Posted on 08/21/2005 1:01:15 PM PDT by sportutegrl
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 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Since the government doesn't know if a citizen is legal in this age of false documentation, how will they know if a resident is really legal?
The legislation does so by presumption, if you have a SSN you are a legal resident and qualify to apply for the sales tax rebate.
The administration and validation of Social Security accounts being one of the functions of Social Security Administration.
Well you don't have enough money to worry about it unless you took a big tax hit somewhere along the way and rolled everything over. Just think, you would never have to worry about that tax hit again. Your statement is like saying: well, I think it's a great idea for 300 million people but it makes me uncomfortable so screw it. MOST people have their retirement in conventional IRA's and 401(k)'s. What a boon for them!!
Back among us I see. How's the wife?
Yeah. L. Ron Hubbard and John Linder go way back.
Is that a good news / bad news scenario? The good news is she's home, the bad news YOU gotta cook! Glad she's home.
I know. When I was running my own business, (I did not have a personal cash-flow problem), what I did was pay myself ONCE a year. On December 31st. At that time I worte a check to Uncle Sam for $64,000 in Federal Income TAX and 15% for FICA TAX, and the State TAX.
Got it. Thanks for the humor! Cheers.
Boortz's position has been, well, since all the stuff you're buying with your Roth IRA money has declined by 22% (due to the removal of embedded taxes), paying the 23% NRST makes it a wash.
I don't buy that. The gov't promised me that, since the Roth is funded with after-tax dollars, I'd never pay any more fed tax on my Roth money. Thus, to me, anything I buy with ROTH money should be free of the NRST.
In the purest sense of the word, "taxes," the NRST is "just" a replacement for what we have now. So, if I have already paid the tax, why should I have to pay anymore tax?
And I certainly don't understand at all what the prebate has to do with spending Roth IRA money.
This, IMHO is a hole in the Fair Tax plan.
Another lame excuse I heard on this is, "The Fair Tax applies only to new merchandise. So if you use your Roth IRA money to buy only used merchandise, you'll never pay any more tax on it." True, but pretty damn lame.
But first, of course, we gotta get it passed and signed into law. That is going to be a monumental BITCH! Virtually every financial industry person in the country will be against this as it eliminates a whole lot of work they now get paid handsomely for. The financial industry lobbies will fight this tooth and nail. The RATS will too. It's gonna be a tremendous battle.
My biggest fear is that the politicos will have spaghetti for spines and bb's for cojones and come up with some "blend" of what we have now and the NRST. With maybe some "promise" that we'll be completely switched over to the NRST in 10 or 15 years. What a mess that's gonna be!
The Fair Tax eliminates the AMT. And the payroll tax. And the Social Security tax. And the capital gains tax. And the "death" tax. And other taxes as well.Actually right after the Fairtax "eliminates" them it also "replaces" all those taxes...
Look at your phone bill sometime.The fairtax doesn't eliminate anything on your phone bill...it taxes them.
You are missing the point. sheesh!
The IRS will still exist in one form or another to collect the Unfair Tax. There has to be a federal agency involved to collect the taxes, unless you envision the states handing over 50 checks to the feds. Maybe it won't be called the IRS, it'll be given a cutesy name such as FairTax Revenue Bureau or something and its logo will be the smiley guy from Wal-Mart.
Tax reform proponents should concentrate on a strict flat tax for now and maybe introduce a federal sales tax down the line, as long as the 16th amendment is repealed and such a tax isn't in conjuction with an income tax.
I am a FairTaxer Myself, but it is not the best plan.
The PERFECT federal tax system is to simply collect 100% of all federal taxes from the ststes. This can be done in one of three ways:
1) Make states contribute federal taxes in porportion to their representation in Congress.
2) Make states contribute federal taxes according to a formula that includes population size and GDP
3) Allow the Federal Government to levy an income tax on State Treasuries. This would work great if we still had a situation where state revenue exceeded Federal revenue. If enacted, the tax would have to be 300% of state revenues.
The IRS will still exist in one form or another to collect the Unfair Tax. There has to be a federal agency involved to collect the taxes, unless you envision the states handing over 50 checks to the feds.
Try each state handing over a single check to the U.S. Treasury after collecting the national retail sales tax from retailers right along with thier own sales taxes they already administer today.
