Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

10% Flat tax

Posted on 06/06/2003 8:52:28 PM PDT by Batman58

If we the American people are going to get a good tax cut we need to start a national referendum for a 10% flat tax.


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: flattax; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

1 posted on 06/06/2003 8:52:28 PM PDT by Batman58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Batman58
I don't think there is a mechanism for us to have a federal referendum on anything since we are a republic. Granted we are a constitutional democratic republic, but we are a republic.

See Article IV, Section IV.

2 posted on 06/06/2003 8:56:49 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Batman58
Just checked the Constitution. There is no provision for a national referendum. That might be a hinderance to your idea
3 posted on 06/06/2003 8:58:18 PM PDT by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig (Soccer Mom's flee the Rats for Bush in his flight suit: I call this the Moisture Factor. MF high!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M
You are correct, but there are other ways to do it.

You cannot have a referendum, but you can form a wing of the GOP who's core value is to revamp the tax system. Hell, if you push it for 10 years you may be able to get it on the platform and get it serious public attention.
4 posted on 06/06/2003 8:58:24 PM PDT by Lunatic Fringe (Tip the Pizza guy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Batman58
A 10% flat tax will not give the fedgov the same amount of money they are raking in now.
Do you really believe that the fedgov is going to cut spending?
5 posted on 06/06/2003 8:58:53 PM PDT by Just another Joe (FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Batman58
I don't think a 10% flat rate would meet the immediate needs of the country. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey's plan called for a flat 17%. The flat rate tax plans I've seen promoted in recent years, call for somewhere between 15% and 22%.

Here's the results from a recent poll conducted on FreeRepublic.

Question ...
What is your opinion regarding federal taxes?

Income Tax is fine.
197 votes - 4%

Flat Tax is better.
1,651 votes - 41%

National Retail Sales Tax is best.
1,997 votes - 50%

No opinion.
99 votes - 2%

3,944 votes total cast.

6 posted on 06/06/2003 9:00:38 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
If the 535 imbeciles in Washington DC would cut spending to match what is dictated by the Constitution for the functions of the Federal government be granted to perform, 10% (about $1.1 trillion) per year would be enough.
7 posted on 06/06/2003 9:03:41 PM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Batman58
There's a bill sponsored by Dick Armey and Richard Shelby for a 19% flat tax that will drop to 17%.
8 posted on 06/06/2003 9:03:55 PM PDT by sackofcatfood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Batman58
I think that the 10 % is fine. But the IRS needs to be abolished... the government only gets 10% of all our wages, and they have to make it work. If there is a surplus, the government can keep it, but it would be wisely put into a trust fund until they needed it. NO raises, no cuts. Give me my 90% and leave me alone. No exemptions, no creative taxes, etc. Do not bug me for one penny more or less. End of the subject.
9 posted on 06/06/2003 9:04:35 PM PDT by Cate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cate
Uhm...what kind of trust fund?
10 posted on 06/06/2003 9:08:33 PM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Batman58
I doubt seriously that it would ever be the last word. People would just find corrupt ways to get credits around the flat tax.
11 posted on 06/06/2003 9:12:03 PM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xrp
A trust fund that a private corporation (other than Martha) could control and disperse as needed. We need to find the most strigent, tightwad CEO that is available and make him the king of the trust fund. No dinero moves until he and his board of directors figure out if its justified. Just imagine, Sen. Byrd and a few other cake eaters would be forced to retire immediately when they found out the government wasn't going to do their special wannas anymore. A happy day in the neighborhood had by all :)
12 posted on 06/06/2003 9:12:17 PM PDT by Cate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: xrp
>>>If the 535 imbeciles in Washington DC would cut spending to match what is dictated by the Constitution for the functions of the Federal government be granted to perform, 10% (about $1.1 trillion) per year would be enough.

What is dictated by the Constitution is arguable. That's why we engage in politics and elections, to see whose agenda is victorious. I don't think its realistic to believe the budget can be cut in half, but its a nice thought anyway. I'd say a more realistic figure would be 15%-20%. I'd settle for a 5% start. I'd settle for freezing any increases in government spending. That would be a good start.

13 posted on 06/06/2003 9:13:35 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Batman58
If 10% is good enough for God, shouldn't it be good enough for Uncle Sam?
14 posted on 06/06/2003 9:15:19 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cate
That would be government investment (with the possibility for control) of private enterprise. Is that something you really want?
15 posted on 06/06/2003 9:16:28 PM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
You cannot have a referendum, but you can form a wing of the GOP who's core value is to revamp the tax system.

Dick Armey was actually the leader of a faction of republicans that wanted the flat tax. When he first came to congress, that was his goal and his dream and he hoped it would be his legacy.

Granted, he never got his dream, but we are closer now then we ever were before. Before he left office, I remember watching an interview with him, it might have been C-Span (no, I am not a nerd, I was flicking). He basically felt that it would take years of steady tax cuts, and some "tax simplification" bills before the time became right for a flat tax.

There have been canidates for the republican presidential nomination who's main centerpiece was a flat tax, Steve Forbes, but the idea never got the kind of traction that you would expect. Bush's own tax cut was actually created as a counterpoint to Steve Forbes in his flat tax proposal. Unfortunatley for those who support the flat tax, many republicans skewered the flat tax idea because they didn't want Forbes, they had plenty of ammo to attack him with, and there were other ways they could have helped there canidates, attacking Forbes flat tax idea was not a good one.

16 posted on 06/06/2003 9:19:20 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Let's rewind to 1989, that's about when the federal budget first passed the $1 trillion mark. The population of the United States then was about 250,000,000 people. We also had a larger number of military manpower and more units in service (tanks, planes, ships) than we do now. Yet there were also wasteful social programs and worthless departments (Education, Interior, etc) back then. Now, it is 2003 again and the federal budget is over $2.2 trillion. We've added around 25,000,000 more people and slashed the number of personnel in the military. Why did government double in size when population only grew about 10%? It doesn't quite add up, does it.
17 posted on 06/06/2003 9:20:23 PM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xrp
It's the "Lock Box" silly.
18 posted on 06/06/2003 9:21:03 PM PDT by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig (Soccer Mom's flee the Rats for Bush in his flight suit: I call this the Moisture Factor. MF high!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: xrp
No, I think it should be private enterprise of a government investment. Regardless of the source of funds, the private corporation would be in charge. The government isn't necessarily the end all of wise decisions.
19 posted on 06/06/2003 9:22:40 PM PDT by Cate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cate
No exemptions, no creative taxes, etc. Do not bug me for one penny more or less. End of the subject.

One of the reasons that a flat tax is fought against so vehemently, by liberals for obvious reasons, but also by some conservatives, is that use of credits and exemptions.

Many republicans, first off, prefer a consumption based tax system, second, they like using exemptions and credits to do things. If the country goes into a recession, they can use credits and exemptions for a quick short term stimuli, its quite often used as a behavioral modifier, but it is also used for preferences and as stimuli for businesses. Its also a nice, neat quick way to get people to do something, relativley easy and simple. Is it right? thats a whole different question.

20 posted on 06/06/2003 9:27:32 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson