Posted on 05/27/2005 10:53:33 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
President Bush is calling for a complete overhaul of the broken U.S. tax code, and his Advisory Panel is holding hearings to make recommendations for reform. As I testified to the Panel earlier this month, instituting the flat tax is the right answer.
Our current income tax system is a catalog of favors for special interests and a chamber of horrors for the rest of America. As a country, we spend more time filing taxes than we spend building every car, truck, and van produced in the United States. To put this in perspective, it takes the average taxpayer over 26 hours to file a standard 1040, which has caused over 60 percent of Americans to pay a professional to complete their taxes. Simply complying with the complex tax code costs $194 billion each year, or about $650 for every man, woman, and child in America.
Aside from the tax system’s complexity and unfairness, it also inhibits saving, investment, and job creation; it imposes a heavy burden on working families; and it undermines the integrity of the democratic process. The U.S. tax system cannot be repaired by tinkering or fine-tuning. It must be completely replaced with a simple and more efficient alternative. Of the many proposed reform measures, the flat tax best meets the goal of collecting revenue in the simplest, fairest, and most transparent manner possible.
The flat tax will replace the current tax code with a flat-rate income tax that treats all Americans equally. All income is taxed only once and at one rate. There are no breaks for special interests and no loopholes for powerful lobbies, just a simple tax system that treats every American the same.
Individuals and businesses will simply complete a tax return the size of a postcard. All deductions and credits would be eliminated, while the only income not subject to tax would be a generous personal exemption for every American. For example, a family of four could be exempt from the first $40,000 of income. This personal deduction would be indexed to inflation and the flat tax rate could be calculated to be revenue neutral, so as to not increase the deficit in the process of enacting this important reform. Additionally, according to a study by the former chief economist for Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation, national income would be 5.7 percent larger after five year under the flat tax than under the current system. That means over $500 billion in increased output or more than $3,000 in additional income for a typical family of four.
One competing idea-- the national sales tax-- exhibits the perception of efficiency, but we cannot introduce such a powerful new tax collecting regime unless the 16th Amendment to the Constitution is repealed (a highly unlikely event). Otherwise, we risk the harmful reality of having to pay both a national sales tax and a federal income tax. Therefore, those in favor of modernizing the current code should work towards enacting the flat tax. It solves the problem and it is politically achievable.
Every American will benefit under a flat tax system. An increase in national income will increase charitable giving, lower interest rates will more than offset the loss of the mortgage deduction in the current system, the income exemption will continue the tax code's progressive precedent, saving for your retirement or children’s education will be easier, the marriage penalty will be eliminated, the deduction for dependent children will double, and every taxpayer will see their tax rates reduced.
For the sake of fairness, simplicity, and an improved economy, I strongly urge the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform to recommend the flat tax.
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey currently serves as co-chairman of FreedomWorks, a national grassroots organization fighting for lower taxes, less government, and more freedom.
Naw, looey - you haven't been listening. Try to get up to speed with things, will you?
You don't think inflation is in effect a hidden tax??
And you were the one spouting about all your grandiose economic knowledge ...
Don't worry about it since the flat tax being discussed is not your (nonexistent theoretical) Nightmare Flat tax anyway.
That's why having a base of consumption rather than income as the tax base used for S/Ss would be preferable and less punitive on income earners.
But that still leaves all of the definitional mischief for Congress such as "what is income - what are deductions from income - who gets exemptions - etc.".
In other words, it's still an income tax with a ploice force to crack down of ordinary citizens who are guily until they prove their innocence. That's greatly backwards.
More of your misinformed garbage! It is obvious that the President disagrees with you: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbudget/blueprint/bud02.htmlWhat year are you in? The rest of us have left 2001 behind and are in 2005 now. That document is from February 2001. Please try and catch up.
Then they'd be twiddling their thumbs most of the time since compliance is much simpler with the FairTax.
Don't kid yourself about the jobs not going away. The FairTax not only specifies eliminating the IRS and its function but in defunding it.
