Instituting a flat tax benefits you

TOWNHALL.COM ^ | 05/28/2005 | DICK ARMEY

[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.

[groanup]

Thank-you

[ancient_geezer]

You must really like this graph. From my count you've posted 5 times in the last 4 days!

Gee you must like it too, you just posted it the 6th time.

A picture is worth a 1000 words.

Here's a seventh:

 

This chart does not look very promising for the future
financial well-being of our offspring, does it?

TAXES

 

100years of history under the income tax makes it clear that we will not get there (smaller government) from here (the income tax).

"A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business; the eye of the federal inspector will be in every man's counting house....The law will of necessity have inquisical features, it will provide penalties, it will create complicated machinery. Under it men will be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the tax payer. An army of federal inspectors, spies, and detectives will descend upon the state."
-- Virginian House Speaker Richard E. Byrd, 1910, predicting the consequences of an income tax.

[MissouriConservative]

I could not agree more. The flat tax that is being implemented in Eastern Europe has Western Europe in an uproar as they know that businesses flock to areas of low taxes.

Considering that the United States has the most punishing corporate taxes in the world, a flat tax on individuals AND corporations would go a long way to seeing a huge surge in the economy....and forever entrench Republicans as the majority party.

[groanup]

You must really like this graph. From my count you've posted 5 times in the last 4 days.

And, so, repeated postings makes it unreliable? Maybe lurkers and posters like to see it. DO YOU have a graph that counters the truth in it? Nah. You counter AG's graphs with such monumental facts as: "You are the stupidist man I know." Now that is a good argument YN. Of course you could post a graph that shows the absolute opposite of AG's graph. Hey, that's a good idea. We wait. Uh, we wait, uh, we wait. Did you say you have a graph? No you didn't. But you did imply that AG's graph was somehow...bogus. Please describe your opinion and supply your own graph. We wait with bated breath.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

With a Flat Tax that IRS is still in place and can audit you, therefore it is still a bad choice.

Not necessarily. Since [a flat tax] is so simple to fill out, there'd be fewer IRS audits.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

The mathematically challenged can't understand the concept of imbedded taxes and they're too in love with the idea of income redistribution as long as it's flowing into their pockets.

There is no imbedded taxes with the flat tax. Workers and businesses are only taxed once.

[Mr. Jeeves]

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.

There it is. Black and white. NRST is for later - flat tax first.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Congress will never repeal the 16th and institute an NRST. This is just pure reality. Your better off working to simplify the existing code. But keep smoking whatever substance that makes you feel otherwise.

[Myrddin]

They wouldn't be taxed when they HAVE to withdraw their qualified money at age 70 1/2. As it is now the HAVE to take their money out so Uncle Sam can get his. Nice, huh?

Think about what happens in 2016 as the baby boomers hit age 70. Consider the effect on the stock market of 75 million people removing $3,000 per month from the stock market as required by ERISA. Crash time.

[Myrddin]

If I decide to work 80 hours instead of just 40 a week, I will be taxed twice as much as the lazy guy?

Yes, you will. Under the current progressive income tax, you will likely pay more than twice as much. Higher income "brackets" pay higher marginal rates.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Not necessarily. Since [a flat tax] is so simple to fill out, there'd be fewer IRS audits.

You are missing my point, with a Flat Tax the paperwork may be easier, but the IRS can still audit you. Also, since the paperwork is easier to investiage, meaing less work for the IRS per audit, the number of IRS audits per year will actually go up with a Flat Tax.

[groanup]

Think about what happens in 2016 as the baby boomers hit age 70. Consider the effect on the stock market of 75 million people removing $3,000 per month from the stock market as required by ERISA. Crash time.

I've heard this for years. I'm not so sure that's a problem. I could be wrong.

[groanup]

There it is. Black and white. NRST is for later - flat tax first.

With all due respect. We have a flat tax now! Why are you guys so sold on it?

[lewislynn]

Consider the effect on the stock market of 75 million people removing $3,000 per month from the stock market as required by ERISA. Crash time.

He's admittedly already placed some of his elderly client's investment money at risk...this isn't something he wants to hear now.

[Myrddin]

Consider that 2018 is the year when social security obligations begin to exceed collections. The number of income earners paying social security taxes and contributing to 401k/mutual funds/stocks will be less than the number of retirees extracting benefits.

The impact of the changing income earner vs retiree demographic is going to eclipse the problem of how taxes are collected. It is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

[Myrddin]

He's admittedly already placed some of his elderly client's investment money at risk...this isn't something he wants to hear now.

I don't have any elderly clients. Could you explain your comment?

[DugwayDuke]

"You have NOT even read the Fairtax, it ABOLISHES THE IRS."

It doesn't matter what the legislation says about abolishing the IRS. It is naive to believe that these government employees will lose their government jobs. Just remember that Welfare Reform only passed after an agreement that not one state or federal welfare worker would lose their jobs.

"A person cannot be accused of not paying a sales tax because it is the businesses that are responsible for collecting sales taxes, not private citizens."

They won't be 'accused' of not paying the tax. They will be 'accused' of possession of property that has not been taxed. Just like possession of cigarettes or liquor without the accompanying tax stamp. Gives those ex-IRS employees something to do.

[DugwayDuke]

"By the way, at that lowest "income" quintile, many do not even pay those Social Security taxes. On welfare, Social Security, living of municipal bond interest from a trust or whatever, no wage no social security tax to be paid."

Not really relevent since most of the lowest quintile (lowest 20%) don't vote any way.

"The welfare state thrives with an income tax, within its exemption structure it fosters the means to grow and perpetuate the government's spending constituencies."

The welfare state could care less about the source of it's income as long as it has income to spend. Cut off the income and you kill the welfare state. Since it is 'revenue neutral', the NRST only perpetuates the funding stream to the welfare state.

[Your Nightmare]

And, so, repeated postings makes it unreliable?

No, just obsessive. What makes it unreliable (actually, more pointless) is that the chart isn't adjusted for inflation, population, or the size of the economy. It really "shows" nothing. It's designed to make the ignorant go "OMG!"

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? It would by looking at that table.

[phil_will1]

"And, if you think that burden will fall only on businesses, then let me remind you that the original income tax was not to exeed 2%, fall only upon the richest two percent, was to be a short-lived response to an emergency, etc., etc."

Which just goes to show you that an income tax, ANY income tax, is a very bad idea, doesn't it?