Posted on 08/15/2005 5:55:06 AM PDT by OESY
A major domestic battle looms this fall, when tax reform-- a centerpiece of the president's bold domestic agenda-- will finally be on the table. The President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform is expected to release its findings by the end of September. After the political shellacking the White House took on Social Security, the administration will be strongly tempted to take a conciliatory path that supports only superficial reforms, essentially preserving the status quo of our hideous income tax code.
Such a course would have perilous consequences, economically and politically. In fact, the administration has an opportunity here to boldly retake the initiative, to recover lost political support and thrust an already decent economy into high gear and, at the same time, make America better able to meet intensifying competition from China, India and others. How? By junking the entire federal income tax code and starting over with a flat tax. A growing number of countries are doing this -- and so should we.
The current system is beyond redemption, a beast whose complexity, confusion and outright unfairness have corrupted our economy and society. Americans waste more than $200 billion and over six billion hours each year filling out tax forms. They engage in all kinds of useless economic activity intended to take advantage of the code's complicated maze of deductions and to reduce taxes -- from deducting donations of old socks to making unwanted investments. The waste of brainpower -- at a time of increasing global competition -- is incalculable.
The code corrupts our system of government by encouraging the crassest political conduct and by creating a massive, intrusive federal bureaucracy. One-sixth of the private-sector employees in Washington are employed by the lobbying industry. One-half of their efforts are directed at wrangling changes in the tax code....
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Excellent post, and right on ol' feller!!
Here is where that's specified in the bill:
`Any person liable to remit taxes pursuant to this subtitle shall keep records (including a record of all section 510 receipts provided, complete records of intermediate and export sales, including purchaser's intermediate and export sales certificates and tax number and the net of tax amount of purchase) sufficient to determine the amounts reported, collected, and remitted for a period of 6 years after the latter of the filing of the report for which the records formed the basis or when the report was due to be filed. Any purchaser who purchased taxable property or services but did not pay tax by reason of asserting an intermediate and export sales exemption shall keep records sufficient to determine whether said exemption was valid for a period of 7 years after the purchase of taxable property or services. `SEC. 510. TAX TO BE SEPARATELY STATED AND CHARGED. `(a) In General- For each purchase of taxable property or services for which a tax is imposed by section 101, the seller shall charge the tax imposed by section 101 separately from the purchase. For purchase of taxable property or services for which a tax is imposed by section 101, the seller shall provide to the purchaser a receipt for each transaction that includes-- `(1) the property or services price exclusive of tax; `(2) the amount of tax paid; `(3) the property or service price inclusive of tax; `(4) the tax rate (the amount of tax paid (per paragraph (2)) divided by the property or service price inclusive of tax (per paragraph (3)); `(5) the date that the good or service was sold; `(6) the name of the vendor; and `(7) the vendor registration number. ""SEC. 509. RECORDS.
In addition, once a month you would prepare a specified two line report and send it and the taxes collected to the state tax administration. You would be well-paid for doing this collecting and forwarding and the money is paid by your buyer, not you. Under the present system any form filling out, etc. you do is an unfunded mandate by the government (you do it at your expense). With the FairTax there is no unfunded mandate.
Well, Hamilton - and several others of that era did - but it wasn't called the Laffer Curve then ... just common sense.
That should read "</stupidity>", Looey.
Just get behind the FairTax ... it'll do all that and much more as well.
Real world??? That post makes no sense at all.
"Not Exactly"??? Not at all is more like it, Nightie. It is more like a case of HP's Tax Counsel tooting his own horn. It isn't even a study in what the entire compliance costs the company.
It does, however, illustrate the ridiculous extreme to which the Income Tax system has risen. The FairTax would eliminate just about all of that and be greatly simpler to boot.
Why is it you SQLers keep struggling to try to retain income-based taxes???
"Not Exactly"??? Not at all is more like it, Nightie. It is more like a case of HP's Tax Counsel tooting his own horn. It isn't even a study in what the entire compliance costs the company.You are so predictable. It's comical.
It does, however, illustrate the ridiculous extreme to which the Income Tax system has risen. The FairTax would eliminate just about all of that and be greatly simpler to boot.I guess you missed this part: "It is interesting to note that HP’s total costs of local (U.S.) sales and use tax compliance exceed its federal income tax compliance costs."
"If I quote the results of economic models it's usually to show how they can differ."
That's actually a very good one, Nightiie!! Funny as can be! The only time you "quote results of economic models" is when you think they can be used to try to trash the FairTax. Let's be honest about it.
The only time you "quote results of economic models" is when you think they can be used to try to trash the FairTax.Sorry, but the FairTax supporters are the only ones I know that put so much stock in economic models. I guess that's because they have nothing else.
I didn't miss that at all, Nightie. But if you read the "study" (which is anthing but) it is quite apparent that the Tax Counsel promoting his own activities is ignoring a good bit of the very real compliance costs and just thinks the other two attorneys (while ignoring attendant staff and facilities support costs) and himself are the total "compliance costs" of the company.
He even mentions a number of other efforts that have to be involved. It may very well be that the other costs of state/local tax compliance costs are more than just this guy and his 2 cronies; wouldn't doubt that a bit. In fact it can't be determined since he presents no detailed figures either way.
Despite the publication, no one has any clear idea of their total compliance costs for federal taxation might be ... and he also completely ignores payroll tax requirements seems to me. As I said, a genuine case of horn-tooting.
Let's also note, too, that with the FairTax HP would not only get rid of these 3 overhead tyoes (along with their supporting staff and facilities) but all of all of the other "complexities" and "difficulties", etc. he mentions in connection with making up their returns and also the audit risks attendant which he alludes to as they try to outguess the IRS about the income tax law. In addition, HP would be paid to collect the FairTax on taxable sales.
How much do you figure these 3 tax lawyers gross (not to mention their support staff and facilities) - say $250,000 per year each?? One year not too long ago Chrysler Corporation was reputed to have filed an income tax return that was 6-1/2 feet high. To my way of thinking that's as shameful as these guys crowing about how "wunnerful" they are. It's all a big waste of our economy's resources.
Spin...spin...spin.
Comical. Truly comical.
You never could discern the truth from the Squirrel propaganda - and still can't.
Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to income taxes and self-employment taxes) is repealed. SEC. 102. PAYROLL TAXES REPEALED. (a) In General- Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to payroll taxes and withholding of income taxes) is repealed. (b) Funding of Social Security- For funding of the Social Security Trust Funds from general revenue, see section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401).""SEC. 101. INCOME TAXES REPEALED.
It also calls for the repeal of the 16th amendment.
Naw, Constantine XIII - most of these naysayers are Status Quo Lovers (SQLs) who have reasons unrelated to anything but their own current (tax related) reasons for opposing and attacking the FairTax.
They all been given numerous links to some splendid economic anslyses and the bill itself - which many have not read much of. They have their own reasons to attack but are ceertainly not interested in learning anything.
Nomnsense, Looey, he was NEVER about "finding out" about a simple request at all - and still isn't. He has refused to make use of the many links and papers he has been pointed to all the while claiming he "really wanted to know".
Apparently he's fooled you ... which is REALLY tough, huh?.
Yep, he's merely one of the SQL Trolls. Just another disruptor trying to make noise with nonsense.
You never could discern the truth from the Squirrel propaganda - and still can't.So "squirrel propaganda," besides being a lame attempt to ridicule, is anything negative about the FairTax. Got it.
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.