When it comes to taxes, they are ALL a bunch of wimps !!
Posted on 02/27/2002 12:45:46 PM PST by Stand Watch Listen
These should be hard times for Washington's tax-simplification crowd. With the war on terrorism draining federal coffers, a nagging recession dragging down the economy and congressional leaders such as Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) clamoring to rescind portions of the tax cut that passed last summer, it looks like anyone attempting to make radical changes to the tax code might be walking on thin political ice. But Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill doesn't seem to mind the danger, if his speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Feb. 21 is any indication.
In addition to touching on trade-promotion authority and other administration priorities, O'Neill blasted the labyrinthine U.S. tax code, which he called "an abomination" that strangles American prosperity. He said his office plans to prepare a number of reports during the next few weeks detailing how hopelessly complex the code has become and will put down a few recommendations for action that Congress might take this year. A Treasury spokesman said the first report, which will focus on individual taxes, should be ready by April 15. Another report dealing with corporate taxes will be released this summer.
Whether Congress will take any such tax-reform proposals to heart is another matter. But a staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee who lauds O'Neill's remarks remains cautious. "Nothing is going to happen this year," he tells news alert! If not, chances might get worse after reform and simplification stalwarts Rep. Dick Armey (R-Texas) and Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) retire in January 2003.
Robert Fike, federal affairs manager at Americans for Tax Reform, admits that getting serious change would be an uphill battle, especially once the two Texans leave town. "Between Gramm and Armey, you have not just heroes, you have superheroes." On the other hand, Fike predicts, tax simplification will play well in the fall elections, and he applauds O'Neill for forcing the issue. "It's nice to see that we have a Treasury secretary who is willing to fire the opening salvo," Fike tells news alert!
The mood also was upbeat in the office of Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.), who loudly has advocated scrapping the code altogether. Tauzin's spokesman Ken Johnson called O'Neill's remarks "the most encouraging thing we have seen from the White House in years."
Hans S. Nichols and Sam MacDonald are reporters for Insight.
email Han S. Nichols
email Sam MacDonald
When it comes to taxes, they are ALL a bunch of wimps !!
I once tried to engage Willie in a discussion.
You poor lady, Willy never discusses things, he just through out trash theories, and then trash character attacks when someone disagrees with him.
Willie, given his posting history and personal attacks on the Treasury Secretary, coupled with the Enron comment, is a RAT!
I thought his M.O. was familiar somehow. Now where could we have seen examples before?
Not, The Wee Willie, master of all word slicing, and founder of Wee Willy's School of Prevarication and Spin. Surely not that We Willy.
Could be a Wee Willy wannabe, possibly?
But then, you apparently have no reasoned position, I guess insult is all that can be expected from you.
It's all that you deserve.
BTW, I noticed that you're slowing down in your old age.
Usually when I post, you shills respond with at least 2 replies worth of your voluminous propaganda.
I certainly don't need to do any more to add to to your masterpieces of midirection.
Too bad you don't have a reasoned position to argue from isn't it? Seems you are reduced to inconsequential blather to fill up the space.
I'm still waiting here to see if you ever come up with anything worth discussion. So far you have disappointed, but the evening is young yet.
As for your ill-considered "land grab" demagoguery, there are any number of things wrong with your arguments as posters would know if they have followed your "progression" through several threads now. First of all, though, let me express the objection I have to your use of inflammatory statements such as your lead in on your reply where you say:
"Posing as "tax reform", the NRST (HR 2525) also represents a "land grab" where business interests are favored over individuals purchasing for their own use: "
It is not "posing as tax reform" but it is a for real flesh and blood tax reform in bill form being considered by the House of Representatives. It has many economic advantages for this country in addition to eliminating the income tax and the IRS. Nor is it a "land grab favoring business interests over individuals as you state. You would have known that had you taken advantage of some of the links proponents have provided, but you haven't even been intellectually honest enough to read the HR2525 bill itself.
