Posted on 11/19/2004 6:37:03 AM PST by ConservativeBamaFan
As President Bush rebuilds his cabinet, we can expect to hear many in the media and on Capitol Hill claim the president lacks a mandate for his nominees and his policies.
That's nonsense. The president earned more than 59 million votes -- about 3.5 million more than John Kerry -- in large part by making a convincing case for several clear-cut policy goals, including Social Security reform, a muscular foreign policy and, critically, fixing the tax system.
"The American people deserve and our economic future demands a simpler, fairer, pro-growth system," President Bush announced in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in September. "In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code."
To keep that promise, President Bush should press Congress to act quickly on tax reform. And he should ensure that this reform meets four broad goals:
-- The tax code shouldn't punish achievement; -- The tax code should not be used to promote social policy; -- The tax code should be clear and understandable, and -- Tax rates should be as low as possible, to encourage economic growth.
This won't be easy, of course. The current system has developed over decades, and every confusing element of it has champions in Congress and lobbyists ready to fight for them.
Many of these people like to talk about "progressive" tax rates. But there's nothing progressive about a system that taxes savings and investments twice, as our current system so often does. The president should insist that lawmakers devise a system that would encourage investment and innovation.
First and foremost, that means bringing down tax rates, since lower rates encourage workers to put in extra hours or attempt to start their own businesses.
It's also time to stop using the tax code to encourage people to do things the government will approve of. Right now, the government gives tax deductions or credits to taxpayers who buy houses, have children or donate to charity. While these are all worthy goals, people ought to decide to do them on their own.
Eliminating all the deductions and credits also would simplify the tax code, which ought to be another of the president's goals. Americans spend more than 6 billion hours filling out tax returns every year. Plus, we shell out more than $200 billion to tax accountants and software companies to do our taxes for us. After all, who has time to read all 1,100 forms and publications that make up the current tax code?
The answer is a fair, flax tax with a generous personal exemption, so the tax burden doesn't fall disproportionately on poor people. All income would be taxed once, at a flat rate. Taxpayers could fill out their return in minutes and mail it in on a postcard, instead of struggling for days and then stuffing form after form into an envelope.
All these reforms probably will be a tough sell in Congress. But departing Sen. Don Nickles of Oklahoma has an idea that could speed the transition: Allow taxpayers to fill out returns under the current system and under a reformed, flat-tax system. Then they could put the returns side-by-side and file the one that benefits them.
Most people are sure to prefer the simple system, especially since it will usually save them money in the long run.
President Bush has a clear mandate to make the tax code flatter and fairer. That's what the president wants and what taxpayers deserve. When he succeeds, he'll have turned a mandate into a legacy.
(Ed Feulner is the president of The Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based public policy research institute.
Copyright 2004, The Heritage Foundation
I like the "optional flat tax" concept of allowing people to do the current system or the flat tax. Anything to move in the direction of fixing the damage that's been done over the last century.
Help us out over here freepers:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1283306/posts
Interesting idea.
The flat tax is a non-starter. It is politcally unthinkable that tax rates would not be progressive. What makes sense is a single tax that includes the employee and employer contributions to Social Security, that would be paid by all wage earners. That tax would be be flatter, because even the lowest wage earner would pay in something.
Right now there is the fiction that some folks don't pay income tax, because we pretend that Social Security is held off to the side. That is not the case and has never been the case. The cost of maintaining this fiction is just too high.
Whatever gets done in the next 4 years will likely be just the beginning. We have to make sure we keep electing people who support this.
In the Senate I think newbies Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint are on the right side of this issue.
Bush says he supports it also, another good thing.
But-in 2008 we must nominate a candidate that can do even more, which means NO to Giuliani, Frist, Pataki etc.
Mark Sanford, SC governor holds the most hope here. I am on this guy's bandwagon big time, he's really done wonders in SC.
what about George Allen of Virginia for President?
That attitude can change, with but a few small doses of truth.
Tax inequity does not result from base rates that are too low for the wealthy. It results from the fact that wealthy people are able to shelter their income - a problem that the Democrats, more than the Republicans, are standing in the way of fixing.
So? If Americans weren't filling out tax returns, they just be watching The Simple Life. What, you think they'd be finding a cure for cancer?
"Plus, we shell out more than $200 billion to tax accountants and software companies to do our taxes for us."
Again, so? That $200 billion funds jobs and fuels the economy just as much as if we spent the money on Hostess Ho-ho's.
