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.
Perhaps it's not just ignorance in your case ... there's always stupidity ... or dishonesty.
You may choose.
Job openings that go unfilled for want of people to fill them are not much help.
Wages have been known to go up under such conditions, as well as the fact that new manufacturing facilities provide modernization with increased worker productivity from technological advances.
I not too worried about such manufacturers going wanting for labor, especially as there are so many folks running around that have taken lesser positions for lack of such opportunities.
But then we can always provide for more immigration if you really figure this nation can't support an upsurge in well paid new manufacturing jobs instead of more burger flippers.
The problem of an insufficient number of workers vs the number of retired people remains in the post 2016 time frame.
Which is what the Social Security reform fight is all about.
However the potential for economic growth and incentive for personal investment becomes part of the solution to such problems with a consumption tax system that does not tax investment or savings encouraging folks away from their dependancy on government programs like SS/Medicare for their futures and into providing for their own futures.
Coupled with personal retiremtent accounts, an NRST creates the necessary environment conducive to the longer term success of extracting our selves from the morass of SS/Medicare mistakes of the past.
For the NRST is a fundamental change in paradigm and how people utilize their incomes, as well as providing revenues for the constitutional functions of government.
| President Bush's FY 2005 Budget http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/budget/index.html
Strengthening Our Economy: Despite the series of shocks that slowed the economy, including a sharp drop in the stock market beginning in 2000, the terrorists attacks of 9/11, corporate scandals, and war, America’s economy is strong and getting stronger. The tax relief proposed and signed into law by President Bush was the right action at the right time for our economy. The results of this decisive action are clear. Economic growth in the second half of 2003 was the fastest in nearly 20 years. New home construction in 2003 was the highest in 25 years; homeownership levels are at historic highs; manufacturing activity is increasing; inflation and interest rates are low; and a quarter million jobs were created in the last half of 2003. And the President’s tax relief agenda has resulted in significant benefits for the taxpayers of America:
President Bush’s FY 2005 budget includes his call to Congress to secure these positive economic trends for the future by making the tax relief permanent – so families and businesses can plan and invest with confidence. |
You obviously didn't look at the chart provided which shows exactly the opposite of your claim.Listen, fool, your chart ends in 2000, it is now 2005 - and it is for income taxes, only.
ROTFLMAO! I think he's a better source that you - and certainly more honest.It's not that he's a bad source, it's that you picked an outdated document. How honest is that?
, and to discharge other Federal duties and powers relating to the national sales tax (including those required by sections 402, 403, and 405).
You mean the Fair Tax legislation actually provides a Sales Tax Bureau to support & interface with state sales tax agencies administering the NRST and assuring collected funds get allocated with credited to their destination states for proper accounting and payment of administrative fees to the state agencies collecting and administering the tax system?
H.R.25Fair Tax Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
`CHAPTER 4--FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATIVE TAX ADMINISTRATION
|
Wow!! Who would have ever thought one might find such a provision in a National Retail Sales Tax system.
I'm not looking for any sort of national sales tax of any percentage, especially one above 20%. Nice and quick way to kill an economy.
You mean the Fair Tax legislation actually provides a Sales Tax Bureau to support & interface with state sales tax agencies administering the NRST and assuring collected funds get allocated with credited to their destination states for proper accounting and payment of administrative fees to the state agencies collecting and administering the tax system?"and to discharge other Federal duties and powers relating to the national sales tax"
And income taxes represent a much greater portion of taxes than corporate taxes. The trend is the thing to be illustrated which is what the President's chart does.
In addition it doesn't matter that it ends in 2001 since your comment related heavily to the past 60 years which the President's chart also showed clearly as displaying a different pattern than you were offering.
And income taxes represent a much greater portion of taxes than corporate taxes.And payroll taxes? You do remember those? What about excise taxes?
The trend is the thing to be illustrated which is what the President's chart does.The trend for income taxes, not federal government revenue.
In addition it doesn't matter that it ends in 2001 since your comment related heavily to the past 60 years which the President's chart also showed clearly as displaying a different pattern than you were offering.My point was 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." Your chart doesn't disprove that. It shows less than half of tax receipts and it's not current.
Sometimes, the rate is too high - need to cut spending first.
Why do they change their position on so many issues?
The real issue is that they don't want any tax reform at all.
Listen, fool, your chart ends in 2000, it is now 2005 - and it is for income taxes, only.
Figure this will add some more to the picture?
Looks more tax burden on GDP coming up unless Congress steps in making the Bush tax cuts permanent.
