Posted on 11/21/2011 6:48:18 AM PST by xzins
Hopefully before I need a walker.
Roger that.
LLS
Have not finished reading yet. Thanks for the tie-in info.
The good folks in both houses of congress have been thinking this of "you" for the past 75 to 100 years.
A great book to read on this topic is "Who Will Tell the People" (W. Greider). Give it a read, then let us know how you felt about it.
Amazon has it on Kindle for $11.99 or book for $11.25 plus shipping.
I’ve got to disagree, ontap. If they charge me more money, then they have increased my taxes.
The truth is that the “deal” was for them to charge me a certain amount LESS my mortgage interest, charitable contributions, etc.
If they reneg on the “deal”, then they are increasing my taxes.
So far as deductions being a “privilege”...I don’t think so. They are the result of a carefully thought out and bargained tax package.
Take, for example, the “fair tax”. The fair tax people have a “rebate” as part of their tax package. If they were to get that passed and a decade from now some politician wanted to get rid of the rebate, would that be the loss of a “privilege”? I don’t think so. It would be a change in the arrangement made, and it would constitute a tax increase.
I see is as pretty clear.
LOL!
I agree, desert.
How could one say it any better? And tax accountants get to keep their jobs? ;)
When someone says..that is too high for a flat tax or 9-9-9 [in perhaps state varied form], they forget the embedded taxes they will not be paying that you do not even know about, capital gains, inheritance. The cost of the product could be less if transparency existed. Taxes not be placed on designated necessities. We need to specifically quickly bring business back to the US first and foremost, that will create the jobs and secure a better economic future.
We take into consideration the good parts of the (9-9-9) and improve. Cain only brought this plan to the forefront to end the petty bantering between candidates that served no useful purpose and make positive change in order to build a positive job environment.
It ends nearly all deductions and special interest favors.
It ends all payroll taxes.
It ends the death tax.
It eliminates the double taxation of dividends.
It eliminates the taxation of capital gains and repatriated profits.
It allows immediate expensing of business investments.
It shifts the burden of taxation from production to consumption.
It increases capital formation, which will fuel productivity and wage growth.
But it has to be simple for voters to understand.
Are deductions a form of behavior modification. I think so.
I believe there was the intent with the mortgage deduction to encourage home buying. I also think deductions have been covert means to increase taxes.
However, if you are charging me 10 bucks and then you want to charge me 15 bucks and pretend you haven’t increased the cost, then, no, I’m not buying it.
LLS
I call mine the Simple Tax which is only one line of tax code.
“Pay 10% of your income per year.”
Make your check payable to the Dept. of Treasury or you can pay online at www.treasury.gov.
Had the Dems agreed to massive spending cuts, now, I might have agreed with the Pubbies, except for the mortgage deduction.
They don't have the votes, or the guts to pull off what we all know must be done.
10% is all well and good in terms of being simple, but if I end up paying more, then it’s a tax increase.
Especially for that 50% of the population that pay nothing!
I have no problem with everyone paying something, because that’s even more than simply being fair. It means everyone has an investment in what happens.
However, I’m not fooling myself about any new tax plan. If it costs me more, then it’s an increase.
Look at the yearly total tax burden of the average Joe citizen. It’s close to 50%. Would you rather pay 10% or even upwards of 20% rather than the former?
That 10% flat tax idea is so 1990.
The flat tax idea in 2011 is 20%.
Go figure.
I’d rather pay less. If you are including Fica and med, then there’s no way most taxpayers wouldn’t be paying less at 10%, but I don’t think you’re including fica and med.
I’d get rid of FICA and Medicare and make the total federal burden to both individuals and businesses 10-12%. The total total tax burden from federal, city, and municipal jurisdictions for both individuals and businesses should be no more that 19 - 20% according to economists. This coincides with the tax rate that Joseph son of Jacob set when he became Veep of Egypt. He actually lowered it from a much higher tax rate similar to what we have now.
The economy of Egypt thrived for those seven years and tax surplus the government was collecting and putting away for the lean times worked to get them through.
Actually not, since the mortgage deduction no longer helps me, but you wouldn’t have known that.
This idea of “paying the same as others” is a bit askew, too. It assumes, for example, that those paying rent are not benefitting from some deduction someplace in the price they’re charged for their rent. Since the rental property would be a business, then they get far more deductions than anyone else. Therefore the rent is lower than otherwise, so it’s probable that I’m paying far more for ownership than they are for renting.
Also, if you don’t acknowledge that benefit of business deduction built into the price of rent, then you must acknowledge that only property owners are charged property tax. The unfairness of that is astounding.
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.