April 15th Is Coming - Shut Up And Pay Up

[Avatar4321]

same tired old RNC talking points.

If you make the truth your "talking points" it doesnt matter how old the points are, they will always be correct. Truth is Eternal.

 

[red states rule]

RSR, I think you are alittle confused. April 15th is the day the Government pays back the money they've wrongfully taken. They take our money all year around.

With all do respect, those people got their money back months ago.

The victims will be spending the weekend doing thier taxes and going to the post office before midnight to get the post mark

The liberal media will be covering the "story" asking the people why they waited to the last minute to do their duty and fork over the money that they really do not need anyway

 

[pegwinn]

RSR, I think you are alittle confused. April 15th is the day the Government pays back the money they've wrongfully taken. They take our money all year around.

Wish someone had tole em that. The last two years in a row they underwitheld leaving me with a shit sandwich to eat.

I would willingly pay ten percent more if I could forget april 15, form 1040xx, w1,2,3,4 1099, etc.

National Sales Tax or Flat Tax or both.

That's the way to do it.

 

[red states rule]

Wish someone had tole em that. The last two years in a row they underwitheld leaving me with a shit sandwich to eat.

I would willingly pay ten percent more if I could forget april 15, form 1040xx, w1,2,3,4 1099, etc.

National Sales Tax or Flat Tax or both.

That's the way to do it.

and libs say you are not paying your fair share

they passed a $400 billion tax increase and the liberal media yawned

 

[pegwinn]

and libs say you are not paying your fair share

they passed a $400 billion tax increase and the liberal media yawned

In fairness the Congress allowed the tax cuts to lapse. The net effect is exactly the same as if they had specifically raised the tax rate, but one must be true to the truth.

 

[red states rule]

In fairness the Congress allowed the tax cuts to lapse. The net effect is exactly the same as if they had specifically raised the tax rate, but one must be true to the truth.

They did raise taxes

That is like saying Congress did not vote for a pay raise - they just let it happen

What gets me is how libs are quiet on the soaking of the middle class and seniors they claim to care about

and didn't Dems promise NO middle class tax increases

Boy, I swear I heard another Dem make the same promise in 1992

 

[pegwinn]

They did raise taxes

No they didn't, as I said, the effect was the same. It may be legal semantics but it is also intellectually honest.

That is like saying Congress did not vote for a pay raise - they just let it happen

Please, considering that you and I apparently agree on a great many things, don't make analogies that don't work. Of course they vote for a pay raise. They also voted to allow the Bush tax cuts to lapse.

What gets me is how libs are quiet on the soaking of the middle class and seniors they claim to care about

and didn't Dems promise NO middle class tax increases

Boy, I swear I heard another Dem make the same promise in 1992

I won't comment on specifics because I cannot readily back it up.

Now that you have successfully indicated your contempt for the "Libs", what are you going to do about it other than post on a board that leans to the right? And, more honesty time, are you slamming it just because it was done by "libs" or because you oppose the current tax system?

 

[red states rule]

So I am the bad guy for pointing out another broken promise by the Dems?

It is my fault they raised taxes on EVERY taxpayer in America?

It is my fault Dems are increasing the marriage penality?

It is my fault Dems are decreasing the child tax credit?

It is my fault Dems are increasing taxes on a retired couple making $40,000/yr by over 150%?

It is my fault the wage earners in the lowest bracket will see a 33% increase in the tax rate?

I oppose bothe the Dems and the current system. I would love to see a flat tax. I went on line and signed the petition

 

[pegwinn]

<a title="Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: “an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who … exemplified … the most disagreeable traits of his time” (David Cannadine).
"><u>Disingenuous </u></a>

So I am the bad guy for pointing out another broken promise by the Dems?

Did I say that? Source?

It is my fault they raised taxes on EVERY taxpayer in America?

Source?

It is my fault Dems are increasing the marriage penality?

Source?

It is my fault Dems are decreasing the child tax credit?

Source?

It is my fault Dems are increasing taxes on a retired couple making $40,000/yr by over 150%?

Source?

It is my fault the wage earners in the lowest bracket will see a 33% increase in the tax rate?

Source?

I oppose bothe the Dems and the current system. I would love to see a flat tax. I went on line and signed the petition

Now we are getting somewhere. What is the link for the Flat Tax? I don't have a problem with it. I like the FairTax because there is legislation pending. I would also suggest writing your representatives and perhaps organizing a petition with real signatures from your local community.

Each time I asked for a source, there are two answers to the question you need to provide. First is the direct link to where I asserted you were "at fault" in each case. Second is the text of the legislation or reputable source that makes the claim of the specific actions you claim were made.

Finally, I am not your enemy. I actually agree philosophically with a lot of what you post. My problem with you is that you have no basis in reality for the more outlandish/stereotypical/generalized claims. I tend to favor the Republican stated ideals. But, in reality the major difference between individual politicians is virtually nil. Partisanship tends to trap one in an indefensible position. Picture a fighting hole facing in the wrong direction. You can adapt and continue the fight, but wouldn't it be better to build it right the first time?

Here is your chance to demonstrate intellectual honesty and continue with an intelligent discussion with someone who is basically on your side. The real question is: What are you going to do with it?

Tag, you're it.

 

[red states rule]

If I took your posts the wrong way - please accept my apology. To me - you were attacking me for posting the facts Dems did raise taxes on everyone

They did

I fully expect dems to go after the producers and achievers in this country - they do on a daily basis - but they did break every orimise they made to get elected

Here are two sources on their 3/29 vote that screwed every taxpayer in America



LOL, a Federal budget of nearly $3 trillion and libs whine it is NOT enough!


House Approves Democratic Budget Plan
Thursday March 29, 3:14 pm ET
By Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer
House Approves Democratic Budget Plan; Measure Boasts Surplus if Bush's Tax Cuts Expire


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House Thursday narrowly passed a $2.9 trillion Democratic budget blueprint predicting a big surplus in five years but relying on the expiration of tax cuts to do so.
The 216-210 vote sets up negotiations with the Senate, which last week passed a budget blueprint with similarly large spending increases for education, defense, homeland security and veterans programs.

The measure comes in response to Democratic complaints that Bush has shortchanged domestic programs funded each year by appropriations bills -- including education, health research and grants to local governments -- while awarding deficit-boosting tax cuts tilted toward the affluent.

Democrats said the $2.9 trillion plan for next year would point the way to a surplus after years of red ink under Bush and a GOP-controlled Congress. Republicans said that $153 billion surplus in 2012 would appear only if tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 expire in four years -- amounting to the "largest tax increase in American history."

The future of the Bush tax cuts will likely be decided after the 2008 presidential election. While in the majority, congressional Republicans never held votes to make all of them permanent, despite Bush's annual calls to do so.

Bush huddled with House Republicans at the White House, saying afterward: "We spent time talking today about our strong belief that we've got to keep taxes low. "

The Democratic budget received brickbats from Republicans because it would produce a $153 billion surplus in 2012 only by assuming tax cuts enacted during Bush's first term expire. Those tax cuts include lowered rates on income, investments and large estates, as well as breaks for married couples and people with children.

At the same time, the plan awards domestic agencies, on average, budget increases of 6 percent over current levels, far the less than the less than 1 percent increases recommended by Bush.

Congress' annual debate on the budget is guided by an arcane process in which a nonbinding budget resolution sets the stage for subsequent bills affecting taxes and benefit programs such as Medicare, as well as the annual appropriations bills.

In most years, Congress leaves alone difficult budget issues such as the unsustainable growth in benefit programs such as Medicare and simply focuses on the 12 annual bills funding the budgets of Cabinet agencies such as Defense, Education and Agriculture.

This year is likely to be such a stand-pat year. Decisions on the fate of the Bush tax cuts are expected to wait until after next year's presidential election.

Extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would cost about $250 billion in 2012 alone, which would balloon to $389 billion after accounting for extending other tax cuts and adjusting the alternative minimum tax so that it does not ensnare more than 20 million additional middle class taxpayers.

Democratic leaders view passing a congressional budget plan as a key test of their ability to govern. The GOP-controlled Congress failed to pass a budget last year, which fouled up passage of the annual spending bills lawmakers pass each year.

The Democratic budget blueprint calls for a nearly $25 billion increase next year for domestic programs popular with lawmakers in both parties, approving Bush's record $50 billion budget increase for the Pentagon's non-war budget and $145 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year.

Those spending boosts would cause the deficit to rise from $209 billion this year to $241 billion in 2009 before increased revenues from the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts rapidly generate a surplus.

The rival Senate plan contains would fail to generate surpluses since it dedicates $180 billion to extending several of the most popular tax cuts due to expire at the end of 2010.

One of the most important features of the Democratic budget plan is to require lawmakers seeking to cut taxes or boost benefit programs -- such as Medicare, children's health care or farm subsidies -- to "pay for" the changes with tax increases or offsetting spending cuts.

That rule would greatly complicate efforts later this year to boost funding for a popular health insurance program for poor children.

Democrats opted to put off politically painful decisions on shoring up the finances of Medicare and Social Security.

Republicans countered with an alternative plan cutting $279 billion from federal benefit programs such as Medicare and Medicaid over the next five years -- far greater cuts than proposed by Bush in February.

The plan, authored by Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, top Republican on the budget panel, would fully extend the 2001 and 2003 rounds of tax cuts, at a cost of about $450 billion. But Ryan's plan lost by a sweeping 160-268 vote.

Ryan warned his colleagues that the looming retirement of the Baby Boom generation threatens to swamp the budget because of the spiraling costs of Medicare and Social Security.

"If we don't get a handle on our fiscal situation, if we don't recognize the fact that if all we do is raise taxes to balance the budget in 2012, you're going to go right back into deficits soon thereafter if we don't control spending, if we don't reform government," Ryan said.




An update on the Democratic Budget
Filed under: Your Democracy, Federal Budget &#8212; Press Office
at 2:56 pm on Tuesday, March 27, 2007
The House Budget Committee sent out an update on the FY2008 Democratic Budget which the House will be considering this week. If the budget is passed with the tax increases included, those increases will cost the average Ohioan $2,716. In addition, 4,420,000 Ohioans will be affected by the tax increases including raising the 10&#37; tax rate to 15%, eliminating the marriage penalty relief and cutting the child tax credit in half.


What happens if the tax hikes are included in the 2008 Budget
Filed under: Your Democracy, Federal Budget &#8212; Press Office
at 12:51 pm on Monday, March 26, 2007
This week, the House will begin debating the FY2008 budget. Unfortunately, some very large tax increases may be included by the Democratic leadership. Here are some good figures from the Budget Committee of the taxes which may be increased if the budget passes in its current form:

Specific Tax Hikes

Raising the 10% Tax Rate Bracket to 15%- More than 5 million individuals and families who previously owed no taxes would become subject to the individual income tax in 2011 if the 10% tax rate bracket is raised to 15%.
Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief- 23 million taxpayers would see their taxes increase, on average, by $466 in 2011.
Cutting the Child Tax Credit in Half- 31 million taxpayers would see their taxes increase, on average, by $859 in 2011.
Sample of Taxpayer Fallout

Elderly Couple with $40,000 in income- their tax bill would rise by 156% in 2011 &#8211; from $583 to $1,489.
Family of Four with $60,000 in earnings- their income tax bill would rise from $3,030 to $4,893 in 2011 &#8211; that&#8217;s an increase of more than $1,850, or 61%.
Single Parent with Two Children and $30,000 in earnings- this single parent would see her tax benefits decline 67% in 2011. With tax relief, this single parent qualifies to get back $2,414. With the Democrats&#8217; tax hike, this single parent would only get back $799.
EVERY Working American Would be Affected by Democrats&#8217; Tax Hike

115 million taxpayers would see their taxes increase, on average, by $1,795 in 2011.
83 million women would see their taxes rise, on average, by $2,068.
48 million married couples would incur average tax increases of $2,899.
Taxes would increase, on average, by $2,181 for 42 million families with children.
12 million single women with children would see their taxes increase, on average, by $1,082.
17 million elderly individuals would incur average tax increases of $2,270.
Taxes would rise, on average, by $3,960 for 26 million small business owners.
Over 5 million taxpayers who previously owed no taxes would become subject to the individual income tax as a consequence of the sunset.
http://www.house.gov/reichert/press07/3.29.07.2.shtml

 

[pegwinn]

If I took your posts the wrong way - please accept my apology. To me - you were attacking me for posting the facts Dems did raise taxes on everyone

Apology accepted, I wasn't attacking you. My intent was to attack your posting style. The message is good, but if you manage to alienate the reader then your message dies unread. Take a look at the letter I sent to Rangels committee. Upon re-reading I figure that it was filed under "fringe nutjob" and he never saw it.

Take care

 

[red states rule]

Apology accepted, I wasn't attacking you. My intent was to attack your posting style. The message is good, but if you manage to alienate the reader then your message dies unread. Take a look at the letter I sent to Rangels committee. Upon re-reading I figure that it was filed under "fringe nutjob" and he never saw it.

Take care

Unlike liberals I do even try to hide my bias. I openly, and proudly, say I am a Ronald Reagan conservative. Liberals, however, will run away from who and what they are

Know the tolerant and compassionate left, you will get a letter from IRS informing you of your future audit

 

[red states rule]

Case Closed
Tax cuts mean growth.

BY FRED THOMPSON
Saturday, April 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

It's that time again, and I was thinking of the old joke about paying your taxes with a smile. The punch line is that the IRS doesn't accept smiles. They want your money.

So it's not that funny, but there is reason to smile this tax season. The results of the experiment that began when Congress passed a series of tax-rate cuts in 2001 and 2003 are in. Supporters of those cuts said they would stimulate the economy. Opponents predicted ever-increasing budget deficits and national bankruptcy unless tax rates were increased, especially on the wealthy.

In fact, Treasury statistics show that tax revenues have soared and the budget deficit has been shrinking faster than even the optimists projected. Since the first tax cuts were passed, when I was in the Senate, the budget deficit has been cut in half.

Remarkably, this has happened despite the financial trauma of 9/11 and the cost of the War on Terror. The deficit, compared to the entire economy, is well below the average for the last 35 years and, at this rate, the budget will be in surplus by 2010.

Perhaps the most fascinating thing about this success story is where the increased revenues are coming from. Critics claimed that across-the-board tax cuts were some sort of gift to the rich but, on the contrary, the wealthy are paying a greater percentage of the national bill than ever before.

The richest 1% of Americans now pays 35% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay more taxes than the bottom 60%.

The reason for this outcome is that, because of lower rates, money is being invested in our economy instead of being sheltered from the taxman. Greater investment has created overall economic strength. Job growth is robust, overcoming trouble in the housing sector; and the personal incomes of Americans at every income level are higher than they've ever been.





President John F. Kennedy was an astute proponent of tax cuts and the proposition that lower tax rates produce economic growth. Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan also understood the power of lower tax rates and managed to put through cuts that grew the U.S. economy like Kansas corn. Sadly, we just don't seem able to keep that lesson learned.
Now, as before, politicians are itching to fund their pet projects with the short-term revenue increases that come from tax hikes, ignoring the long-term pain they always cause. Unfortunately, the tax cuts that have produced our record-breaking government revenues and personal incomes will expire soon. Because Congress has failed to make them permanent, we are facing the worst tax hike in our history. Already, worried investors are trying to figure out what the financial landscape will look like in 2011 and beyond.

This issue is particularly important now because massive, unfunded entitlements are coming due as the baby-boom generation retires. We simply cannot afford higher taxes if we want an economy able to bear up under the strain of those obligations. And beyond the issue of our annual federal budget is the nearly $9 trillion national debt that we have not even begun to pay off.

To face these challenges, and any others that we might encounter in a hazardous world, we need to maintain economic growth and healthy tax revenues. That is why we need to reject taxes that punish rather than reward success. Those who say they want a "more progressive" tax system should be asked one question:

Are you really interested in tax rates that benefit the economy and raise revenue--or are you interested in redistributing income for political reasons?

Mr. Thompson is a former Republican senator from Tennessee whose commentaries, "The Fred Thompson Report," can be heard on the ABC Radio network
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009940

 

[pegwinn]

For those of you who have not seriously looked at the proposed National Sales Tax (aka The Fairtax, aka HR 25) you can look to next year to see that the current insanity isn't going away. Don't take my word for it. Read the article (excerpted below) about how the AMT is going after the hard working middle class (that is us that bust ass and make good money. We are not working poor and usually don't qualify for aid of any sort) and up.

It is past time to change the system. There is currently only one alternative listed in congress that isn't simply further tweaking of an unfair system. You can go to Thomas and view the actual FairTax bill introduced into legislation, click the link . This will take you to THOMAS, the online legislation information resource from the Library of Congress. Search for Bill Number "HR 25" (presented to the House of Representatives).

Or if you are truly lazy and need me to hold your hand you can download a copy of the actual FairTax bill, click this link The FairTax Act of 2007 (PDF)

Or, if you are sooooooo lazy that you cannot even read the bill then you can just download a Plain English Summary of the FairTax Bill
for 2007 (PDF)


A dreaded tax is slated to be fixed

Lawmakers have vowed to revise the alternative minimum tax, which is imposing higher taxes on 4 million middle-class households this year.
By Alexandra Marks and Ron Scherer | Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor

Page 1 of 2

NEW YORK - If you think your taxes are bad this year, wait until next April 15.

Unless Congress acts relatively soon, millions more Americans will find that the tax refund they expected will disappear &#8211; swallowed up by the alternative minimum tax (AMT), a levy originally designed to make sure that millionaires pay up.

More

 

[red states rule]

The Fair Tax is a great idea. A flat tax, and everyone pays the same rate

 

[red states rule]

Now that you have successfully indicated your contempt for the "Libs", what are you going to do about it other than post on a board that leans to the right? And, more honesty time, are you slamming it just because it was done by "libs" or because you oppose the current tax system?

