![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Otis Winslow" wrote in message How is switching to a tax on consumption going to help? We already have sales taxes. The answer is the flat tax. Just like Soc Sec .. EVERYONE pays the same percent of their income. Period. No deductions. No sliding scale. No cutoff. I disagree. A flat tax does not gather in criminal income. You still rely on the taxpayer to report income. A fed consumption tax applies to all -- criminals and law-abiders alike. Drug dealers and wise-guys buy boats and cars and clothes and stuff just like everyone else, and more so in many cases. By including criminal income, you'd probably triple the available taxable pool. The problem is that CPAs, tax attorneys and everyone else involved in handling the current nightmare tax system would never let it happen. Their PACs would be paying off every congress critter out there to prevent it. The real issue is that Congress would fight it tooth and nail. Without the IRS code, Congress loses their ability to try to force behavior from certain groups, and to dabble in social engineering. The IRS code is what gives Congress the power to hurt their adversaries, and they won't give it up without a fight. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() The real issue is that Congress would fight it tooth and nail. Without the IRS code, Congress loses their ability to try to force behavior from certain groups, and to dabble in social engineering. The IRS code is what gives Congress the power to hurt their adversaries, and they won't give it up without a fight. Yet we have 48 co-sponsors for HR 25 so far, and the number is snowballing. Tom Delay is pushing it in the House and Saxby Chamblis in the Senate. With a good grassroots effort, we can do this. The biggest obstacle we face is the attitutde that it can't be done. Don -- Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS PP-ASEL Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Roger Halstead" wrote in message ... With a good grassroots effort, we can do this. The biggest obstacle we face is the attitutde that it can't be done. You also face the flat tax places an unfair burden on the poor who can not afford to pay the same percent as those in a higher income bracket. The flat tax doesn't even kick in until something like a $25,000 income level. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
You also face the flat tax places an unfair burden on the poor who can
not afford to pay the same percent as those in a higher income bracket. Are you confusing the flat tax and the FairTax? The FairTax is actually a great deal LESS regressive than the current system because it has a built in rebate of sales taxes paid on necessities. see http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/sketch.html That and in the end only one group can pay taxes. One way or another the corporations pass *ALL* tax on to the consumers. You tax them and we pay it. The whole point of the FairTax is to eliminate ALL invisible, imbedded taxes and put them in a visible sales tax so everyone will know the true cost of government. Check the FairTax.org website, there is a lot of research available there, and I think you will see it addresses exactly those issues you raise. Don -- Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS PP-ASEL Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() The flat tax doesn't even kick in until something like a $25,000 income level. The problem is that the Flat Tax is still an income based tax, with all the compliance costs inherent in that system. Sort of like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The FairTax eliminates all compliance costs for individuals and 90% of the costs for business, as it is collected, for most states, through the existing sales tax mechanism. Don -- Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS PP-ASEL Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 21:22:28 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote: "Roger Halstead" wrote in message .. . With a good grassroots effort, we can do this. The biggest obstacle we face is the attitutde that it can't be done. You also face the flat tax places an unfair burden on the poor who can not afford to pay the same percent as those in a higher income bracket. The flat tax doesn't even kick in until something like a $25,000 income level. If it does it's not a flat tax. Also at $25,000 you are still talking individuals who can not afford to spare a dime. Today's, "taxable income" yes, but not a plain income and if it deals that way, again it's not a flat tax. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Roger Halstead" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 21:22:28 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" wrote: "Roger Halstead" wrote in message .. . With a good grassroots effort, we can do this. The biggest obstacle we face is the attitutde that it can't be done. You also face the flat tax places an unfair burden on the poor who can not afford to pay the same percent as those in a higher income bracket. The flat tax doesn't even kick in until something like a $25,000 income level. If it does it's not a flat tax. It's flat once you reach the threshold. Also at $25,000 you are still talking individuals who can not afford to spare a dime. Right now taxes kick in at $8000 for an unmarried person. Today's, "taxable income" yes, but not a plain income and if it deals that way, again it's not a flat tax. Not in the strictest sense -- it does remove much of the depraved idiocy of out present system (when GE sent their taxes into the Feds, it took a semi tractor trailer to deliver all the paperwork.). I'm opposed to a flat tax in that is leaves the IRS pretty much intact. Such an agency with such powers has no place in a country ostensibly dedicated to liberty. And, yes, Congress gave them their power, but even they can't reign them in anymore. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roger Halstead opined
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 21:22:28 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" wrote: "Roger Halstead" wrote in message . .. With a good grassroots effort, we can do this. The biggest obstacle we face is the attitutde that it can't be done. You also face the flat tax places an unfair burden on the poor who can not afford to pay the same percent as those in a higher income bracket. The flat tax doesn't even kick in until something like a $25,000 income level. If it does it's not a flat tax. Also at $25,000 you are still talking individuals who can not afford to spare a dime. The marginal rate is flat, and that is the important part. Also it gets rid of the credit/deduction part of the tax code, which is the difficult part. Today's, "taxable income" yes, but not a plain income and if it deals that way, again it's not a flat tax. A tax system should include all income, including things like munis and section 8 housing vouchers. -ash Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Today's, "taxable income" yes, but not a plain income and if it deals that way, again it's not a flat tax. A tax system should include all income, including things like munis and section 8 housing vouchers. -ash Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil? No, it should include all SPENDING, not income. Taxing income leads to imbedded taxes in prices and makes taxcation invisible. A Sales tax is visible. A flat tax is still hidden. Don -- Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS PP-ASEL Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Invitiation to the end of the IRS | Don Tabor | Piloting | 23 | April 24th 04 11:46 AM |