Posted on 05/12/2005 12:25:08 AM PDT by FairOpinion
WASHINGTON - A presidential commission looking into how to make income taxes fairer and simpler heard pitches Wednesday from experts with ideas about revamping or replacing the current system.
ADVERTISEMENT
The commission examined plans to base taxes on spending rather than income, which could mean a national sales tax or a European-style value-added tax.
As for transforming the income tax, the commission heard proposals for comprehensive change and minor tinkering.
"Not one person who we encountered as we traveled the country told us that our current tax system was good for America and that we should leave it alone," said the commission's chairman, former GOP. Sen. Connie Mack of Florida.
After hearing complaints about tax laws, the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform used this meeting to consider ways to replace the system.
Michael Graetz, a Yale Law School professor, offered an outline of how to meld income taxes with a value-added tax. That tax, used widely in Europe, imposes a levy on the increased value of a product at each stage of production.
Under his plan, consumers would see a 13 percent to 14 percent value-added tax appear on their purchases.
Individuals earning less than $50,000 and families making under $100,000 no longer would pay income taxes under such a plan. Those still paying income taxes would get a simplified system and a top tax rate of 25 percent.
"I am very skeptical that you can fix the income tax," Graetz said.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has told the commission that he supports some combination of income and consumption taxes as a catalyst for economic growth. Others have warned about the dangers of a poorly designed hybrid.
A consumption tax could take the form of a national retail sales tax, a potential replacement for income, estate and payroll taxes. Americans for Fair Taxation offered a plan setting a 23 percent sales tax on purchases, with exemptions for the poor.
An alternate plan, offered by David Burton of the Free Enterprise Fund, would reduce the rate to 8.4 percent for individuals by also levying the tax on businesses.
In the event the current income tax was retained, experts made the case for ways to promote savings and to simplify credits and deductions.
That could mean letting businesses immediately expense their investments and expanding individuals' ability to save money tax free.
"Why go searching for some new, magic elixir with unknown results?" said Ernest Christian, director of the Center for Strategic Tax Reform. He said the value-added tax was an "exotic import" at odds with the U.S. tax experience.
Others endorsed keeping the incentives for homeownership and charitable giving that President Bush wants preserved, while reducing the many other deductions and credits now available.
The commission, which expects to make final recommendations this summer, discussed options for a flat tax that eliminates deductions and credits, reduces income tax rates and erases taxes on investment income.
"There's not a human being alive today who knows what's in the code," said Steve Forbes, a one-time presidential contender who favors the flat tax.
Commission members asked about how the country could shift to such a tax, wanting to make sure the government got the revenue it needed during that transition.
Former Sen. John Breaux (news, bio, voting record), D-La., the commission's vice chairman, asked whether people could accept a system that taxes wages but not investment income. Others raised questions about eliminating the current system's progressive tax rates.
Former Rep. Dick Armey, R-Texas, said it is a "big job" to convince voters that the poor and wealthy could benefit from a flat tax.
"What's fair is to treat everybody exactly the same as everybody else," he said.
Second, is the incentive to reincorporate in the U.S.How would this allow the foreign owners to circumvent the income tax. If they wanted to realize any profit from this new U.S. corporation, it would be taxed the same as if they had not reincorporated in the US. The only way around this is for them to move (not their corporation, but pack up their family and move) to the US. I doubt too many people would find that appealing.
"no bothering with write off's; no bitching about how the poor folks pay too much. the only thing congress would have to figure every year is the rate of tax and the dollar amount of rebate. really a stroke of genious."
I agree. The rebate is very ingenious. So much simpler than picking and choosing exempt items.
"LOL, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel today, aren't you."
He has no choice. All of his arguments are getting their legs chopped off.
Did you hear Burton's testimony as it relates to currency shifts and their potential to offset border adjustments of tax? Hopefully, we won't have to hear that silly argument again.
"Which brings up another disturbing point. Wouldn't the WTO fight the Fair Tax tooth and nail?"
They might not like it, but they don't have a legal objection. After all, we can simply point out that we want to start taxing imports the exact same way that we tax our own goods. We aren't introducung a bias in favor of US produced goods into our tax system; we are eliminating one in favor of imports from our current system.
BTW, did any of you see the first panel of Wednesday's hearings? Two professors testified in favor of VATs. They both agreed that we should consult with the foreign trading partners before eliminating corporate income taxes. I was very surprised to hear that recommendation.
Kerry-esque eh? Global test again. Sheesh.
"Were that done, the bill would lose all or almost all of its grassroots support - which IS extensive despite the naysayers that pop up here."