Any relief in tax burden in recent years appears to be likely to be headed right back into the mists of tax cuts past with the proclivity of Senate democrats hanging on to their filibuster and stalls.
|
Effective Federal Tax Rates Under Current Law, 2001 to 2014 Tax legislation enacted in 2001, 2002, and 2003 is scheduled to phase in, phase out, and "sunset" entirely after 2010. As a result, federal tax rules will differ in every year from 2001 through 2011 and, consequently, so will effective tax rates--which are the total federal taxes that people bear measured as a percentage of their income. Because provisions have different impacts on people with different income and because those provisions change from year to year, effective tax rates fall and rise in patterns that vary over both time and income quintiles (or fifths of the distribution). This analysis of effective federal tax rates from 2002 through 2014 uses data on incomes in 2001, the most recent year for which information is available. *** SNIP ***
Table 2. Effective Federal Tax Rates and Shares Under Current Tax Law, Based on 2001 Incomes, by Income Category, 2001 to 2014
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It's not that he's a bad source, it's that you picked an outdated document. How honest is that?
Seems assuming no change in long term trends is a better way to go, at least until such time as we see Congress Critters acually implement permanant tax cuts into the mix, instead of letting the intended course of events take thier toll.
And your making the unfounded claim you did certainly illustrates nothing productive.
Excise taxes are a very small part of that tax bag, and on-budget entitlement taxes are about the same size as the corporate starting from about the mid-80's when entitlements began to bloom. Prior to that - which is a lot of the time period you refer to - the entitlement stuff was much smaller than corporate.
The trend remains as shown in the President's chart and also in the figures given in #190.
The useful part of this for pro tax reformers is practice reducing the minutia, practice nailing their inconsistencies, and pegging them for big-government, income tax lovers. That won't be hard in the real world.
The anonymity of the web does not serve their strategy. The real world will be impossible for that strategy. You think that's all they got? Or will they go for the "old people and babies will eat dog food" next? LOL
Figure this will add some more to the picture?No, I was talking about tax revenues as a percentage of GDP, your chart shows effective tax rates (and most of them estimated). Another irrelevant cut & pastie from AG. What a shock.
"and to discharge other Federal duties and powers relating to the national sales tax"
And just what additional duties do you ind in the legislation, seeing that the States will provide the adminstrative support for the collection of sales taxes from businesses within their jursidictions, and the a sales tax bureau is designed to primarily be a liason and interface with them for the Treasury Department.
What I find outside Chapter 4 references,
is a roll in interfacing with say Customs,
Sec. 101(c) Coordination With Import Duties- , and
providing technical support to the Social Security Administration,
Sec 904(f) Assistance- The Secretary shall provide such technical assistance as the Social Security Administration shall require to determine the old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate and the hospital insurance rate.
etc ...
Provided for in the legislation.
Surely you can point out the specific "other Federal duties and powers relating to the national sales tax"
That you are concerned about.
Your talk - as opposed to cut and paste - shows nothing at all.
Sounds good to me. Anything is better than the current mess. I really liked the Forbes plan. It was really the only that Forbes brought to the table.
Nope sorry. I don't trust a sales tax. A sales tax is a vote away from a VAT, and that's just a three letter word for evil. Politicians can play with a sales tax by cleverly altering what's taxed, effectively raising the ad valorem tax, without seemingly raising taxes. The beauty of the flat tax is that everyone knows instantly if it's raised, and how much it's raised.
Ummm....how was he supposed to have accomplished this?
Did you see him create a panel before he wanted the prescription drug package or NCLB or Sarbanes-Oaxley? If Presidents want something, they don't need to create a "panel" and send them across the country.
And your making the unfounded claim you did certainly illustrates nothing productive.Unfounded? Please. This info is very easy to find.
Federal Tax Receipts as a Percentage of GDP
source: Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2006
Year Receipts 1944 20.90% 1945 20.40% 1946 17.60% 1947 16.50% 1948 16.20% 1949 14.50% 1950 14.40% 1951 16.10% 1952 19.00% 1953 18.70% 1954 18.50% 1955 16.60% 1956 17.50% 1957 17.80% 1958 17.30% 1959 16.10% 1960 17.90% 1961 17.80% 1962 17.60% 1963 17.80% 1964 17.60% 1965 17.00% 1966 17.40% 1967 18.30% 1968 17.70% 1969 19.70% 1970 19.00% 1971 17.30% 1972 17.60% 1973 17.70% 1974 18.30% 1975 17.90% 1976 17.20% TQ 17.80% 1977 18.00% 1978 18.00% 1979 18.50% 1980 19.00% 1981 19.60% 1982 19.10% 1983 17.50% 1984 17.40% 1985 17.70% 1986 17.40% 1987 18.40% 1988 18.20% 1989 18.40% 1990 18.00% 1991 17.80% 1992 17.50% 1993 17.60% 1994 18.10% 1995 18.50% 1996 18.90% 1997 19.30% 1998 20.00% 1999 20.00% 2000 20.90% 2001 19.80% 2002 17.80% 2003 16.40% 2004 16.30%
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.