Posted on 04/15/2002 3:58:03 PM PDT by 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.
"I pay taxes like I would pay "protection money" to the mob ; so they won't come and break my legs or in the case of the IRS put me in the can and take away my house. There is very little difference between organized crime and government theft through taxation. "
A flat tax is still an income tax. It does not get rid of the IRS. You (and every other taxpayer) would continue to pay "protection money" to the IRS mob under the Flat Income Tax.
OTOH, the National Retail Sales Tax will abolish the IRS. You will no longer pay "protection money."
Here is the logic: You will pay taxes in accordance with how much you consume, not how much you earn. You will be in control of how much you consume. Therefore, you will be in control of the amount of taxes you pay:
Not the Congress.
Not the IRS.
You!
I'm with you. I'd like to see the income tax replaced by some better means of raising revenue.
The problem here, though, is that Armey's flat tax plan is an income tax. And by attaching a goal which has widespread public appeal (tax simplification) to a goal which does not now appear to be politically feasible (uniformity of rates), we have pretty much ensured that nothing will get done.
This is not a novel approach. When politicians do not want to enact a popular reform, they simply attach it to something that they know they can't sell.
Suggestions for a uniform tax rate often include the elimination of deductions.
With no deductions allowed and with only a flat tax rate, the tax forms should be much simplified.
Things certainly have changed since the 19th Century and I'm not advocating an absolute removal of income taxes. However, in the constitutional (and objectively fair) spirit of keeping property rights inviolate, let all recipients of the benefit of a national government each pay for the nation's needs according to their own productivity America. It's the sliding scale that bothers me.
I'm not "incompassionate" towards those whose lot is worse than mine. I simply feel that property is sacrosanct. It belongs to someone and shouldn't be taken away because someone else has less. That's Marxist doctrine. It simply doesn't work.
This nation provides opportunities to everyone willing to set an objective and work hard to attain it. It penalizes and reduces the incentive to produce of anyone who does so with graduated tax brackets. Let's simplify things and give everyone a like incentive to work and create for the betterment of ourselves and us all.
Really keep track of those business expenses; I often ignored the little things in the past.
Flat tax would be about a wash for most of us, middle class. Really screw the working poor, and greatly help the rich.
People who support home stead exemption increases don't realize that they are falling into a similar "sounds good" trap.
"Throughout most of American history, taxes were levied principally on consumption, rather than income.... In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton had this to say, 'It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. ... If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the Treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds.' Hamilton was thinking here about direct taxes on consumption, such as the sales taxes levied by most state governments. He was right in thinking that there is a limit to such taxes. Experience shows that general sales tax rates much above 10 percent are very hard to collect. They encourage smuggling, black markets, evasion, production for personal use, substitution for untaxed commodities and other activities that erode the tax base." --Bruce Bartlett
The above shamelessly plagiarized from THE FEDERALIST
Think of the effect a change to a national sales tax might have on the American public and our economy. Not to mention the savings to the government in administration costs.
Setting the tax rate at 10-15% wouldn't necessarily decrease revenue, because the revenue would depend on whether deductions were allowed, and on the fact that perhaps more people would pay their taxes. Russia now has a successful 13% flat tax rate, and their revenue didn't decrease.
The flat tax idea is for libertarians, not for people who like the idea of the US having a strong military, functional infrastructure, etc.
Perhaps a 0% (flat) tax idea is for libertarians. The title of this thread suggests a nonzero flat tax, not a complete tax abolishment. Nothing about a reasonable flat tax rate suggests the neglect of the government's Constitutional duties to provide for the common defense and general welfare.
Do you have numbers to back up your claim that the revenue derived from a flat tax would be insufficient to prop up our military and infrastructure?
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.