Posted on 11/22/2012 10:52:52 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Hey, let's just simplify the tax code and eliminate loopholes.
It's hard to think of any statement that on its surface sounds less controversial. Eliminating loopholes means more revenue. Everyone likes simplification. Efficiency!
So why doesn't it happen?
This fantastic chart from Credit Suisse's Neal Soss is the answer. It shows the top 20 biggest "Tax Expenditures" which cost the government over $900 billion in the 2012 fiscal year.
Credit Suisse
So you want to simplify the tax code, what are you going to get rid of?
Are you going to eliminate the incentive to provide employers health insurance? Are you going to get rid of charitable deductions or pension contribution deductions? What about dinging the child credit or mortgage interest? Or how about clipping Social Security benefits for retired workers?
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
“we need an ammendment to the consitution that says “any legislation, Rule, regulation, tax code, etc., not understood by the average Chicago High School graduate is null and void””
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
That ought to eliminate at least ninety nine and forty four one hundredths percent of all the laws.
OK, let us say that they do away with the “Charitable Deduction”, who will fill the gap that this cessation of funds will cause? Many charities operate with volunteers, will they be replaced with government ‘paid’ employees? Compare the actions of FEMA with Salvation Army and Red Cross, then imagine FEMA doing it all.
Many of these tax law ‘safe harbors’ were created to encourage good social actions and the jury is still way out on the net effect of wholesale changes. Remember the AMT was originally brought in to ‘punish’ about 200 tax payers who legitimately ‘loopholed’ their income for $0 tax burden in 1968. Now a return of the full unadjusted AMT stands to force 30 million taxpayers into paying AMT.
As a seasonal tax preparer, I take hours of education and training to be prepared for the coming tax season. Yet increasingly, my confidence in my knowledge is offset by my equal knowledge that the tax law is complex and frequently contradictory. I would love to see this “disgrace to human history” be put out of our mutual misery, but when every jot and tilde of it has enthusiastic adherents, only a whole-scale replacement has a chance, which is slim to none!
Dude you realize it would be in ADDITION to an income tax right?
Repeal the 16th Amendment(no more income tax) Institute a 5% NRST and a 10% import tariff.
This is one of the “fix it or die” problems we’re facing.
There is no “we can’t”.
Right away I see two deductions that could be greatly modified or eliminated.
First would be the mortgage deduction. Ideally, it should be eliminated. Those people who rent should not be subsidizing homeowners. At the very least, the deduction should be limited to a certain amount and then only on a primary residence.
Just about every one of those deductions is for a right or to increase jobs and GNP in the US or to avoid double taxation.
As soon as they are eliminated, more jobs will disappear and less rights defended.
The present move is to pay Fed income tax, then state income tax on the same income, then paying sales and property taxes additionally. In many cases this becomes double and triple taxation.
We won’t be paying a 10% tax but everybody will be looking at about a 40% tax. This also implies all merchants and landlords will have to increase their prices to keep up with the additional taxes.
All this does is shuffle the cards as to who gets paid, with the govt getting paid first without incentive to decrease spending.
It would be smarter to make a 10% flat tax distributed between all government. (2% sales local municipal level, 2% county/parish level, 3% state level and 3% state level).
Your status quo keeps a intact a massive bureaucracy namely the IRS. A consumption tax is certainly a better way to go than having to report to the government all sources of your income.
bfl
True, the IRS would sadly remain intact in the flat tax scenario, but it is likely to be much smaller than now, seeing as how you would file your taxes on a postcard.
Would it be constitutional for the states to refuse to pay some federal taxes? It is becoming abundantly clear that we cannot trust either Republicans or Democrats in congress to do the right thing. They will keep stealing from us no matter who we send to Washington, is there something else that can be done?
Its like trying to tell the employer that wages aren't an expense.
FIT File.
Visibility BUMP.
Belive it or not, warren buffet has a plan that could stop the spending, immediately.
Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:
“I could end the deficit in 5 minutes,” he told CNBC. “You just
pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more
than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible
for re-election.
The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds)
took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple!
The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail,
cell phones, etc.
Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year
or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure.
Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to
a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask
each of those to do likewise.
In three days, most people in The United States of America will
have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed
around.
Congressional Reform Act of 2012
1. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no
pay when they’re out of office.
2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social
Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the
Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into
the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the
American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all
Americans do.
4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.
Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
5. Congress loses their current health care system and
participates in the same health care system as the American people.
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the
American people.
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void
effective 12/1/12. The American people did not make this
contract with Congressmen/women.
Mortgage interest can go - most middle class folks only “benefit” from it if they overextend themselves and buy a home they can’y really afford.
Okay, I'm probably picking a Constitutional nit, but the general government has NO authority to 'tax' the People because of 1.8.7. To charge for postage (a usage fee), but not to tax.
The scope was 'limited to the mere right of passage and preservation' according to Story's View from 1833.
§ 1140. But it is said, that it would be dangerous to allow any power in the Union to lay out and construct post-roads; for then the exercise of the power would supersede the state jurisdiction. This is an utter mistake. If congress should lay out and construct a post-road in a state, it would still be a road within the ordinary territorial jurisdiction of the state. The state could not, indeed, supercede, or obstruct, or discontinue it, or prevent the Union from repairing it, or the mails from travelling on it. But subject to these incidental rights, the right of territory and jurisdiction, civilly and criminally, would be complete and perfect in the state. The power of congress over the road would be limited to the mere right of passage and preservation. That of the state would be general, and embrace all other objects. Congress undoubtedly has power to purchase lands in a state for any public purposes, such as forts, arsenals, and dock-yards. So, they have a right to erect hospitals, custom-houses, and court-houses in a state. But no person ever imagined, that these places were thereby removed from the general jurisdiction of the state. On the contrary, they are universally understood for all other purposes, not inconsistent with the constitutional rights and uses of the Union, to be subject to state authority and rights.
Commentaries on the Constitution
--------
Nice catch on Gibbons v. Ogden, BTW. Most folks don't have the acumen to understand its importance.
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.