"The answer is a fair, flax tax with a generous personal exemption, so the tax burden doesn't fall disproportionately on poor people."
Baloney! Let the poor pay also. Hell, they're the ones using the services, for crying out loud. Flat tax, yes. 10% across the board -- everybody contributes.
Yeah, that's what we need. 90 million people who don't pay any taxes, at all, voting to increase the taxes on the rest of us.
Now, you want to do that, fine. But then, new rule. Only taxpayers vote.
I'd like to do away with the direct tax altogether. It's allowed the Federal Governement to colelct money to offer back to the states and circumvent the "all other powers are left to the states" concept of our Federal governement.
Yeah, that's what we need. 90 million people who don't pay any taxes, at all, voting to increase the taxes on the rest of us.
Now, you want to do that, fine. But then, new rule. Only taxpayers vote. I agree... But if we can get from A to B, I'll take it, even if I really want to be at C. That strategy has been working for the marxists for decades. Just move it as far in the right direction as we can.
Arguing about the Flat Tax is like arguing about eliminating the Electoral College. Neither is ever going to happen.
As long as there aren't exceptions to this tax (for "business purposes" and such), then it's worth debating, anyway.
Well, that's a pretty snotty reply, if you don't mind my saying so.
That is why I compared the Flat Tax to eliminating the Electoral College. Both are political impossibilities.
I have no beef with the Flat Tax. It sounds like good policy to me. But I hardly represent the main-stream.
I often wonder about people who feel it so necessary to make sure everyone knows that a particular proposal will "never happen". I wonder what they think they're trying to accomplish.
A flat tax won't pass because it will be effectively labled regressive. Our best bet is to push a two-tiered system. Two tax brackets eliminate the "regressive" lable. Perhaps 10 and 20 percent would be good brackets, or 15 and 25 percent. Extreme care must be taken, however, with any tax cut at the federal level. A portion of the Bush tax cut from 2001 has been negated by increases in local taxes. This must be strongly discouraged and fought at every step.
One thing that I would really like to see happen would solve many of our tax problems. It would be a wonderful thing if the money was not automatically deducted from each paycheck. Everyone should have to write the government (both local and federal) checks for their entire tax amounts for the year at one time. Yes, I know they couldn't afford to do it. And that's the beauty of it. Then people would feel the sting, and they wouldn't hesitate to support tax cuts. If we could even get a watered down version of this, we would be better off. Maybe even send people a monthly tax bill that they have to physically pay. More affordable, and still painful. People should actually see the money leaving their hands and going into the government coffers. Then we'll see how they feel about a "surplus."
A Taxreform bump for you all.
If you would like to be added to this ping list let me know.
John Linder in the House & Saxby Chambliss Senate, offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and payroll taxes outright, and provide a IRS free replacement in the form of a retail sales tax:
H.R.25, S.1493
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer for additional information: http://www.fairtax.org, http://www.salestax.org & http://www.geocities.com/cmcofer/ftax.html
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."
-- Alexander Tytler
"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul."
-- George Bernard Shaw
"-- The tax code shouldn't punish achievement; -- The tax code should not be used to promote social policy; -- The tax code should be clear and understandable, and -- Tax rates should be as low as possible, to encourage economic growth."
That's it in a nutshell, folks. And the second point is why liberals will fight this tooth and nail, because they want to use your money to establish their concept of Utopia. Not their own money, mind you (look at how little Gore and Kerry gave to charity) - they want yours.
Federal Tax Reform - The Internal Revenue Service is unacceptable to U. S. taxpayers! The Party urges that the IRS be abolished and the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution be repealed. We further urge that the personal income tax, inheritance (death) tax, gift tax, capital gains, corporate income tax, and payroll tax be eliminated. We recommend the implementation of a national retail sales tax, with the provision that a two-thirds majority of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate is required to raise the rate. Such reforms will encourage investment and economic growth. Lastly, such a sales tax plan must ensure that no one in America pays taxes of any kind on the necessities of life, ensuring opportunity and quality of life for low- and fixed-income Americans.
I heartily agree with them!
Preach on!
Dear Mr ***:
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the federal
tax
code.
I recognize the frustration many Americans feel due to the
complexity
of the Internal Revenue Code. Proposals such as the Fair Tax Bill,
flat
tax and national sales tax have long been suggested as means for
simplifying the nation’s tax system. While none of these has been
introduced in the current Congress, I will certainly weigh your
opinions
and consider each proposal on its merits.
