Posted on 02/16/2005 5:15:58 PM PST by ancient_geezer
Panel to Review U.S. Tax Code
By Warren Vieth, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — A presidential commission today launched what it promised would be a top-to-bottom review of the U.S. tax code, but acknowledged that it might make more sense to modify the income tax than to try to replace it.
Members of the president's advisory panel on federal tax reform said all options were on the table, including proposals to replace personal and corporate income taxes with variations on a national sales tax.
"The president is committed to major tax reform, to real tax reform, to something more than just moving the boxes around," said Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, who convened the first public hearing of the nine-member panel.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
That's why Bush is using Social Security reform to run interference for tax reform and tort reform.
You are now on the taxreform pinger, welcome aboard.
| http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/
President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform February 16, 2005 FACT SHEET OVERVIEW: The President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform held its first meeting in Washington, DC, today. President Bush established the Panel to make recommendations on ways to create a simpler, fairer, and more pro-growth tax system. The panel is led by former Senators Connie Mack and John Breaux, and consists of a distinguished group of experts and experienced people from both parties. America has a growing, dynamic, and changing economy - but our tax code has not kept up with the times. The current tax code is a maze of special interest loopholes and complex provisions that cause America's taxpayers to spend more than six billion hours every year on paperwork and other headaches. President Bush believes that America's taxpayers deserve better. The tax panel is part of President Bush’s pledge to lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the tax code. The time that people spend complying with an overly complex tax code is a waste of resources that has been growing over time.
President Bush's Action to Promote Tax Reform
Background: The President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform The panel will hold public meetings and seek input from individuals, businesses, and associations and organizations. It will also seek input from Members of Congress. At today’s first meeting, the panel heard from Treasury Secretary John Snow and from other witnesses. The witnsees described the history of the federal income tax and described the differences between income and consumption taxes. The panel will hold a series of public meetings during the next few months. The next meeting will take place on March 3, 2005 in Washington DC. The Panel will examine the existing system and then formulate options for reform, which will be presented to the Secretary of the Treasury by July 31, 2005. This advice will inform the Secretary in his efforts to make recommendations to the President. |
Muleteam1
Thanks for the ping and back to the top.
True, but looking at the material on the websight, the commentary seem to be more the result of the articles author's opinions than any direction the panel might ultimately take.
The witnesses you would expect to support a hybrid system or sticking with the current tax system did, no surprise.
The others offered solid analysis on the alternatives in consumption tax terms and why dinking with current system is only going to lead us down a road of worse to come rather than to any fixes.
Problem solved. Appoint a government commission.
Has MY vote for potential tagline of the day...
Yet another fedgove circle jerk.
Bend over, everyone, get your KY prep going on.
Certainly can't put it any better than that.
Its one of those times when you work for what you believe in and shoot for the brass ring. Not to many chances as currently exist to make a difference.
This is no time to just sit back and gripe expecting someone else to carry the load. It takes a full court press or it won't happen.
Pinheads on this commission are the following:
"...Its one of those times when you work for what you believe in and shoot for the brass ring. Not to many chances as currently exist to make a difference.
This is no time to just sit back and gripe expecting someone else to carry the load. It takes a full court press or it won't happen...."
AMEN! Very Well Said. The time is now.....we must press on, despite the other demands on our time and talents.
"even minor reforms to simplify stuff and reduce beuracracy would save money"
Only temporarily. That is the lesson of our 90+ year failed history with trying to define just what "taxable income" is.
"The antiquated tax code is more of a hot potato than SS. And like SS, few older Americans will support changing the income tax code because they have spent a lifetime figuring out how to beat it. It's like a game of musical chairs,. . .if you have a chair to sit in, don't let them start the music."
Well said. There are some "chair sitters" who regularly post to the tax reform threads here on FR.
"Sorry folks, but if this panel is made up of a bunch of career politicians, things can only get more jacked up than they are right now."
It is my impression that former senators Mack and Breaux are the only politicians on the panel.
Did anyone catch the C-SPAN telecast?
I noticed that the LA Times quoted the former IRS Commissioner as saying nothing "Radical" could be done. OTOH Mr. Rossetti is a panel member and former IRS Commissioner, also. He is the one who has said that they could examine anyone's tax returns and find something to prosecute them for. I think Dubya picked the right former IRS Commissioner for the panel.
I think Dubya picked the right former IRS Commissioner for the panel..
I suspect he picked the right economist for the panel in James Poterba as well. He, of all the members of the panel, is the most knowledgible in the guts of the Fair Tax Act.
The following exchange occurrred during yesterday's hearings of the House Financial Services committee:
MADAME CHAIR: The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Price, is recognized for five minutes.
CONGRESSMAN PRICE: Thank you, Madame Chair. I appreciate that. It’s an honor to be a part of this committee and it is indeed a privilege to personally witness your wisdom and I commend you for your dexterity and your persistence in your answers to many of the questions that have come to you today. I have a comment and then a couple of questions. I’m so pleased to hear you in your written testimony and in your spoken testimony identify 2008 as the pivotal date as it relates to the Social Security issue because–for two reasons. One, as you appropriately identify, that’s when the baby boomers begin to retire. The second reason that I believe needs to be pointed out is that on that wonderful graph of the incoming money as it relates to FICA and when we begin to dip, that’s the top of the crest and then we begin to go down where there’s more money going out than coming in. So, I commend you for that. And I don’t care whether you call it a crisis or a near crisis or a looming crisis as President Clinton called it in 1998. A rose is a rose is a rose. I think the important issue is that you said clearly, “There’s a call for action before the leading edge of the baby boomer retirement becomes evident in 2008.” And that is within three years.
My question relates to our savings rate as a nation and my understanding that the household savings rate is low as it relates to our history as a nation and also as it relates to other industrialized nations. And so I would ask you what your thoughts are on anything that we might do in terms of policy that would positively and significantly affect our savings rate as a nation.
CHAIRMAN ALAN GREENSPAN: It’s one of the most difficult problems government has had, Congressman, trying to address this particular question. And the reason is that it’s not just a question as we tend to do, to create vehicles to save, such as 401(k)s or IRAs or the like, because what we really have to do is get people to consume less of their income, because that’s what savings is. If you don’t consume less of your income and you’re building up a 401(k), it’s essentially saying that you just drew the funds from other forms of savings and you did not increase your aggregate amount of savings. So, the issue really gets down to the question of how do you increase income relative to consumption? And that is not very easy for government to address or say.
What we can do is find measures which will augment the growth rate of the economy, create incentives for growth and the like. But unless you impose something such as a consumption tax, which economists have argued for, which I suspect has very little support in the Congress, it’s difficult to see how you come to grips directly with that issue. I might add that the consumption tax issue arose essentially because there does not seem to be any other way to directly get at this issue. My suspicion is that the 1% savings rate, which is what it’s been for the last year, is probably going to be the low point and we will start to rise from there. But that’s been my expectation for a number of years and I can’t honestly wish to guarantee it because it’s a very tricky issue to forecast. The bottom line, Congressman, is I can’t really suggest anything which is significant, practical and useable to address this subject. I just hope it cures itself, sooner than later.
CONGRESSMAN PRICE: I appreciate your response and I’m so please to hear you talk about the consumption tax because, as you identified, you’ve got to have increased income in order–relative to consumption. If the money never gets to your back pocket it isn’t income. So, if I heard you correctly, I understood you to say that if we were able to move to a consumption tax, to enact a national retail sales tax, that that would, in fact, have a by-product of increasing national savings as you increase the amount of money in individuals’ pockets.
CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN: I would certainly think so, because what you’re doing is taxing consumption not income. And as a consequence or as people like to say, if you tax it you’ll get less of it and that’s probably right.
CONGRESSMAN PRICE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
I heard there was another segment where Mr. Greenspan acknowledged the benefits of an NRST in addressing social security's demographic problems, but I don't have that part of the transcript.
At the President's economic summit in December, one of the economists said that they (meaning the economists participating) unanimously agreed that our low savings rate contributed to a number of other problems in our economy.
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.