Posted on 04/24/2005 10:32:10 AM PDT by n-tres-ted
Edited on 04/24/2005 11:30:31 AM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
# Do you favor a flat levy? Would you vote for a VAT? The U.S. is asking Americans to suggest fixes or alternatives to the federal tax system.
Hate the U.S. tax code? Now's the time to speak up.
The President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, four months into examining what's wrong with the U.S. income tax system, is soliciting ideas from the public.
It is possibly the first time in history — and certainly the first time in generations — that the general public has been asked to help revamp tax law, said Jeffrey Kupfer, executive director of the panel. Taxpayers have until Friday to submit proposals on how to fix or replace the income tax system.
***
Rep. John Linder (R-Ga.) proposed a national sales tax that would replace the income tax. A set amount would be refunded to each taxpayer to ensure that people living at the poverty level would pay no tax, Linder said.
Under Linder's plan, rich Americans would not pay a higher tax rate than the middle class. But because the wealthy buy more, he argued, the system would be fair.
"We would turn Americans into voluntary taxpayers based on how they chose to spend," Linder said in an interview.
The panel can be reached by e-mail at comments@taxreformpanel.gov
Flat tax, 10%, as dictated by the Bible. Furthermore, except in states of emergencies (as decreed by Congress, with very specific conditions/end dates) there must be a balanced budget, period.
A flat tax of 10%.
I like the value added tax (VAT). That puts me in control of how much taxes I have to pay - assuming they repeal the payroll taxes. If I am frugal in my spending habits, I can pay less taxes. A flat tax of say...10%, I think punishes lower middle class families - 10% of their income will certainly eat into their budget - whereas 10% of upper income will not eat into anything necessary - like food, clothes or medical costs.
Repeal all income and sales taxes. Replace them with a tariff on all imported goods and services.
HR25 NRST
5% national sales tax on everything.
We can start be replacing dems with republicans and RINOs with conservatives on a wholesale level in the house and senate.
Historians have dug up ample proof that skullduggery was afoot when the 16th Amendment was pushed through by Senator Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island (coauthor of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913). The "Robber Barons" of the day were all very supportive of it, which is sort of counterintuitive until you realize that they had already figured out how to avoid the proposed income tax. They have successfully avoided it ever since, leaving it to be paid instead by the middle and lower classes.
Anyway, in their rush to ratify the 16th Amendment the administration cut some corners. It is here that mistakes were made that were dismissed as inconsequential at the time but have now been well documented and are starting to be argued about today. In fact, I believe that all this talk of a "National Sales Tax" started because the Oligarchs realize that there are cogent arguments that the 16th Amendment was not legally ratified and with enough popular support could get it tossed out without a replacement.
The most easily understood summary of these issues can be read at the link below.
The best tax is one that does not exist.
I'm not advocating no money to the government, but allowing the government to make money through the creation of money.
Let the government take over the creation of money, taking it away from the FED.
That would reduce the amount of debt owed right away.
It would also give back the Constitutional authority that the Federal Reserve act took away.
WE then would allow the government to take 10% of the money needed to run the economy, which in effect would keep government spending in check.
This would keep the government out of our business, out of our lives and keep it in its constitutional roles.
We could then cut the time Senators and Congress would be in session and make them citizen legislators, instead of full time slave masters.
This would make the people in government go back home and have real jobs instead of spending all their time in DC getting corrupted.
It would also stop inflation by keeping the cost of government to 10% of the economy. Governmental inflation is a major drain on our economy.
There are so many positives with this system instead of a flat tax or a national sales tax. NO government agencies to keep track of us and no forms to fill out. No need for government intrusion into our personal affairs and it would keep the cost of government in check to 10% of the economy.
I agree - If the govt can't live with 10% of our money then they need to go out of business.
If you would like to be added to this ping list let me know.
John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25), offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and SS/Medicare payroll taxes outright, and provide a IRS free replacement in the form of a retail sales tax:
H.R.25,S.25
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:
You left out the most important part of the article.
Americans who want to weigh in on taxation can contact the panel by e-mail at comments@taxreformpanel.gov
God also manages to do more with that 10% without having to borrow, then all the government geniuses put togather. Go figure.
The Fairtax is pegged at 30% federal sales tax on top of all state and local taxes.
God also manages to do more with that 10% without having to borrow, then all the government geniuses put togather.
No problem God creates what he needs out of nothing, when 10% is not enough.
When government does that, we call it inflating the money supply ;O)
That'll be reflected in the Family Consumption Allowance. Alaska and Hawaii have higher HHS poverty levels (Sorry, not New York)
I'm not advocating no money to the government, but allowing the government to make money through the creation of money.
The government can "make money" by printing more paper (inflation) or by raising the Fed rate (tight credit). Neither one of which can raise a tiny fraction of the percentage of what is needed to feed the Behemoth.
That would reduce the amount of debt owed right away.
Huh? How?
This would keep the government out of our business, out of our lives and keep it in its constitutional roles.
Good idea! I hope someone has a plan.
There are so many positives with this system instead of a flat tax or a national sales tax. NO government agencies to keep track of us and no forms to fill out. No need for government intrusion into our personal affairs and it would keep the cost of government in check to 10% of the economy.
Great! Who's proposing this in Congress? I'll send 'em a Ben Franklin for their campaign!
You say you like the value added tax. This is like a sales tax on items purchased. So people buying stuff would pay tax on it. What about people with their retirement savings in Roth IRA's. We already paid our taxes on this money and now we have to pay VAT? If we would have Trad IRA's we could have took a tax deduction and paid income tax on withdrawals, but if you get rid of the income tax in favor of VAT, this is unfair to Roth IRA holders.
Yeah but that still allows for a beuracracy to handle it.
I say no to any direct tax that involves an agency.
The tax on the creation of money is by far the least intrusive of all taxes.
The government can "make money" by printing more paper (inflation) or by raising the Fed rate (tight credit). Neither one of which can raise a tiny fraction of the percentage of what is needed to feed the Behemoth.
No, the government would constitutionally be bound to 10% of the economy.
That would in effect limit inflationary pressures unlike the system that the FED has now which allows for infinate amounts of money to be created.
That would reduce the amount of debt owed right away.Huh? How?
By removing the hidden tax of inflation and the fees that are payed to the FED by our government to use their debt instruments.
Only if the 16th Ammendment to the Constitution is repealed. Otherwise, there would be nothing from stopping a future Congress from re-establishing an income tax.
See my post #24.
I agree with your 10% flat tax - and balanced budget ideas!
First thing we do is get rid of trial lawyers, then the IRS goes!
Utopia!
I don't much care what the percentage is, of course, the lower the better, but what we really need is the elimination of all taxes except one. One tax applied to everyone with an even fairness. Not trying to redistribute income or modify anyone's activities. One tax so that we can discuss how high without the present confusion.
The constitution may need modification, to prohibit all taxes except the one tax chosen. It does not have to be income, or sales, or a head tax, but everyone should share in it equally to ensure that all have an equal stake in the setting of the level and the spending of the government.
When the tex is selected, the enforcement must ensure that it cannot be evaded, like a barter system evading a sales tax or investment income not being the same as labor income. Or income earned under the table not being taxed because it is not visible to the government.
fun tax facts:
FACT ONE:
Last year the IRS cancelled 3.89 million penalties, saving taxpayers $3.62 billion.
That would reduce the amount of debt owed right away.
It would also give back the Constitutional authority that the Federal Reserve act took away.
WE then would allow the government to take 10% of the money needed to run the economy, which in effect would keep government spending in check.
This would keep the government out of our business, out of our lives and keep it in its constitutional roles.
The federal government has the ultimate power to print money and to regulate its management, which it does through the Fed, supposedly under the grand design of leaving it to the "experts." There appear to be no experts in Congress, but also surprisingly few in the Fed.
One thing ought to be clear, however. That is: we cannot finance the government through the printing of money, as if that would be painless. It would be, purely and simply, financing government through inflation, so that no one could tell for sure what the real cost of government would be or who was really to blame for it. No, the cost of government should be payable only with funds collected as taxes, and in the daylight so everyone can see and understand their effects.
