Posted on 03/05/2005 7:49:13 AM PST by Pendragon_6
(CNSNews.com) - New York Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel Friday responded to suggestions that the federal income tax be gradually replaced with some form of consumption tax, saying that equal taxation is unfair.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told the President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform Thursday that the current U.S. tax code is so complicated as to be a drain on the economy.
"A simpler tax code would reduce the considerable resources devoted to complying with current tax laws," Greenspan said, "and the freed-up resources could be used for more productive purposes."
Rangel responded that any tax of that nature, such as a national sales tax, would be an injustice.
"When you have a tax, where you pay the same tax whether you're wealthy or you're poor," Rangel said, "that's not fair."
Since the rich consume more than the poor it would hardly be the same tax. Only the percentage would be the same not the end result. Rangel has to know this.
Oh Charlie, do tell us what is "Fair" then?
Let me guess...
And in other news Rangel responded up was really down, hot was cold and light was just a shade of dark.
I think old Charlie has gone 'round the bend'
Well, he's a socialist. What else would he say?
Charlie: Did you know I served in Korea? Well I did. Couple Korea with the fact I am black and metally challenged (Liberalism is a Mental Disease). I can say any stupid thing entering my mind and you can't even attempt to correct me.
Rangel is the same, only a large man from a large state.
Why not have a wealth tax where a single tax rate for everyone would be applied against one's entire wealth?
Every politician born would then be working hard to keep costs and entiotlements down and the follow on tax to cover costs low.
Many truly wealthy people pay absoluitely no tax now....Thats what I call unfair.
Rangel's just being his knee-jerk leftist self. Other conservative pundits have suggested pinning down liberals in debate about taxes. It's all about getting them to admit that to a lib the primary purpose of taxation is not to gather revenue for the functioning of government but to punish people who make a lot of money. Rangel is one of those safe-seat dems who have been doing the manure-throwing recently. Greenspan did not say what everyone does not already know but have been afraid to, or would rather die than, state openly. But the dems are still shooting themselves by attacking him.
I would still go with a flat-tax, however. It has a long, successful track record: from Hong Kong beginning in the fifties to all the former Eastern European and former Soviet vassal states (including Russia itself) over the past decade, we know it works. A consumption tax is too untried and too easy to simply add on to the existing system.
IMO this is one of the most powerful arguments for revamping the Code. The amount of time, effort and real resources spent by individuals and Corporations in their efforts to comply with the tenets of this monstrosity are incalculable but enormous.
Add to this the distortions engendered by the 'Favored' actions dictated by the Gov't, influenced by Lobbyists and reinforced by the Code and it seems very clear that the current system is a serious impediment to growth and proper market function.
Rangle wrangling with the demise of socialism.
they have one goal: REDISTRIBUTION! When the estate tax is discussed it smokes them out. There is no other reason to tax money which has already been taxed once except for redistribution. GWB's "ownership Society scares the carp out of them because studies have shown that those with a greater stake in the free markets don't tend to follow DUmmies...
This guy is such a transparent moron! But, everytime he opens his yap he aids the Republicans, so I guess I'll just add him to the pile of "useful idiots."
"Many truly wealthy people pay absoluitely no tax now....Thats what I call unfair."
Now where are your facts....the top 10%..pay 80% of all the income tax....fact...
the bottom 50% ...pay nothing ..nada....and you call that fair...
OK so maybe that post was meant for someone else?
Hogwash. It's not unfair. In fact it benefits all of us. What would have been paid in taxes instead is used for investment. Rich people create jobs...real jobs...while our taxes create unionized gubmint tenures and pay for boondoggles such as food stamps and the EPA.
Does anyone honestly think our high roller politicians look out for the little people first. I don't think there is much chance of a "flat tax" ever passing because of the powerfuls need for greed. "I made my money the hard way" they will say, so I deserve to keep it. Do our politicians of today really look out what is best for us or for them?.
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.