Tax Changes on the Horizon

Bella Online ^ | November 4, 2005 | Buzz Timothy, BellaOnline's Accounting Editor

[ancient_geezer]

Tax Changes on the Horizon
Buzz Timothy, BellaOnline's Accounting Editor

The President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform finished its ten month investigation and research and has submitted its two best proposals to the US Treasury Department. The Treasury Department has said it will make its own tax reform proposals by the end of this year. Congress is scheduled to begin the tax reform debate next year.

But, what does tax reform really mean? Well, the tax reforms that have been put forth so far are at best disappointing, at worst they are nothing more than tweaks to an outdated, enormously confusing and cumbersome income tax system. The basis of both of the Panel's proposals is to reduce or eliminate deductions, thereby seemingly to simplify a cumbersome tax code.

However, if you look a bit deeper and really read the proposals, one finds that the panel has missed a great opportunity to come up with a tax system we could all live with. A tax system that is fair accross the board and fixes the one fundamental flaw in our current tax system, that is changing it from an income based to a use based system. Although one of the proposals is being touted as a Use or Consumption Based Tax, it is really not, it is truly an income based system being disguised.

The Tax Reform Panelists should have taken a blank piece of paper and devised a completely new, equitable and simple tax system. Instead they chose the politically easy choice of starting with the existing system and trying to change it, rather than fix it, when in fact, looking at their proposals, they have done niether they have only tweaked it.

What we need is a flat tax that is based on use. We already have this in place when in comes to gasoline, alcohol and cigarettes, why is it so difficult to think that this couldn't be expanded to all "used or consumed" items and completely do away with the income based system. As long as we live with an income based system individuals and businesses will always try to find ways to limit their incomes to hide from the overzealous tax code. However, if you change the focus of our tax system to a use based system then, "if you use it you pay". It really is that simple, and shouldn't that be our ultimate goal.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I have not heard much from Paul that could actual be applied to the real contemporary world. He is all rhetoric from what I have heard. But if he is not willing to confront our enemies when necessary I don't really care what he stands for domestically.

[jmc813]

But if he is not willing to confront our enemies when necessary I don't really care what he stands for domestically.

In other words, you're a one-issue unappeasable.

[hosepipe]

[ Should that government change into something else all bets are off. But it is also rather foolish to believe that an untrained undisciplined force would stand much of a chance against a real army. Those who fought the Revolution found that out to their dismay. Only because Washington trained a real army to avoid reliance upon the militias was he able to defeat the British. Most of the time the militias were of little value. But don't let reality interfere with romantic braggadocio. ]

So you can read the founders minds eh.. LoL..
Against a whole real army.. Hmmm.. The Viet Cong did well.. and the muzzies in France are doing well as we speak.. All it takes is for "the public" to get busy.. Then politicians will reassess their priorities.. and if the public does it with guns.. journalists will reassess theirs as well..

Even, If (the first) erstward revolution was unsuccessful.. the public dialog resulting from that would be refreshing in itself.. Actually a real revolution might not be needed just a real THREAT of one happening might be all thats needed.. Journalists facing the real possibly of getting hung or shot might make some of them get their priorities in order..

Now that I think of it..

A REAL DIALOG MIGHT BE ALL THATS NECESSARY.. not lawyers weasling but a real dialog.. Otherwise there IS blood in our future, domestic blood letting.. Freedom always costs blood.. one way or another.. Hiding from the huge political polarization in this country is cowardice and unrealistic not to speak of silly.. The American pressure cooker will soften some but harden others..

Go have a beer, it could make you feel better about all this.. Americans are slow to anger.. but when they do.. you're prezels will hit the fan.. It won't be pretty..

[justshutupandtakeit]

Not one issue but unless that issue is addressed the others will not be allowed to assume importance. This is what makes Paul so goofy. While pretending to have a concern about the Constitution he would not allow the government to act in the area in which it is most clearly charged by that Constitution to act.

[jmc813]

Not one issue but unless that issue is addressed the others will not be allowed to assume importance.

I happen to feel the same way about 2nd Amendment rights, and certain freepers call me a "one-issue unappeasable" because of it. Then it seems as if these same freepers write Paul off completely because they disagree with his way of handling foreign affairs, even though he is hands-down the best we have when it comes to domestic issues.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There is no reason to read the Founders' minds since they left volume upon volume of their writings for us to consult.

The Viet Cong was defeated by the US army and only the intervention of hundreds of thousands of North Vietnamese Army regulars saved it from defeat.

Apparently you confuse militia with rioting punks by bringing up France.

You are living in a dream world if you believe disgruntled whackos with guns are going to change our government. It may be fun to fantasize about such but in ain't going to happen.

Americans have surrendered their freedoms with both hands and are unlikely to change this tendency. The current situation is the result of the government trying to give them what they want. YOu make the mistake of believing that the ideas popular here are acceptable to more than a tiny minority. They are not. And it is easy to fool the majority of the people just look at the election in Virginia for a perfect example.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Paul may be a fine doctor but he is so far out of the mainstream politically as to be nothing more than a caricature. Maybe 5% tops would agree with him.

[jmc813]

Maybe 5% tops would agree with him.

Well he must be doing something right, as he's been re-elected to Congress several times. I must suggest that you look into some of his domestic policies. You may be pleasantly surprised. I differ with Paul greatly on foreign affairs myself, but he's so good with other issues that I consider him one of my favorites.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Being elected repeatedly to Congress means less about him doing "something right" than it does about the difficulty of beating a sitting Congressman. Charlie Rangel has been elected even more than Paul and he assuredly does NOTHING right.

[hosepipe]

[ Americans have surrendered their freedoms with both hands and are unlikely to change this tendency. The current situation is the result of the government trying to give them what they want. YOu make the mistake of believing that the ideas popular here are acceptable to more than a tiny minority. They are not. And it is easy to fool the majority of the people just look at the election in Virginia for a perfect example. ]

Thats True.. but we're talking about why? rights are included in the bill of rights..
If the 2nd amendment is included to ensure hunting and target practice privileges or even to be able to shoot burglars.. then the 2nd amendment is silly..

Got a feeling the founders had bigger eyes than YOU do..
All British citizens knew why King George made any weapons outlawed among his subjects.. and it wasn't to discourage poaching the Kings venison either.. The Brits love slavery; going from slavery to a King to slavery by government (i.e. socialism)..

Americans historically have valued freedom.. many still do.. even while enslaved by federal checks.. Even though its a rare republican that will turn DOWN a government check.. Democrats love a federal check, republicans do too, secretly.. Republicans (generally) are hypocrites, democrats are honest in their larceny..

[Seizure]

I think it would have aided the President's cause greatly if he had expressed this just as succinctly and as firmly as you did in your response.

As is painfully obvious, President Bush is not the orator he should be when addressing issues to the nation or responding to questions during press conferences.

That does not mean he is indecisive. It appears that he is uncertain of himself during a delivery/response. Clinton was a brilliant orator, when he wasn't lying. Well, when wasn't he. Clinton could charm the devil, which might be who prompts him when he speaks.

[justshutupandtakeit]

As long as McClelland is the Press Secretary you can expect the Treason media to walk all over him. He couldn't get the respect of a kindergarten class. Bush badly needs another Ari Fleischer.