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.
You might notice in the chart above that, "as a percentage of GDP, tax receipts are at their lowest since 1959."
Aha - glad that got you to read at least part of the bill.
Now show us where the part is about blowing up the IRS buildings, etc. And you might be able to read about the Sales Tax Bureau and what it does. Its main function is to operate at the state level; not to impinge on individual taxpayers.
This whole sidetrack effort is merely another of your attempts at the use of red herrings. That's right out of the SQL Handbook.
No, I was talking about tax revenues as a percentage of GDP
I see, you don't recognize CBO's comprehensive personal income as a major portion of GDP.
Oh well, that's all right, we are well aware of your lack of analytic abilites and guess we will just have to take that into account when you have anything to say.
Another irrelevant cut & pastie from AG. What a shock
Ahh your stock appeal to ridicule and otherwise useless commentary to cover your lack of substance, LOL.
A plan such as the FairTax is not only nothing like a VAT, but it cannot be made into one.
Please check out some of the detailed information at:
http://www.fairtax.org/research.html
Undoubtedly the millions of "tax professionals" whose welfare depends on the status quo would massively lobby against a change to a simpler tax system.
Now show us where the part is about blowing up the IRS buildings, etc.Sure.
TITLE III--OTHER MATTERS SEC. 304. ALL IRS BUILDINGS TO BE BLOWN UP.
All IRS buildings are to be blown up no later than 6 months after the implementation of the sales tax and Sales Tax Bureau buildings are to be built from the rubble.
[This is getting Felliniesque].
Indeed you are. As your own comments demonstrate.
That's about as realistic (and as dishonest) as most of your postings.
You'd better tell looey that you intented this as a joke before he starts posting about blowing up building on the IRS or in the IRS, etc. as he is wont to do.
Or - who knows - maybe you really believe what you posted since you've put up some pretty strange things in the past. I guess that just shows your desperation - hoping to pass something like that off.
Or - who knows - maybe you really believe what you posted since you've put up some pretty strange things in the past.Yeah, right. Like tax receipts as a percentage of GDP being at their lowest point since 1959?
Some people on this very thread, promote the evil you speak of.
What this posting really illustrates is not at all what you intend. What it really shows is the growth of the government beginning in about the WWII years and continuing since then right up until the present time and also - with the present economic decline - the way that tax revenues vary greatly due to the use on income as a tax base. It somethimes floats above 20% and sometimes under.
With such a variation, the percentages shift around and tend to be lower during economic ills as at present. That certainly means nothing about the continuation of any long term percentage trend ... except that government is way too large and has been since the WWII era.
Pretending that such a set of figures is particularly meaningful is notoriously dishonest since, should the economy improve in the next few years (and the income tax remain - which is doubtful), then these percentages will climb right back up to the 20% and above range. It's no "trend" at all, but just historical data showing how government has ballooned (and how entitlements have done likewise).
In short, your posting which you no doubt gave as a defense of the income tax as being a kinder, gentler tax with such low rates (your belief on a percentage basis) really doesn't need fixing at all ... that's it's everyone else who is out of step tax-wise.
LOL, indeed.
No, Nightmare VAT boy - that it has any real relation to anything. The point is - SO WHAT??
It merely illustrates the too-great set of government expenditures since WWII as well as the fact that tax revenues as a percentage of GDP vary since they use income as a base and that varies with the economic picture.
You might also say that "tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are now 300 to 400 percent of what they were in the early to mid '30s; about as large a multiple as we have ever had since the WWII era".
Your intended defense of the income tax falls short.
With such a variation, the percentages shift around and tend to be lower during economic ills as at present. That certainly means nothing about the continuation of any long term percentage trendI gave you the standard deviation. It wasn't that large.
Pretending that such a set of figures is particularly meaningful is notoriously dishonest since, should the economy improve in the next few years (and the income tax remain - which is doubtful), then these percentages will climb right back up to the 20% and above range. It's no "trend" at all, but just historical data showing how government has ballooned (and how entitlements have done likewise).Whatever...it's not possible to have a reasoned discussion with you so I'm not even going to attempt it.
In short, your posting which you no doubt gave as a defense of the income tax as being a kinder, gentler tax with such low rates (your belief on a percentage basis) really doesn't need fixing at all ... that's it's everyone else who is out of step tax-wise.I didn't post it as a defense of the income tax. I posted it to show my statement that you claimed was false was indeed factual. Now you've been exposed and you are changeing your story. This seems to be your modus operandi.
Certainly you did intend to show that the IT "ain't so bad" otherwise why post it at all? Trying a stunt like that will get you nowhere on these threads. You were posting it in opposition to another person's post that showed the IT as being quite bad.
Now you try to claim you weren't defending the income tax ... nonsense. You absolutely were - AND ARE!! Why do you lie about it?
Now you've been exposed and you are changeing your story. This seems to be your modus operandi.
Now you try to claim you weren't defending the income tax ... nonsense.Go back through the thread, I was pointing out that AG's chart is flawed.
No, you were saying the chart said something that it doesn't.
Oh ... I see ... but that wasn't because you were wishing to defend the IT?? Yeah, right!!!
You liberal SQLers seem top think others are really stupid and cannot see your little stunts for what they are.
If that is, indeed, what you were doing - and as you see, some doubt that - are you trying to tell us you were not defending the income tax by doing so???
The folks on these threads are not so foolish that they will believe that. It's quite a transparent lie (another one).
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.