Americans who want to weigh in on taxation can contact the panel by e-mail at comments@taxreformpanel.gov
You are very right! And I'm going to send a letter right now.
Well, maybe people could be issued a tax credit on things like that, that the tax has been pre-paid on.
It gets so complicated when every single special interest gets answered to. That's why it's so complicated now - and think off all the occupations - Tax Preparer's and others - who would basically lose their jobs? I can't see any politician ever having the guts to do what needs to be done in regards to the tax code. It's just like Social Security, we're all going to end up getting screwed.
And let Washington sort it out as to how it is to be spent.
The ball shouldn't be laid in the Politicians hands when it is our money and we have a government by the people.
Then the representative government is lost and it is the government which dictates.
the cost of government should be payable only with funds collected as taxes, and in the daylight so everyone can see and understand their effects.
Not to mention the fact that the Constitution expressly provides the power of taxation for the purpose of paying the bills of government.
Constitution for the United States of America:
- Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
Not inflating the money supply.
Well, maybe people could be issued a tax credit on things like that, that the tax has been pre-paid on.
Wonder how many howls from Roth IRA owners there will be when they are required to tell government how much of their accounts appreciated and grew from untaxed intrest and dividends to separate capital put in that has been taxed from funds that have not being required to prove that what they declare as previously taxed really was to get their credit.
It gets so complicated when every single special interest gets answered to.
Precisely, that is the inherent problem with the income tax, separating return of capital from income to be taxed is what opens the door to endlessly growing complexity that leads to the inevitable:
"hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business; the eye of the federal inspector will be in every man's counting house....The law will of necessity have inquisical features, it will provide penalties, it will create complicated machinery. Under it men will be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the tax payer. An army of federal inspectors, spies, and detectives will descend upon the state."
-- Virginian House Speaker Richard E. Byrd, 1910, predicting the consequences of an income tax.
Very astute point, geezer. The Constitution is too often ignored as the binding limits of federal government authority.
So here's a question I hope someone can answer. How did the government sustain itself before income taxes?
So here's a question I hope someone can answer. How did the government sustain itself before income taxes?
Tariffs, excises, duties, property taxes, various retail taxes on luxuries, and monetary inflation.
mash u'r clicker here ==> The Tax Museum
Of interest, one of the first taxes levied by Congress was an equivalent to what would be a national vehicle tax today and gave rise to the very first ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court on the powers of Congress to levy an excise on the use of personal property.
Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171
"A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. " "the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution." "Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states," "[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND.
Other than tariffs on imports, the first major source of federal revenues was the tax on whiskey (a "sin tax") proposed by Alexander Hamilton and adopted by Congress. It inspired the Whiskey Rebellion that required Washington and Hamilton to lead an army (larger than any single army assembled during the Revolution) into western Pennsylvania to discourage the offenders.
Me'thinks you are a dreamer, like in the John Lennon song...
There is no such thing as a perfect tax, they can all be avoided one way or another. Just make sure they can't be avoided legally, and that they can to some extent be enforced.
Yes, you are right. When I was coaching they asked me to submit a budget for a complete soccer program. I did, including one ball for every two players. Then they gave me 4 balls and said this is all they could afford. Its the same thing with tax reform. We all see what could be done, but what will be done is the tweek the Bush administration would like to see. Tax consultants are not going to be put our of business by tax reform and "simplification". Its too much fun to tinker and too addictive to spend other people's money.
Roth IRAs are a relatively new creation, and most retirement money is kept in tax-deferred accounts like 401k's and traditional IRAs. (I wonder if anyone has any figures for that?) So I believe that the impact wouldn't be too large.
Of course we could figure out a way to work around this. Instead of tax-credits, which would open doors for fraud and tax evasion, how about the year before the switch to an NRST you're allowed to deduct from your income taxes and contribute the amount your could have paid if your IRA was a traditional IRA? So in other words multiply your total Roth IRA contributions by, for example, 25%, and you may contribute that in one year and that amount will also be tax-deductable. That would effectively turn your Roth IRA into a traditional IRA.
Since gambling has increased across the country..maybe
something like a National Lottery ..once a month. Jake
Except the voters!
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.