Posted on 10/18/2005 11:00:47 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
Tax-Overhaul Panel Gives Bush Two Choices Options to Consider Include
A Simplified Current System Or a Consumption-Based Levy
By ROBERT GUY MATTHEWS Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL October 19, 2005; Page A4
WASHINGTON -- President Bush's tax-overhaul panel agreed to offer two alternatives to the present tax code: one that streamlines the current income tax and another that would replace it with a progressive tax on consumption.
SNIP
Neither is likely to become law, but they offer the Treasury Department and the White House a framework for legislative proposals that could be considered by Congress next year.
SNIP
The streamlined version of the income tax that the panel approved in principle yesterday includes: • Creating four income-tax brackets of 15%, 25%, 30% and 33%, which is below the current top rate of 35%
• Replacing the mortgage-interest deduction with a tax credit equal to 15% of mortgage interest paid, but limited to interest on mortgages between $172,000 and $312,000, depending on the geographic region
• Replacing the earned-income tax credit with a work credit that can be calculated by the Internal Revenue Service
• Eliminating the "marriage penalty" by providing a family credit of about $1,650 for singles and $3,300 for couples
• Imposing a new limit on health insurance provided tax-free by employers of about $11,000 for families, $5,000 for individuals
• Reducing the tax on capital gains to 25% of the ordinary income-tax rate, or a top rate of 8.25%, down from today's 15%
• Eliminating the tax on dividends
• Simplifying tax breaks for savings
• Shrinking the Form 1040 tax return to 32 lines from 75
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
(Denny Crane: "I like nature Don't talk to me about the environment".)
The "Fair Tax" IS "a tax for all", and it is as fair and egalitarian as it gets. The whole "progressive/regressive" crap is right out of Marxist economics. The poor will ALWAYS pay a bigger percentage of their "total income and wealth" than those better off--it's BECAUSE THEY'RE POOR.
Taxation is supposed to be about financing necessary government functionality---not "playing Robin Hood" to make bleeding-heart socialists "feel better".
For example, a sales tax that does not tax spending up to a certain point could be progressive.
I agree - but that isn't happening. The home mortgage interest deduction is not a subsidy - it's a reduction in tax liability.
That being said, I don't think the tax code should be used to shape behavior.
...the absurdly misnamed "fair tax" is nothing but a regressive tax...
That's wrong. It isn't regressive.
...that will depress purchasing, create a burgeoning black market, and force government intrusion into every private citizen's lives...
Sounds like an excellent description of the existing income tax.
...as they will be forced to prove they purchased products legally or pay a "fee."
This isn't part of HR25/S25.
I said I have no problem with income taxation, but I also said the REAL problem with the current tax code isn't the METHOD of taxation, but rather the fact that we give subsidies.
In CHICAGO alone, there is a Company "boeing" that introduces about $500K a year (the numbers change) for being BASED in Chicago, so they got $57 million. The Planes land in Indiana which gave about a $7 million dollar offset from whatever they would have gotten at O'Hare.
Basicaly the taxes and the subsidies, and the Fairness of Paying their share, made something that costs about $1.5 million a year, COST about $12 million a year, because politicians love prestige more than the welfare of the state.
you wanna know about the failure of prestige over prosperity? I Was a Marine, and I'm unemployed.
PRAISE the ideology of moments!
how about we praise the freedom of the people?
Not if you make it very complicated with a big enough bureaucracy to administer it.
You are just outright . . . .well, let me look for the word?
WRONG!!!
I was 15 years old when I first said this. The Impoverished Overpay taxes, the middle class finds out how to pay taxes, and the rich find ways to avoid taxes.
The RICH are the only ones who can hier lawyers to confuse the idiotic, and illiterate, and the deliberately confounded (by their governmental cohorts) to avoid the taxes that they actually owe.
I prefer a FLAT tax, but I TRULY support the existing tax rates for a period of years, as long as there is no deduction, making those who can hire lawyers to pay the Gov, rather than lowlife lawyers.
** Quick note!** I am not a fan of Lawyers, or am I impressed by the deconstruction of society that lawyers like to offer to validate their own superiority. There are MANY MANY reasons NO lawmaker can say, because most of them are failed lawyers, but I will tell you? I having once upon a time being a Marine? Each year we graduate approximately 18-21 thousand Marines, and in that same twelve months our nation finds something along the lines of 26-28 thousand Lawyers?
Lawyers are more popular than Marines? That isn't the fault of the Marines, it is the fault of the people who FLEE service, the people who JUDGE and confuse government. This Nation has SERIOUS SERIOUS issues.
Oh what a terrible web we weave when first we start to subsidize.