The Senate recently passed a tax cut that will provide tax
relief, as
well as a simpler approach to portions of the tax code. Although I
ultimately was unable to support the tax package as a whole due to its
economic implications, I supported elements of the bill, including
repeal
of the marriage penalty and estate tax, reformation of the Alternative
Minimum Tax, and tax credits to help families pay for college, that
will
help to make our tax system more fair and equitable.
I will keep your views in mind should tax simplification
legislation
come before the Senate. Thank you again for sharing your views with
me,
and please don’t hesitate to contact me in the future.
P.S. From time to time, I compile electronic news briefs highlighting
key
issues and hot topics of particular importance to Floridians. If you'd
like to receive these e-briefs, visit my Web site and sign up for them
at
http://billnelson.senate.gov/newpages/newsletter.cfm .
No flat tax -- NRST only.
Gets my vote.
I'm intrigued. What do you see as the bigest advantage a NRST has over a flat tax?
It wasn't addressed to me, but one big advantage is that I resent the income tax being used to justify the Governement's claim to need to know how much I make and where I spend it.
For example of why this is important aside from political persecution (and I know someone who has been persecuted by the IRS, I believe because of who they gave money to)... Christians are given the commandment to "not allow your left hand know what your right hand doeth" in terms of helping people financially. The tax law forces them to either obey Christ's commandment, and be penalized by the IRS (losing the ability to deduct religious contributions that they make), or disobey Christ and report their donations to IRS to recieve the deduction.
Proposals such as the Fair Tax Bill, flat tax and national sales tax have long been suggested as means for simplifying the nationâ€â„¢s tax system. While none of these has been introduced in the current Congress, I will certainly weigh your opinions and consider each proposal on its merits.
Hmmm, wonder what he considers to be introduced in the current Congress. It has been introduced into the House every Session of Congress since 1997.
H.R.25
Title: To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Sponsor: Rep Linder, John [GA-7] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (54)
Related Bills: S.1493
Latest Major Action: 1/7/2003 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
It was introduced for the first time in the Senate in this ("the current") Session.
S.1493
Title: A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Sponsor: Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] (introduced 7/30/2003) Cosponsors (1)
Related Bills: H.R.25
Latest Major Action: 7/30/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
[b]Might help him out and let him know it's just waiting for him to sign on as a Co-sponsor[/b]. It will be again with the next Session of Congress as well and every session thereafter until the day it is enacted.
Speak for yourself.
That $200 billion funds jobs and fuels the economy just as much as if we spent the money on Hostess Ho-ho's.
I hope you're kidding. You're saying that it doesn't matter what the money is spent on? Why not start another TVA? Who cares if we don't need it?
I hope you just forgot the sarcasm tag!
Business only acts as tax collector- but doesn't pay the tax themselves anyway. Taxing business is just hiding taxes in higher prices, lower wages, or reduced ROI. Why would you want your true tax burden to be unknown?
The tax on business is just a way to make some people think they aren't being taxed. HA HA. The tax paid by all businesses is simply another expense to them - for which they collect in sales revenues, reduce wages or ROI.
Didn't get the raise you wanted? Count it as a tax on the business that employs you. Have to pay more than you think it should cost for a new set of tires? Count it as a tax on the businesses that produced those tires. Didn't get quite the return you think you should get on your IRA/401k/stocks/etc? Count it as a tax on the business.
You still think business should be taxed?
Why do you agree to allow government to have your money before you? Kick around here or here. Bookmark them and go back every once in a while.
How about taxation the way the founders envisioned it - not a progressive income tax ie Marx.
Well said.
Then people would feel the sting, and they wouldn't hesitate to support tax cuts.
Right -
send people a monthly tax bill that they have to physically pay.
Yes.
People should actually see the money leaving their hands and going into the government coffers.
INterestig that you'd say these things!
HR 25, an nrst in Congress right now would:
-eliminate withholding
-have folks pay their tax at the retail counter - actually have to pull extra green cash out of their pocket to pay the line item on the sales receipt "Federal Tax". Talk about feeling the sting!
-folks would see the money leaving their hands to feed the beast.
I agree 100% that this would lead to an environment with strong downward pressure on taxes. That's one of the major reasons I support the nrst.
Yes - and as the reality of the end of the income tax comes to us, the screeching and wild crap from the left will get more and more shrill. Stay the course. Regular folks want to get rid of the income tax for a fairer system that will help American industry and help their wallets.
Ehhh??? It's November 19th, 2004...108th Congress. Tell Senator Nelson to go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and enter HR 25. It's there.
