workers with low wages."

 


The Flat Income Tax (FIT) proposal, H.R. 1040, has two elements: a Flat Income Tax on an individual's earned income, and a VAT on businesses. The Flat Income Tax on businesses, is, by admission of Professors Robert E. Hall and Alvin Rabushka, who "wrote the book" on the FIT, a subtraction method Value Added Tax.

Quoting Hall and Rabushka ("The Flat Tax," Hoover Institution Press, 1995, pp55,56):

"To measure the total amount of income generated at a business, the best approach is to take the total receipts of the firm over the year and subtract the payments the firm has made to its workers and suppliers. This approach guarantees a comprehensive tax base. The successful value-added taxes in Europe work this way. The base for the business tax is the following:

Total revenue from sales of goods and services
less
purchases of inputs from other firms
less
wages, salaries, and pensions paid to workers
less
purchases of plant and equipment."

FReepers, the Flat Income Tax is a Value Added Tax in respect of business taxation. Professor Hall testified to that effect in a Ways and Means Committee Hearing in 1995 as well as in his book on the subject "The Flat Tax" in that same year; And it is an income tax in respect of individual taxation.

So, let us quit wasting bandwidth arguing about the Flat Income Tax. It combines a VAT with an income tax. Those of you who do not like VATs should not like the FIT. And those of you who do not like income taxes should not like the FIT, either.

71 posted on 11/07/2004 11:24:06 AM PST by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer

It doesn't look like you read or understood everything I wrote, so let's cut to the chase. I don't like any direct taxes. I would rather the tax system we had a century ago. But, since the fair tax lobby refuses to collect tariffs, we are locked into collecting direct taxes. A sales tax is a direct tax that can only be avoided by lower consumption or black markets, neither of which I suspect a supply sider would argue for. You are not going to solve anything by adding 20% what is already and 8% tax in many locales.


72 posted on 11/07/2004 11:36:30 AM PST by sixmil (11/2/2004 - And there will be great wailing and gnashing of teeth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer

More shell games geezer. How about we solve the problem for good?


73 posted on 11/07/2004 11:37:24 AM PST by sixmil (11/2/2004 - And there will be great wailing and gnashing of teeth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer

Thta's kind of a strange argument if I understand you correctly. 19% income tax is less than I am paying now, so how could I possibly be against that unless I was holding out for 0%?


74 posted on 11/07/2004 11:59:36 AM PST by sixmil (11/2/2004 - And there will be great wailing and gnashing of teeth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: sixmil

A sales tax is a direct tax

Baloney, a sales tax is a tax with regard to commerce, an indirect tax classed as an excise to be specific.

Constitution for the United States of America:

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson: letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p 322

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

DUTIES.
In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

EXCISES.
This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.

An indirect tax as seen by the founders from the beginning:

 

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

Federalist #21:

Federalist #12:

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:

"COMMERCE, trade, contracts
.
The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. Pard. Dr. Coin. n. 1. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons, by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts, and for which he pays a consideration; if the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. Domat, Dr. Pub. liv. 1, tit. 7, s. 1, n. "

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(Farrand's Records)
James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9.

"Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"

 

As upheld by the Supreme Court from the earliest days under the Constitution:

 

Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

  • "A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. "
  • "[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."
  •  

    KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)

    BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)

    Tyler v. U.S. 281 U.S. 497, 502 (1930)


    75 posted on 11/07/2004 12:17:28 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

    To: FairOpinion

    BTTT


    76 posted on 11/07/2004 12:19:08 PM PST by Fiddlstix (This Tagline for sale. (Presented by TagLines R US))
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

    To: All

    Don't rewrite the code.
    Burn it and start all over with the Fairtax.


    77 posted on 11/07/2004 12:21:41 PM PST by rwfromkansas (BYPASS FORCED WEB REGISTRATION! **** http://www.bugmenot.com ****)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

    To: FairOpinion

    President Bush gets this mess straightened out and we'll have new work on Mt. Rushmore.


    78 posted on 11/07/2004 12:22:41 PM PST by daguberment ("Kin I git me a huntin license he'a?")
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

    To: FairOpinion
    "Simplification would be the goal," Bush said Thursday during his first postelection news conference. "The main thing is that it would be viewed as fair … that it wouldn't be complicated."

    As long as the re-write is in one page pamplet form saying Sales Tax and The End.

    79 posted on 11/07/2004 12:25:14 PM PST by TADSLOS (Right Wing Infidel since 1954)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

    To: rwfromkansas

    "Don't rewrite the code.
    Burn it and start all over with the Fairtax."

    My sentiments exactly. Anything less, will be like moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic.

    Bush has an historic opportunity, I hope he takes it.

    But he will need the help of the grassroots, to explain people and hound our Senators and Congresspersons, before the Dems get their act together and start a scare campaign, and don't think they won't.


    80 posted on 11/07/2004 12:25:17 PM PST by FairOpinion (Thank you Swifties, POWs & Vets. We couldn't have done it without you.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


    Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
    first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161 next last

    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.

    Free Republic
    Browse · Search
    News/Activism
    Topics · Post Article

    FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
    FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson