Posted on 03/08/2005 9:20:44 AM PST by n-tres-ted
Our tax code is a mess for a reason. Special interests pay for special favors. And with 17,000 pages and counting, there's plenty of places for our politicians to hide the kickbacks. Meanwhile, all the exemptions, deductions, exceptions and special provisions reduce the tax base, which means higher tax rates and smaller incentives for individuals and companies to produce income. And whether the tax breaks are set in fine print or spelled out in bold type, they generally favor the rich, making our tax system less progressive than is generally believed.
No tax system is perfect, but ours is so awful that fundamental reform is the only option. Fundamental reform is not just a necessity; it's also an opportunity to stop taxing income and start taxing consumption. My colleagues and I have been studying income and consumption taxation via computer simulations for some time now. We've found that switching from taxing wage and capital income to taxing consumption can significantly improve economic efficiency and growth. What's more, it can make our tax system much more progressive and generationally equitable.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Still distorting the other guy's statements, are we? You know that's distortion but you still practice dishonesty. How can we believe anything you post?
By the I and YOUR, I'm assuming you own a business?
Do you understand that under the NRST, your Federal Corporate/Business Taxes will end? No more, quarterly filings, penalties, or audits. No more withholding for Social Security + employee match, Medicare, etc.
How much time do you spend complying with the IRS regulations now? How much money do you spend on CPAs Accountants etc to comply with that rats nest of a tax code?
i didnt' say that, nor would I be dumb enough to imply it because it ain't so. I was saying that if the government gets a vested interest in who's buying what, that they will track it and use that information to their best outcome - not necessarily that of ours.
I am saying that there is a simpler, safer, less risky method that would have a less deleterious effect upon the economy and many of us are ignoring it because they hate the present system so badly.
not that I love the present system, but I think that unless you are planning to make a constitutional ammendment to replace the income tax ammendment, that we are limited as to which directions we may travel and expect an outcome.
if a income tax is codified in the constitution, then it would take nothing less than a constitutional ammendment to overthrow it.
we can work within the constitution to rectify much of what is wrong, and create a system that is both easier and fairer than either the current system or this proposal.
Thanks Goddess, I was looking for that.
You really need to read and learn more about this proposal.
"...and that ewould be preferrable th thier knowing what you buy and when you buy it...."
There is nothing in the bill that grants the government the right to know what you buy or when. The prebate comes to you so that you ALONE can decide what is a necessity, and what isn't. THERE IS NO TRACKING AND REPORTING SCHEME WITH THE FAIRTAX!!!!
collecting any tax would require the IRS. if you abolish it, then you would have to recreate it in your image. SOMEBODY has to collect, track, and disburse to the government the funds gathered.
"I think he's paid to."
Think whatever you like. You certainly like to jump to conclusions, huh, YN?
nice comeback, but i wasn't aware that anybody's life was at stake here. hopefully you aren;'t taking this that seriously.
"i'm sorry but in no way do i beleive that should the government stop taxing businesses that that tax savings would result in lower prices. the very idea that a corporation won't try to skim as much of that as they can get away with boggles the mind."
If you don't believe they will lower their prices, then you must be willing to start a business competing with them in the market place. It would be a gold mine.
count all income as income. tax everybody at the same rate. simple and really fair. more like Steve Forbe's flat tax.
Little problem with Steve Forbes et.al.'s flat tax. The rules for separating income that is taxable from return of capital that is not, keeps the complexity just where it is now, the requirement for audits by an IRS remain and all the controvercies that arise over what is taxable and what is not, with verification of what is claimed as taxable for both individual and business, regardless of one's income level claimed for under the Flat tax. It isn't the size of the final report card not the number of tax brackets that make the complexity and nastiness of the the current tax system, is the details that don't go away by just calling something a flat tax.
Tax preparers and consultants are still slobbering over the potentials of the "Flat Tax" that does nothing to reduce Congresses favorite section of the tax code that provides the basis of there perpetual "contributions" from interested parties.
Mash yer clicker here for verse & chapter on that one:
Flat Tax as Seen by a Tax Preparer
by Vern Hoven
Still distorting the other guy's statements, are we? You know that's distortion but you still practice dishonesty. How can we believe anything you post?
It is not a distortion and I'll post your own words to prove it. I note that you write "still" to imply that I have distorted before. That's akin to a person asking you if you still beat your wife. Your attempts at deception are so transparent.
|
It's no worse than a progressive tax policy, IMHO. Of course, that depends on what end of the stick you're on. My point is why futz with all of this stuff, and not support a Flat Tax on income instead?
Good Lawd, nobody said there woudn't be someone to collect the taxes. The point here is that there will be no one to collect taxes from individuals! There will no longer be anyone to "come an git you" if you don't pay. How in the world can this be a bad thing?
try me. when a company's board is charged with maximizing profits (to be paid as dividends, for example) and they fail to do so, they can (and often are) sucessfully sued. There is nothing around that I have heard of that obligates a company to pass along any windlfall that it takes in. if they suddenly find their profit margin up by 20-30% they wold be financially misfeasant to give that money away unless to do so is the only way to retain market share.
Hillary said the same about her health care propposal.
It's both the tax code and spending, not just spending. If you have a way to cut spending effectively, have at it and I'll most likely want to help (unless it means cutting defense in the wrong places). But the tax code itself puts lots of folks and our businesses a great disadvantages that the Fair Tax would eliminate.
The Founders never intended income to provide a basis for taxation. They believed in taxing consumption.
The FairTax seeks to tax NOT what you contribute to society in the form of work, but what you take from it in the form of consumption. It rewards the frugal contributor and punishes the slothful spendthrift. It fundamentally changes the incentives between work and leisure and spending vs saving.
The point Alan Greenspan was trying to make in his comments before the Tax Reform Panel is that as a nation, we spend too much, save too little; and because work is punished with a tax bill...we work too little. The Fair Tax removes all dis-incentives to work, save and invest for the future.....and that will help us to generate REAL economic growth.
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.