Posted on 05/23/2011 6:33:08 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Bump.
For 130 years we prospered under tariffs on imports and excise taxes alone. The FT would be return toward those days of truly voluntary taxes.
Not a chance it will pass. Congress would become unable to pass out tax favors for campaign bribes,
I have got a problem with the name “fair tax”. It sounds like something that a leftist think tank or a bunch of enviro-wackos came up with. It is a name that implies to me that the originators believe that the public is made up of a bunch of fools who can be swayed by idiotic slogans. This might actually be the case, but I still think it is insulting. Why not just call it The Federal Sales Tax?
Sure they will. It will just be vastly more obvious when they are writing the changes on a nearly blank slate. For example: the NRST rate for an electric vehicle shall be 0%. The NRST rate for ethanol fuel shall be reduced in proportion to the amount of ethanol used.
Let's face it, we give government too much money and they spend it foolishly. We need to decrease the amount given to government, and have a complete cap on deficit spending.
In order for me to support an overhaul of our tax structure (and I suspect I'm not alone) it has to be a comprehensive plan that remarkably reduces taxation (both Federal and State), gets rid of the IRS to the largest extent possible, and gets rid of corporate taxation.
While that is going on States and Towns need to have their tax structures and spending policies completely overhauled. I'm sick of stories of little old ladies and down on their luck folks losing their houses for not paying property taxes. The inference there is that the state really owns all property and we need to pay them rent. Property taxes should be banned or at least the penalties should not include loss of said property.
All taxes are theft. Aside from that I don’t care how fair or low taxes are or if the budget is balanced the real problem is out of control government spending. Money equals power. The government at all levels has way too much power and influence because it injects money endless rivers of money into every facet of society. 3.5 Trillion dollars is a lot of juice. In a truly free society the government should be begging for money and barely have enough money to keep the lights on.
How about evolution instead of revolution?
Here’s a proposal ( please critique it ) :
You will be given the choice of filing taxes two alternative ways :
1) The flat way with ZERO deductions.
OR;
2) The traditional way which will require you to conform to the current tax code.
The flat tax will guarantee NO IRS audits. It will require you to pay a FLAT 10% of your income with NO DEDUCTIONS.
If you make $10,000, your income tax will be $1000.
If you make $20,000, your income tax will be $2000
If you make $50,000, your income tax will be $5,000
If you make $100,000, your income tax will be $10,000
If you make $1 Million, your income tax will be $100,000
NO HOME MORTGAGE DEDUCTIONS, NO CHARITY OR CHURCH CONTRIBUTION DEDUCTIONS, NO DEDUCTIONS PERIOD.
EVERYONE PAYS REGARDLESS OF INCOME.
All these in exchange for no IRS audit.
OR, you can choose to file in the current way with all the maze of deductions and the possibility of being audited.
Let’s give this proposal a shot and see in 5 years how many percent of tax payers will file the flat way versus the traditional way.
This will be a REAL LIVE referendum on which tax system will be most acceptable to most Americans.
We GRADUALLY EVOLVE instead of abandoning the current system in one shot with all its political ramifications.
To make this palatable to the libs, call it the PRO-CHOICE TAX BILL. You CHOOSE which tax system you want to file under.
Tell them we are really pro-choice on almost everything except when it comes to taking the life of an innocent baby.
Congress would become unable to pass out tax favors for campaign bribes,”
This, and the ability the income tax gives to violate the privacy of citizens and intimidate enemies, is why the government loves the income tax.
RE: The only critique I would have of your plan is that the same people that would oppose a Flat Tax would oppose your tax plan just as strongly.
______________________________________________________________________________________
My question is WHY SHOULD THEY BE OPPOSED TO IT? No one is forcing them to file the flat way, they can CHOOSE to file the way they’ve always been familiar with. We’re just giving others the choice of filing an alternative way.
I don’t consider it a halfway measure, I call it an evolution... or a practical way to gauge OVERLL TAXPAYER SENTIMENT. It will be practically like a referendum regarding the popularity of the flat tax.
I am quite confident that as people discover the advantage of the flat way of filing, the traditional way ( with its ever increasing lines of tax code, now numbering close to 40,000 pages ) will eventually “whither in the vine” ( to borrow Newt’s phrase ).
” The FairTax calls for one universally transparent rate to be paid by everyone on all final consumption. “
I’m having difficulty buying this. There is no “one universally transparent rate...” because it is NOT paid by everyone on all final consumption.
Homeowners get to enjoy untaxed housing consumption, therefore at equal consumption, renters pay more FairTax than homeowners.
Your results may vary but one thing you can count on is that income will be redistributed from renters to homeowners. Which is great if you’re a homeowner, not so much if you’re a permanent renter.
A flat tax makes good sense to me.
What do you think of my proposal in Post #9 above?
The Fairtax has some merit. But some changes would have to be made. Three exemptions are required: housing, medical and religous. And, enforcement would require maintaining the IRS. (NO, the states will not enforce it.) And, an infrastructure will have to be developed for those states that don’t have a sales tax.
By the way, my son, a former state tax auditor, said that auditing of sales is much more difficult than auditing income.
For two reasons.
1. 51% of the population don't pay any taxes at all, and liberals will use that to keep class warfare alive.
2. Even a liberal understands that given an option the overwhelming majority would prefer the flat tax which is why they would oppose the option of choice (at least in terms of taxation). They don't want a referendum. They want to keep the "progressive" taxation scam alive and well.
That would remove the power to control many of our actions from the hands of the professional political elite, and thus is unacceptable. TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!
Of course, the leftist argument against it (10% flat tax) is that $1,000 impacts a $10,000 income more severely than $100,000 impacts a million. And for once, they are right. (Boy, do I hate sayin’ that!)
The sales tax on purchases becomes voluntary once you go beyond necessities; that’s why I prefer it. But if we’re not careful. we’ll end up with BOTH!
How does 10% of a 10k income impact someone more than 10% of 1mil income?
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.