H.R.25Fair Tax Act of 2005 (Introduced in House) `CHAPTER 4--FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATIVE TAX ADMINISTRATION
|
Maybe it won't be called the IRS, it'll be given a cutesy name such as FairTax Revenue Bureau or something and its logo will be the smiley guy from Wal-Mart.
Maybe you ought to read the legislation so you won't look quite so foolish engaging in wild speculations.
| House Ways & Means archives 106th Congress: Statement of Billy Hamilton, Deputy Comptroller, Testimony Before the House Committee on Ways and Means Hearing on Fundamental Tax Reform April 11, 2000 My name is Billy Hamilton, and I am the Deputy Comptroller for the State of Texas. Carole Keeton Rylander, the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, was delighted to receive an invitation to testify before this committee regarding the Fundamental Tax Reform measures under consideration today. Unfortunately, Comptroller Rylander's schedule did not permit her attendance, and she has asked me to testify here on her behalf. My comments today are directed only to the feasibility of state administration of the Fair Tax proposed by H.R. 2525. I do not intend to comment on the economics or any other aspects of the proposal. The Texas Comptroller's office has administered a sales and use tax since the 1960's, and I have been involved with administration of the tax since 1982. Last year, the Texas Comptroller collected $13 billion in sales tax revenue from more than 600,000 businesses. I offer my own experience with sales tax administration, as well as the size of Texas' sales tax program, as the basis of my qualification to speak to you about the administerability of H.R. 2525. As you know, H.R. 2525 would permit states to collect and administer the Fair Tax on behalf of the federal government. In my opinion, Texas would be well-equipped to administer the Fair Tax based on our experience in administering our own sales tax. Even though the base, rate and other characteristics of the Fair Tax are significantly different from the Texas sales tax, it would be feasible for our office to collect the Fair Tax by expanding and enhancing the systems we currently have in place. For example, we would:
The expansion of our systems to administer the Fair Tax, in the manner I've just described, would be sizable. Under the Fair Tax, we would serve approximately 900,000 more filers than we do currently. We estimate that serving that many additional taxpayers would require 1,100 to 1,600 more full-time employees. The Texas Comptroller currently employs about 2,700 people on a full-time basis. In spite of this large expansion, the compensation for collecting the Fair Tax that would be provided to states under H.R. 2525 would likely cover our projected costs. As a first approximation, we estimate that the cost to the Texas Comptroller's office for collecting the Fair Tax at full implementation would be $100 to $150 million per year. I emphasize, however, that there would be significant costs to begin collection, including the cost of facilities to house the additional processing facilities, the capital costs of information technology and revenue processing equipment, and the costs of notifying, registering and educating taxpayers on the new tax. In closing, I believe that if the Fair Tax is to become a reality, the U.S. government would be well-served to make use of the existing expertise of the states. Many states have administered consumption taxes since the 1930s and have developed particular capabilities in this area. We also have extensive experience in dealing with the affected businesses. As long as the administrative fee paid to the state is adequate in relation to the costs of collection, I see no reason that the State of Texas could not effectively administer the Fair Tax. |
The good news is she's home, the bad news YOU gotta cook!
And bussboy, housekeeper, butler, carry out the garbage, shopper, mow the lawn, ... all tethered to my handy dandy O2 cord/leash. Well I do substitute the leash for a portable tank when doing the lawn and shop anyway.
Yep fun times ;O/
Glad she's home.
Next time, I go to the hospital, and get the rest.
"Okay, this is Forbes Flat Tax Proposal. I prefer it to the sales tax, "fair tax". We need to get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax, too."
I find it interesting that Mr. Forbes did not mention that his plan is not revenue neutral, at least not from what I saw. That means that it won't be seriously considered.
"If they keep income tax, the must repeal withholding."
I would be surprised to ever see that. Lawmakers know that the income tax at its current levels would be totally unenforceable without withholding.
"Even though they are economically equivalent going forward, a sales tax reduces the purchasing power of existing savings by the tax rate at the time of transition."
It is untrue that they are economically equivalent. One major difference is that the flat tax, because it retains corporate income and payroll taxes, operates like a VAT. However, unlike a VAT, it isn't border adjustable and therefore impairs our producers' ability to compete in the global marketplace.
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.