FLAT TAX*** TIME HAS COME???

4/15/02 | ANAGM

[ANAGM]

OKAY Freep-peeps... Now open for discussion, the FLAT TAX thread. I for one think the flat tax is a great idea. My only issue with it is that it would likely put thousands of CPA's out of a job, but it would also do away with the majority of the IRS. I want to hear opinions from everyone. I myself, am self-employed so the flat tax is very appealing. I currently set aside about 30% of what I make to meet my tax "obligations". For info on the old ARMEY proposal got to flattax.house.gov Look forward to hearing from you all.

[fire and forget]

No arguments. It's a panacea, however, never likely to be achieved in our lifetimes. We cannot re-educate the electorate overnight and we certainly won't stall the advance of Socialism in this country by propping up any party other than the Republican party. It falls to us to use the means at our disposal to prevent the utter ruin of America. If we're successful, perhaps future generations can restore America to what it was intended to be. Not that we won't try while we're alive.

[fire and forget]

Would love to see it happen. Let the govt. operating on, say, 15% its present budget, and allocate funds to priorities accordingly. Two-thirds or so to national defense, the balance to all other federal activities on the basis of priority.

If only it were a perfect world.

[moonhawk]

I know!...Let's all dress up like Native Americans(tm)and throw the damn tea in the freakin' harbor... Maybe the King will get it.

[John Jamieson]

Who pays the difference?

[ancient_geezer]

I'd submit that one logical course of action would be to support the Democrats and speed the destruction of the nation.....

Logical to you perhaps.

Personally, I've seen that kind of destruction, don't need to experience it again or wish it on anybody.

I'll work for other alternative solutions like that proposed by Keyes

THE INJUSTICE OF INCOME TAX - By Alan Keyes.

If you don't mind :O)

[Demosthenes]

John, my whole point is contingent upon the 15% being the ONLY tax we pay. If this discussion is in favor of a 15% income tax while letting all the other taxes remain in place, then it's completely pointless.

[John Jamieson]

You finally got it! We are played for suckers all the time and they usually get away with it.

If it's too good to be true than it is.

The discussion should be how big a government do we want, not, how do I get somebody else to pay for it.

[DAnconia55]

The only problem is... it won't work.

Only violent revolution, or the destruction of the economy will liberate us.

It's a question of time.

Do you want us free in 10 years? Or 10,000?

If things continue in this lukewarm - half capitalist, half slavery society - that's the worst thing that can happen. People will grow fat, happy and complacent (errr...those that aren't terrorized personally by the police state, that is..)

Radical change is just that. Radical. It ain't pretty.

Personally, I'd rather the US die - than to see the mass of people that live in these geographic bounds exist as the slaves they will become over the next 100-200 years.

You think the Patriot Act or Klinton I was bad? Just wait...

The only remote chance we have of peaceful change, would require the abolition of withholding. But then, our 'masters' know this... why do you think we have withholding?

[ancient_geezer]

why do you think we have withholding?

First & Foremost: so government can give refunds and credits to the low end of the income range. Allows government to create an apparent tax favored class of citizens as a natural spending constituency as opposed to them nasty rich guys.

Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000

According to the most recent U.S. Treasury Department figures, ... the top 50 percent ($36,000 and over) paid 96 percent of income taxes. Guess what the bottom 50 percent of income earners paid?

If you're among those who pay little or no federal income taxes, what do you care about tax cuts? Moreover, if you think tax cuts pose a threat to government handout programs, you might be openly hostile and support Al Gore's silly "risky scheme" talk. So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?

---

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw

Secondly, it allows the smooth operation of the quasi-VAT system of taxation we are under.

The Individual Income Tax return(1040) that captures everyone's attention each April, is merely a partial VAT accounting sheet the government cons individuals, held at ransom, into filling out.

It's misdirection puts blinders on the eyes of the voter, and totally distorts their perceptions as to the real impact and burdens of taxation in their lives.

Every man woman and child in the nation, pays federal taxes through that VAT.

DO YOU PAY YOUR INCOME TAX
AT THE SUPERMARKET?
by D. Sherman Cox J.D. L.L.M. Taxation

The ability to hide or disguise taxation from the view of large sectors of the electorate allows the Congress to get away with the advancement of the evergrowing monster that it fosters sustaining an effective majority of 70% of the public clamoring for more from government looking for someone else to foot the bill.

---

 

Finally, The Original Intent of the individual income tax is for political and social control not revenue collection. The Individual Income tax is maintained to establish and hold every person in the country perpetual legal jeopardy and in so doing, maintains selective enforcement options such as the audit, to be applied to individuals or organizations at political whim.

Plunder Patrol
by Robert W. Lee, New American April 18 '94

Selective Enforcement

Writing in The Freeman for March 1994, tax analyst James Payne observed that to function efficiently, a tax system needs citizen cooperation, but in "the United States, high tax rates and the impossibly complex tax code have made tax evasion and avoidance a major industry." Since the tax laws are so complex, virtually everyone can be branded a tax violator at the whim of the IRS. As an IRS memorandum quoted in the March 1980 Saturday Review explained, "Agents should be able to discover errors in 99.9 percent of all returns if they want."

[45Auto]

You will never see a national sales tax. Why? Because of the stealth factor. The way income taxes are gathered now, most people are not too aware that the criminals are stealing 30% right "off the top". Can you imagine every time you buy an item that in addition to the state sales tax of 5 - 10%, the feds add another 30% or so? No, there would be blood in the streets and cries for some serious "tax reform"! And besides, even the "poor", the demonRATS vermin voters would have to shell out the tax, and we certainly can't have that, now can we?