Wouldn't be the first time the government has fired people and it would be very beneficial to boot.
Depends entirely upon the provision of the flat tax involved ...
Now, take your Nightmare Flat tax for example ... (oops, I forgot, it doesn't exist so we CAN'T tell anything about it).
Guess you haven't read the bill (or, more likely, don't understand it). there's no provision fo blowing up any buildings or for equating the IRS with the Sales Tax Bureau.
In fact there is no requirement for a Sales Tax Bureau at all in the bill since no states are required to implement a conforming sales tax.
That's easy ... there ain't no Sales Tax Bureau. See #169 - and read the bill for a change.
You are - it shows exactly the opposite of what you claim for the years before 2001.
Of course, we know you're not mistaken at all but just willing to do almost anything to distort and mislead even if it does mean presenting incorrect information.
In fact there is no requirement for a Sales Tax Bureau at all in the bill since no states are required to implement a conforming sales tax.Guess you haven't read the bill (or, more likely, don't understand it). There "shall" be a Sales Tax Bureau whether "states are required to implement a conforming sales tax" or not.
SEC. 302. ADMINISTRATION OF OTHER FEDERAL TAXES.
(a) In General- Section 7801 (relating to the authority of the Department of the Treasury) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(d) Excise Tax Bureau- There shall be in the Department of the Treasury an Excise Tax Bureau to administer those excise taxes not administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
`(e) Sales Tax Bureau- There shall be in the Department of the Treasury a Sales Tax Bureau to administer the national sales tax in those States where it is required pursuant to section 404, and to discharge other Federal duties and powers relating to the national sales tax (including those required by sections 402, 403, and 405). The Office of Revenue Allocation shall be within the Sales Tax Bureau.'.
People who don't have much disposable income won't do much consuming. Look at consumer debt today. People are up to their eyeballs in debt. Those same people aren't saving appropriately into their defined contribution retirement plans. They really expect social security to catch them when they retire with insufficient money set aside for retirement. Those same parties will likely still be mired in consumer debt on retirement, but they won't have a fat paycheck to cover their credit obligations. They are in for a rude awakening.
That's easy ... there ain't no Sales Tax Bureau. See #169 - and read the bill for a change.That's easy...there is a Sales Tax Bureau. See #172 - and read the bill for a change.
That's a classic comment from the misinformed if ever there was one.
Certainly a wage tax IS an income tax - but it does not tax all types of income ... that why they call it a "wage tax" (taxes wages only - got it???).
Oh, the ignorance ...
Let's hope those corporations are willing to hire the old geezers who don't have enough money set aside for retirement. Job openings that go unfilled for want of people to fill them are not much help. The problem of an insufficient number of workers vs the number of retired people remains in the post 2016 time frame.
You are - it shows exactly the opposite of what you claim for the years before 2001.You are a joke. I stated "Would it surprise you that, as a percentage of GDP, tax receipts are at their lowest since 1959 and that they really haven't varied much in the last 60 years?" which is absolutely true. You reply by posting 4 year old stuff.
Of course, we know you're not mistaken at all but just willing to do almost anything to distort and mislead even if it does mean presenting incorrect information.What incorrect information did I present?
Oh, the ignorance ...LOL. Glass houses.
All the more reason to switch to the consumption base rather than the wage base for taxes.
Consumption is a much larger base - and more stable as well.
You obviously didn't look at the chart provided which shows exactly the opposite of your claim.
In addition, you seem to have missed the description:
"Total Federal revenues have surged as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) since the mid-1990s. In fact, individual income taxes now take up the largest share of GDP on record—even above World War II levels. "
Or perhaps you'd like us to believe that "... tax receipts keep dropping as a pecent of GDP ... since 1959 and haven't varied much in the last 60 years"? Perhaps with (per you) the % of GDP dropping the President actually got his chart turned upside down?
ROTFLMAO! I think he's a better source that you - and certainly more honest.
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.