Posted on 02/03/2002 3:17:46 AM PST by doosee
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:02:21 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
It will be another year of reforming around the edges of the U.S. income tax code.
Too bad. This is a menace that's been asking for it for a long time. It deserves to be driven out of its caves and gotten off the backs of Americans.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
Yikes!
The flat income tax would hide even more of taxes. Eliminating all deductions would increase the amount of tax hidden in higher prices and lower wages, not reduce it. The flat income tax would keep all of the existing hidden taxes and add new amounts (previously deductibles). While the overall amount of tax may not change, the proportion that is hidden would increase.
Don't forget that the flat income tax retains withholding and keeps sucking 7.65% of your money away from your check before you even see it- and don't forget the flat income tax (which is actually a VAT) forces employers to reduce your wages (or increase prices) enough to pay 7.65% of your wages to the SSA.
The flat tax, IMHO, is a non-starter. It is "pretend" tax reform.
Jump on in, n-tres-ted!
Educate, educate, educate!
I hate to say it, but the income tax is here to stay, because the majority of taxpayers don't have a problem with the income tax. About 50% of income earners end up paying no tax, with about 5% of the population paying 50% of the tax. Only chance for the income tax to change would be if somebody began to articulate some unpopular truisms:
1) Witholding by employers acts to hide the income tax from its true impact, and should be eliminated. All people should pay their own taxes from their own accounts.
2) All people should pay for the government they live under. The idea that "poor" people should not only get a free ride but be paid by the government is ludicrous and leads to the kleptocratic taxation system we now have.
3) Politicians inevitably vote for their own self interests, and not their country, once they have been in power for more than 2 terms. If they need more votes, they will vote to create more "poor" people to give money to and garner votes.
4) Go to a retail sales tax to replace the income tax, and the politicians would respond by increasing our other "income taxes", the FICA and Medicare tax. You know of course that these taxes are currently levied on only a certain portion of income, but the feds spend it like any other money. They would remove the ceiling such that all income would be subject to these two taxes. They would also come up with a whole host of new "excise taxes" on wealth, retirement accounts, bank accounts etc.
In fact, I predict this is what Bush and the GOP will do to pay for the new Medicare entitlement prescription drug program. It won't be a tax increase, per se, they will just be "closing the loophole" so that all wages will be subject to this tax. And no, your employer does not pay half of these taxes as is commonly believed. That's just a gimmick, like the withholding tax, to make you feel better. The Republicans have had to make a choice between staying in power and following through on their promise to cut taxes, return to a smaller more limited government, etc. Actually, I think that they could stay in power by following through on their promises, but their pollsters and the press are telling them otherwise. Guess what they chose to do? You can forget about eliminating the income tax. The GOP will just pull this old bone of a promise out of the bag every election year to keep its dogs happy.
I'm in, Judith Anne.
It's gotta be in the summertime, but I'm in.
Remember that under a national sales tax, there is no more following who makes what. There is no more of any kind of tax on any income.
All SS taxes currently paid thru payroll tax would be funded via the sales tax. In order to increase the payroll tax, the entire sales tax would have to increase by the amount desired. And any tax increase is felt by 100% of constituents... they'd have to pull more green out of their pockets every time they visit the cash register.
While this is certainly possible, the liklihood of a politician raising taxes on 100% of the voters in his constituency is quite unlikely. Far more likely is that pols would find efficient, innovative (gasp) ways of reducing spending in lieu of raising taxes.... just IMHO
I wish I could believe this, but I don't think our Congress would pass this at all. Our Congress is simply too addicted to the power of redirecting income and resources. If a national sales tax were enacted, the compromise would be to call FICA and Medicare "insurance premiums and retirement funding" or some damned thing other than a tax, and that would be that.
I STRONGLY disagree!
IMHO getting a tax system in place that will reveal to EVERY Tom, Dick , and Harry the TRUE cost of government with every purchace is a precedant to accomplishing a reduction in the size and scope of government!
Ah. Yes. They surely won't pass it unless they believe their jobs are threatened unless they do pass it, which is what I hope for.
Nevertheless, the more popular of the nrst bills now in Congress, HR 2525, does completely eliminate all income based taxation. Indeed, the IRS is defunded, existing income tax records are destroyed, and the entire income tax code is abolished. Now this doesn't mean utopia, but it would be a step in the right direction.
So while we agree that it will be against their nature to pass the bill, it is my belief that not pushing for it will only make certain the bill's demise.
Might even talk a few thousand of my closest FRiends into coming!
In order to maximize it's effectiveness, however, we really do need to coordinate this effort with all those orginizations Principaled posted earlier on this thread!
What do you suppose might happen if anything like a million citizens decended on Washington D.C. all DEMANDING that TRUE tax reform be put on the front burner!
I oppose the NRST in any form because as soon as you make one (1) product untaxable.. for any reason, no matter how humane or well intentioned the floodgates are opened to apply higher tax rates to "unpopular" products as well.
In Australia the tampon lobby (yes, "Big Tampon" believe it or not) comprised mainly of feminist nutcases, says it's unfair to tax women’s hygiene products, because it's a tax burden that only women alone have to bear.. Their answer? Don't tax tampons..
And as soon as you do that, then you just get open the door to fool with other items, like ammunition, firearms, tobacco, suv's and everything else imaginable.
It would be possible to tax an "unpopular" product out of sight and would become an engine for social engineering.
That's why I prefer the flat tax. It's fair, it doesn't punish success and everyone understands it. If you change the rate, you punish both the rich and the poor equally. No more divide and conquer.
regards..
I agree 100%, Jhoffa, that exempting any item(s) would lead to a massive lobbying industry, akin to the one we already have. Plus it would create another class of "favor" that pols could hand out.
Here's the deal...the national sales tax does not exempt a single item. Indeed it is written to prevent that from happening- for the very reason you state.
There is no exempting of ANYTHING. Does this cause you to reevaluate your position, or do you oppose it for other reasons?
From his post:
(d) OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE RATE- The old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate shall be determined by the Social Security Administration. The old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate shall be that sales tax rate which is necessary to raise the same amount of revenue that would have been raised by imposing a 12.4 percent tax on the Social Security wage base (including self-employment income) as determined in accordance with chapter 21 of the Internal Revenue Code most recently in effect prior to the enactment of this Act. The rate shall be determined using actuarially sound methodology and announced at least 6 months prior to the beginning of the calendar year for which it applies.
`(e) HOSPITAL INSURANCE RATE- The hospital insurance rate shall be determined by the Social Security Administration. The hospital insurance rate shall be that sales tax rate which is necessary to raise the same amount of revenue that would have been raised by imposing a 2.9 percent tax on the Medicare wage base (including self-employment income) as determined in accordance with chapter 21 of the Internal Revenue Code most recently in effect prior to the enactment of this Act. The rate shall be determined using actuarially sound methodology and announced at least 6 months prior to the beginning of the calendar year for which it applies.
`(f) ASSISTANCE- The Secretary shall provide such technical assistance as the Social Security Administration shall require to determine the old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate and the hospital insurance rate.
I'm betting that you, unlike Lewis can read that and UNDERSTAND what it says!
SHEEEECH!
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.