[DennisR]

No one--we reduce the amount of money the government can spend to the amount of money we give them. In other words, they have to figure out how to make do with about (in my case) 1/3 less then they do right now. This should not be too difficult to do.

[DennisR]

"Only defense and courts (these type things) are MORAL public goods."

Yes...amazing how government has gotten so overextended, isn't it? Scary...

"That means that Bill Gates and You each equally benefit from National Defense..."

True, but I don't begrudge him for being the richest guy in the world.

"So why not let everyone ante up $100.00 each year, no matter how much they make?"

This would be for the courts? If so, I don't want to ante up anything more than an income tax, period. Government should have to make do with exactly what we give them, not what they want. (Which is everything, frankly.)

"One moral thing government does - is to insure against fraud, by the court system. The idea is that each sales contract, house sale, etc. would have a small percentage fee added to it. Since Capitalism requires honest dealings, no fraud, etc.. the gov't (well, at least for now) has a legit role in upholding fair trade among the citizens..."

See above. Since upholding honest dealings is a government responsibility, it should have a higher priority than funding things such as "what is the flow rate of ketchup?" or "how much flatulence do cows emit annually?" Therefore, it should be funded by income tax. And, by the way, I believe an income tax should be the ONLY tax the feds should be allowed to collect. That would put an end to the nickel-and-diming they love to do.

[DennisR]

I paid almost $9000 (the equivalent of a $750 monthly bill) in federal income tax. None of the other things were added in.

[John Jamieson]

You either made a lot of money or didn't protect it. Your case is not typical of us poor fokes. Are you single, living in a rental, no kids, etc?

[John Jamieson]

Dennis, your point addresses the total taxes, not a flat tax. Every serious flat tax proposal I known of, is designed to be revenue nuetral.

[Action-America]

It's not about TAXES!

It's about PRIVACY and CONTROL!

The flat income tax does absolutely nothing - zero - nada - to get the government out of our private finances.  The reason that taxes are going up is not simply the government's lust for more and more money.  It's the government's lust for more and more POWER over individuals.

Let me elucidate.

1. First, the government, through the IRS (which is also required under the flat income tax), implements more rigorous reporting requirements, significantly decreasing individual privacy.  Also, the government, through the IRS (which is also required under the flat income tax), also attacks those with legitimate offshore investments (re: US Patriot Act), as though they were engaged in tax evasion.
2. This is seen by the wealthy as an attack on privacy and, more importantly, a means of enhancing government control over them and their assets.  As a result, more and more of the wealthy are forced to take the only legal option left open to them.
3. The wealthy leave, taking all of their assets with them.
4. Since the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers pay over 36% of all personal income tax collected (the top 5% pay over half of taxes and the top 10% pay over 2/3 of taxes) and almost double their share of tax (36.2% of taxes / 19.5% of income), that means that when the wealthy leave, it creates a disproportionately large drop in tax base.  Note: Even with a flat income tax, the wealthy would still be leaving.  The only difference is that the disastrous impact would be only slightly less.
5. It is the decreasing tax base that requires higher and higher taxes, just to stay even.  Even with a flat income tax, when the tax base drops you still have only two choices - raise taxes or cut spending.  And, face it.  Do you really think that the government will ever cut spending more than a trivial amount or for more than a short time?

It's about PRIVACY and CONTROL!

The government cannot control the wealthy and their assets unless they know where their assets are located.  That's the reason for having an agency like the IRS, that has the power to look into the private finances of every American.

The government can collect taxes in any number of ways and all can be made to generate the same amount of money to the government.  But, only with a tax system that requires the reporting of your complete private finances to the government every year, can the government control private wealth.

As long as any tax system requires an agency like the IRS, looking into the private finances of individuals, the wealthy will continue to feel threatened and more and more will take their wealth and leave.  Even the flat income tax will require an IRS or an agency with similar intrusive powers to intimidate and control the wealthy.  In fact, with a flat income tax, the IRS will have even greater reason to target the wealthy and the exodus of capital would likely increase.

Certainly, a flat income tax is an improvement over a progressive income tax.  But, it is only good in an emerging economy and only for a short period of time.  Even then, should incomes rise, the government will soon see the power of having an IRS type agency to exert control over all of the new wealth and begin to abuse that power.  In an economy like ours, where that agency already exists and is currently abusing that control, a flat income tax will do nothing more that shuffle the load around.  The loss of privacy and the threat of government control of private wealth, that is driving wealth offshore, is still there.

The only tax collection proposal currently on the table, that will eliminate that threat and reverse the privacy induced capital flight, is the National Retail Sales Tax.

It's not about tax collection!

It's about PRIVACY and CONTROL!

(Your PRIVACY - the government's CONTROL)

 

[mdwakeup]

I've never understood lib resistance to a flat tax -- as you've shown, it will still be progressive on an effective rate basis. Where the elimination of deductions would get tricky, though, is when you start looking at employee benefits, income from rents and royalties, investing in depreciable assets, retirement savings, etc.

[TheCPA]

The estate tax is completely repealed only for decedents who die in 2010.

[mlmr]

And I am including SSI and Medicare and state in that flat tax, across the board with no income caps. 5% and no more