I agree with you. But when you do things under some rules and all of a sudden the rules are changed drastically, it's fiscal disaster for a lot of people.
The fewer the rules, the fewer the rules that can change and thus the better the system.
In CA cities you can't even find a house under $500K,
Law of supply and demand? New immigrants increase the demand and drive up the price of starter homes. Those already in starter homes take their profit and roll it into a mid-range home, which creates demand for mid-range homes and drives their prices up. The mid-range homeowners then sell and roll their profits into even pricier homes.
Cut off the source of increasing demand by immigrants and the prices will fall to reasonable levels .... and force all those big mortgages into default.
Profits from moving up to ever pricier homes are never... ever taxed. Taxing those profits is another way to push down home prices.
In CA cities you can't even find a house under $500K,Partly because the government is subsidizing the purchase of those houses. Remove the subsidy and the prices will come down (where it would be without government intervention).
It's called a tax raise under the ruberic "simplification."
I don't know what I spent on dinner, how can the government calculate what I actually spent, unless they are using income as a basis of their calculations?
Simple, they know the price of food for a healthy diet and multiply it by three and update that with CPI. Which is essentially what is done by HHS today to determine the povertylevel expenditure
Actually reading my reply to you and referring to the hyperlinks there answers that question.
"The HHS poverty level is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level calculation based on the cost of a healthy diet comprising 1/3 of total family budget value. The povertylevel statistic is fixed in 1969 dollars updated annually for CPI. "
So if they are using income as a foundation, how do they judge what is actually "fair?"
There is no "income" basis to the HHS poverty level calculations. The cost of living data provides the basis for what is necessary expenditure to define the poverty thresholds.
Since everyone gets the same sales tax rebate based on family size, neither actual income nor household expenditure information is required and fairness by the only objective criteria that is meaningful, equal treatment of all citizens, is assured.
The idea of automatic refunds just doesn't make sense to me. There might be way's that it works out, but the measure still seems flawed.
Nice general statement, but no meat to. As the statistic has been in use since the 60'sh and implemented in programs throughout state and federal government as well as private organizations.
Simple? They build a computer model that simulates assumptions about human activity. The same outcome-based genius who built the computer model of global warming builds this model based on the public acceptance rate of his global warming model.
The criteria for such a computer model is
- Does it reach the desired conclusion?
- Does it reach that conclusion in a way that will be adopted by the sources of funding for future endeavors.?
Reality is not what objectively exists, but what the computer model says exists.
Simple? They build a computer model that simulates assumptions about human activity. The same outcome-based genius who built the computer model of global warming builds this model based on the public acceptance rate of his global warming model.
You really ought to investigate the reality of the measure. Or perhaps you would like to point to a reference for your information on this.
The statistic for poverty level in actual use, according to HHS, uses a basis of what a healthy diet consists of, deterimines the price of that diet as it was determined back in 1969 and multiplies it by three updating it for CPI year.
Reality is not what objectively exists, but what the computer model says exists.
Reality is what is actually done, not what you may ASSume is done or pretend you know is done.
Exactly.
Have you noticed the way some people want to talk about "percentages" when it comes to taxes paid, but they want to talk about "dollars" when it comes to tax cuts ?
Socialist scream that the really wealthy may pay only 15% of their billion dollar income in taxes, while a poor person might be paying 20% of their income. They ignore the fact that the wealthy person has contributed $150,000,000 to the tax base while the the porr person has contributed $1,500.
That same socialist will also scream that a tax cut which reduced the wealthy's taxes by 5% and the poor's by 10% only resulted in $150 going to the poor while the wealthy got "millions". And the wealthy didn't "need" it !
Percentages when paying taxes and dollars when cutting taxes. That's the socialist debating methodology when it comes to taxation.
I personally wish people actually believed that quaint phrase "All men are created equal ..." and limited government spending to what "All men can equally contribute."
Try dividing the Federal budget equally amongst the people. That is what you'd do when splitting a bill amongst friends, right ? That means each person's fair share should be $7,500. Or $30,000 for a family of four.
The fact that few could afford that high a tax tells you we are spending more on government that the people can afford. The fact that we vote to spend it anyway means we treat our fellow citizens outrageously unfairly -- in a manner we'd never consider doing to our friends.
The problem with that is that there have been tremendous advances in agricultural productivity since 1969 that have kept food prices relatively low. On an inflation-adjusted basis, food is cheaper today than it has ever been. Housing, on the other hand, has skyrocketed - but isn't accounted for in the HHS calculation. I guess the assumption is that the real poor won't try to live in their own housing, but will prefer government projects.
And no Administration is ever going to change the calculation, because any change would result in a greatly increased number of "poor" on that President's watch.
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.