Sorry to butt in... but here's a good comparison chart for starters.
Look here too.
Shoot, just go here!.
I am a small-business owner who spends about $125,000 per year on hotels, plane tickets, meals and entertainment, rental cars, office supplies, printing, mailing and postage, gas and car expenses. Right now, all of these things are deductible as business expenses and do not affect my income tax (except 50% of the meals and ent).
If this Fair Tax passes, I understand that individuals will get a check each month for the tax they are assumed to have paid for subsistence. How will these business expenses be made zero-tax since I will have paid "fair" tax on these purchases of more than $20,000 per year?
above post was meant for BamaFan - sorry to MTOrlando
My high school football team is playing tonight in state quarters... so I'm gone- but one of these nice folks can help - i'll be back later-
Poor people are not going to be buying luxury yachts instead mostly necessities and "should" have more spendable income to help make ends meet.
All the studies I've read over the years indicate the layers of taxes coming out of the cost-of-goods will help make us more competitive and should "help" (depending on the greed factor)keep more jobs here in USA.
I think a flat tax W/0 mortage, medical deductions would unfairly punish people who are already struggling to make ends meet...
I don't see any negative effect on NRST on home-buying since property will continue to be a great place to invest.
I see food items as untaxed necessities... caviar as taxed, alcohol taxed, cigarettes continue taxed, cars and yachts, taxed, mink coats, taxed...etc.. the States collect as they do right now... I do wonder about the continuation of FICA simply because of the continuing issue of the government continuing to raid it as a "slush fund" IMO should have been "enforced investment" where it was in your name but Gov allocated as you desired as in 401K's or other private retirement plans.
I say enforced because just as the 18-39 group would rather buy a big car or boat than health insurance; they would take the FICA money and blow it unless the investment was mandatory... and the non-investment ultimately affects us all... I see a mandatory FICA investment/savings as healthy for the economy in 30 years or so if the Government kept their hands off it...
well will shut up and wait for the flames....
How will these business expenses be made zero-tax since I will have paid "fair" tax on these purchases of more than $20,000 per year?
Businesses are not taxed on purchases of goods and services that are used to advance thier legitimate business purposes.
If they sell to another business they do not collect or remit the NRST on those sales.
Only purchases for consumption or business asset conversions to personal use or consumption is liable for the NRST.
You will find about 23 papers on various aspects of the FairTax, many dealing with the specifics of how it treats business and investment here:
Thanks for repsonding. But, I still don't understand how I won't pay NRST on the purchases I make as travel expenses. How will I prove that these purchases of hotels, meals, office supplies, plane tickets, printing, car rentals, etc are legitimate business expenses? Will I have a card, and if I have a card won't everyone try to get one especially since there won't be an IRS to catch you.
It is not that hard to set up a business esp if there is no tax reporting of income and expenses required any more.
And that website didn't have anything about business expenses that I could find.
I want to get behind this movement but I don't see how this would work.
So, an item that costs $100. today will cost $123.?
It won't and you know it. The NRST hasn't even been implemented, and already the lies start.
The $100. item today will cost $129. The NRST is now up to 29% and it isn't even law.
What a crock!
Hmmmm. 19 million businesses paying a 23% tax on every purchase ... that's a chunk of change sitting interest free in government coffers.
Geez, even the individual states allow you to obtain a tax exempt certificate.
"and if I have a card won't everyone try to get one"
To avoid a 23% (33% within two years, I'll wager) tax, you betcha. And, if that card serves a dual purpose (NRST + state and local sales tax), there's an incentive if I ever saw one.
No, it's a way to prevent government from treating some people differently from others, and to do away with needless bureaucracy designed to determine who does and does not have to pay the tax.
The tax paid by all businesses is simply another expense to them - for which they collect in sales revenues, reduce wages or ROI.
You can say that about any kind of tax levied on anyone. Everyone who interacts financially with the rest of the world is going to find ways of shifting all or part of his tax burden onto others, even if he doesn't realize he's doing it.
No. You're saying that it doesn't matter what the money is spent on in a pathetic attempt to put words in my mouth.
Pay attention. The article stated, "we shell out more than $200 billion to tax accountants and software companies to do our taxes for us." That's not the TVA.
I'll tell you what. We'll put you in charge of the Department of Telling People How To Spend Their Money.
Leave me alone and go back to promoting your 45% NRST which the 90 million tax-exempt voters will be increasing to 55% to pay for having cosmetic surgery added to their free health care.
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.