Posted on 11/19/2004, 2:37:03 PM 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
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.