This sort of demagoguery severely detracts from your position as do the facts. With the NRST as the tax law prices of homes (and most other things as well) will be lowered considerably and lower interest rates, when combined with a buyer being able to make use of untaxed income, will make home ownership easier to achieve than under the income tax system. A landlord/investor (who you have described before as "landed gentry") is not able to "exploit the business exemption" since there is no such exemption. Things are not taxed under the NRST until they are sold at final consumption and they are taxed only once. This means that the landlord does not pay the tax when he buys the property as an investment but that it is paid by the renter as a part of his rent.
Under the income tax presently, the landlord-business enjoys a much greater benefit in relation to the renter in that 100% of the price of the property is written off in depreciation as well as many other business expenses that the individual home buyer cannot avail himself of. In spite of this 100% price advantage (using your peculiar logic), there are still ample homebuyers and always will be particularly when they will be greatly aided in home buying under the NRST. To see why, read This Paper.
Because of the advantages enjoyed presently by a landlord wishing to purchase a house to rent, it is nothing but misinformation to try to describe the situation under the NRST as a "price advantage" to the landlord. As just pointed out under the present income tax, the landlord has a much greater advantage since not only may he take the entire price off of his taxes over time, but he may also deduct any interest paid as one of his business expenses (in addition to many others - such as landscaping or minor improvements, for example) while most homebuyers can not only deduct the purchase price of the home from their taxes, they cannot even make use of the mortgage interest deduction if their AGI is not sufficiently "up there".
In addition to all that the home buyer presently must make any purchase with money that has already been taxed both with payroll taxes at 15.3% and with income tax of at least 15%. This paying with after-tax money also applies to closing costs, and any other furnishings or home improvements that might be necessary.
The landlord presently has far more "advantages" than does the homeowner. With the NRST, things are a lot more helpful for the home buyer. In short, the poster is merely making the common (and shortsighted) analysis of trying to make an economic determination by looking at one side of the situation; that of the taxation of a house used for different purposes - by the landlord as an investment and by the homebuyer as a domicile. In either event the home buyer is much better off under the NRST than under the income tax (which the poster is forced to pretend does not exist in order to present his biased - and erroneous - analysis). He also takes no note of the fact that under the NRST what was a $200,000 house will drop in price to something like a $130,000 to $150,000 house due to the removal of hidden taxes and costs that the NRST brings about. This makes his sales tax figures greatly inflated when they would be $29,900 to $34,500 for the case just cited.
Since this poster has a huge bias against any NRST, his presentations are dramatically different from the truth. Please stop and think about not just his presentation, but what presently occurs under the income tax - he is only presenting one side of the full story and then with language intended to inflame.
This must be the umpteenth time you have posted that self-same reply. Repeating a lie does not make it the truth; not even if your initials are WJC (or WG).
Little Willie was "The Worst President In American History".
No you weren't.
You typically post 2 replies to every 1 of my comments no matter what.
Shear volume of propaganda doesn't bestow any credibility on you, pigdong.
that is the most luduricus arguement i've evver heard!!!! At present I buy my home WITH AFTER TAX dollars and corporations make purchases with PRE TAX dollars!!!!! I have to make 30+% more than i need to buy that 200,000.00 home now so that after the feds take theirs i have enough left to pay for it. the difference under the proposed plan would be that I get ALL my pay check and then I DECIDE how to spend it!!!
By the way....I am the owner of a Corporation with 50+ employees.....and i support NRST
Doubtful...
You're analytically incompetent...
Couldn't follow the straightforward example I set forth...
went off on an irrelevant tangent...
My guess is you suffer Attention Deficit Disorder.
why is it doubtful.....there is alot of support in the small business world for the NRST....
either way...believe as you wish ..i cannot prove to you that i am what i claim on this board. i'll sleep just fine though.....cause i know
As for the ADD remark....your first example was a pile of shit and i've read the rest before, so it wasn't hard to stop right there and call it what it was.....shit.....
Typical NRST supporter: can't handle facts and figures, so gotta go with vulgar slurs.
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.