I second that. I was just in DC and I visited with staffers from about 18 house and senate offices. Several of them commented on the strength and organization of our grassroots efforts; a couple said that we "do it right". That was encouraging. Sometimes it seems like we have such a long way to go, with so many people still not aware, but those conversations helped me to understand that we are WAY ahead of any other proposal.
"The only way around this is for them to move (not their corporation, but pack up their family and move) to the US. I doubt too many people would find that appealing."
Are you aware of how many people move here every year - both legally and illegally? Apparently some people find relocating to the USA very appealing.
They will pack up and move. I did it......
Section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code made it VERY attractive to do business (Manufacture) in Puerto Rico. We moved, lived there for three years. Took our 3 and 5 year olds, moved from family, friends, all that was familiar. Not easy, but it's done everyday. Capital flows, over time, to where it is treated best. That is an undeniable fact. It will take time, but it will happen.
Because of the incentives of section 936, manufacturing plants sprung up like ant hills on the Island of Puerto Rico. Most of our pharmaceuticals are manufactured there. The old timers told me (through interpreters) that the island changed virtually overnight.
And it continues to happen under our noses.......we're losing the capital investment battle:
http://www.ciol.com/content/search/showarticle.asp?arid=68731&way=search
Are you aware of how many people move here every year - both legally and illegally? Apparently some people find relocating to the USA very appealing.Yes, but you are asking all the stockholders of a corporation to do it en masse. Not very likely.
They will pack up and move. I did it......I don't believe Section 936 required the stockholders to move to Puerto Rico to receive the benefits on income. I'm not sure this is a good comparison of what the FairTax would require.
"Yes, but you are asking all the stockholders of a corporation to do it en masse. Not very likely."
LOL!! Do you realize how silly your objections are getting? Do you really think that US corporations don't have foreign shareholders now? Or that the FairTax would require all shareholders to be US residents?
Do you really think that US corporations don't have foreign shareholders now? Or that the FairTax would require all shareholders to be US residents?None of this is an accurate description of what we were discussing.
Did you hear Burton's testimony as it relates to currency shifts and their potential to offset border adjustments of tax?You mean the testimony where Burton was presenting his alternative to the FairTax? His BEST tax would be a NRST/business transfer tax hybrid.
You really shouldn't be ... that would be a typical liberal/professorial thought which sometimes seems like an East Coast infection.
Don't want to tic anyone off ya' kno'. With that attitude King George would still be able to haul Americans to England and hang them there. ("That'll fix those bloody colonists").
Yes ... and that's all the more reason for all of us to hammer our own Congresscats to make sure they know we want the FairTax and not all these silly alternatives. I'm doing it (more than once) and hope all of you are too.
I would think you would realize by this time that that sort of tactic no longer works and merely makes you look silly.
Be my guest, though!
He was presenting an ADDiTIONAL plan not backed by us FairTax proponents (and he knows that). It is unlikely to go anywhere since it retains the payroll tax, making it a hybrid income/sales tax plan ,,, a great big NO-NO to anyone with any sense.
Check and see how many Tax Panel comments from Individuals call out that alternate plan vs naming the FairTax plan either by name or bill number. Be sure and let us know your results.
I would think you would realize by this time that that sort of tactic no longer works and merely makes you look silly.Oh how grand! You are giving me debating tips and how not to look silly! Thanks, Squeally, but you are the biggest fool on FR. I'll get my pointers elsewhere.
Check and see how many Tax Panel comments from Individuals call out that alternate plan vs naming the FairTax plan either by name or bill number. Be sure and let us know your results.LOL! Do you really think that matters? Go ahead, waste your time sending in comments.
Burton's testimony as it relates to currency shifts and their potential to offset border adjustments of tax?
Yep, course the currency shift that offsets(over some unspecified long run) that border adjustments results in appreciation in the value of the dollar with the increase in investment in the U.S. by foreign trade partners as their own currency depreciates against the dollar.
But what border adjustment is done with an NRST? Now with a VAT, border adjustment is done to rebate the tax paid by exporters and upstream suppliers on their exports. With an NRST there is no tax on their exports to begin with, and there are no provisions to rebate NRST to foreign tourists when they leave.
Don't think about that one too much, it has been known to cause confusion and headaches and require visits to headshrinkers. :O<
Hopefully, we won't have to hear that silly argument again.
Sure we will, as I just made certain to say something that will assure lots more bumps to this thread. We should be able to bat this one about and keep the thread alive for at least another week ;O)
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.