Why We Pay Without A Whimper

By Kevin Hassett
Sunday, April 15, 2007; Page B01

Early American history was a conservative's nirvana: It was one long tax revolt.

The British imposed taxes on everything from molasses to tea, and Americans smuggled the molasses, tossed the tea into a harbor and reached for their muskets. Thomas Jefferson's incendiary Declaration of Independence listed King George III's basest transgressions; prominent among them was that he had "sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." The descendants of those royal minions are now, of course, nestled in thousands of cubicles in Internal Revenue Service offices across the country.

Looking at that history, it's astonishing how low the taxes were. Talk about men being men. One historian estimated the combined burden of the infamous "Navigation Acts," for example, to be 1 percent of income. The other assorted taxes added up to about the same, making the total bite a measly 2 percent.

And that set off a war.

Today taxes eat up about 30 percent of income, a much heavier burden. And like our ancestors, we don't believe that our money is particularly well spent. A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken last April found that Americans believe that 51 cents of every tax dollar is wasted. But where's the outrage? Most of us don't even own muskets, and the few of us who have revolted against the IRS are settled safely behind bars, to popular acclaim.

Which makes the U.S. tax system, ugly as it is, something of a marvel. It raises revenue without raising a ruckus. A simpler and more efficient system would undeniably serve everyone better, but the current hodgepodge is so entrenched as to have become a political third rail, and attempts to reform it almost always fail or are gradually reversed. Witness Ronald Reagan's Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Like a finch in the Galapagos Islands, the tax code has gradually evolved in a manner that maximizes its chances for survival. So a natural history of our tax system provides an interesting mirror on ourselves and reveals some surprising facts.

Perhaps the most contentious question about taxes is: Who should pay them? Progressives argue that the government should use the tax code to redistribute income from the wealthiest to others, while economic conservatives worry that high taxes will slow the economy and hurt the poor.

To a large extent, the poor have been taken off the tax rolls altogether, reflecting the unanimous view of both conflicting political camps that government should not unduly stress the down and out. With the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and child tax credit, for example, many poor people have negative federal taxes, often to an extent large enough to offset other taxes paid elsewhere, such as sales taxes. In 2004, a single mother with two children and an income of $14,000 had a total tax burden that was on net a subsidy of $1,127.33. Governments mailed her more money than she paid.

What about those who do pay taxes?

To analyze them more carefully, I turned to the U.S. Department of Labor's Consumer Expenditure Survey, which contains data on household expenditures, as well as on income and taxes for a large sample of Americans. Using it as a base, I calculated the average taxes paid (including federal and state income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes and federal payroll taxes) for typical families and compared that, for context, to the other things these families spent money on.

The accompanying chart contains the calculations for two scenarios -- a family of four with an income of $50,000, and a family of four with an income of $150,000. The chart shows the average total taxes paid and average expenditures for two years, 1983 and 2003 (the last year for which data are available). Looking first at the average American family with a $50,000 income, a couple of things jump out. First, even though the family has a relatively low income, the amount of money it paid in taxes at all levels was strikingly high in both years. In 1983, it paid 29 percent of income in taxes. In 2003, it paid 31 percent.


Taxes were easily the largest budget item for this family in both years. In 2003, for example, the family spent 24.6 percent of its income on its home, and 9.9 percent on transportation.

The second point worth noting is how little things have changed over time. Congress has been very busy tinkering with the tax code since 1983 -- adding child credits, expanding individual retirement accounts, patching the alternative minimum tax, etc. -- but the basic take after all the kerfuffle has changed very little for this family.

Looking now at the family with the $150,000 income, taxes are once again the No. 1 item in the household budget in both years. In 1983, the government's take was 30 percent, compared with 23.7 percent spent on the next biggest item, the family's home. In 2003, the take was 30 percent, compared with 23.5 percent going into the home.

Lots of things have changed, but one thing is constant: Government has been robbing Peter to pay Peter. The similarity between the tax proportion for the high-income family and that of the middle-income family will surprise many. That's because the federal income tax, which is steeply progressive -- the higher your income, the more you pay in taxes -- gets all the media attention. But other taxes that are less visible, such as sales taxes, hit lower-income families with a heavy thud and quickly fill in the gap between their lower federal income taxes and the higher rates paid by those with high incomes.

This is evident in the calculations that went into this chart. The federal income tax in 2003 for the family earning $50,000 was about $3,800, whereas it was about $17,500 for the family bringing in $150,000. But everything else worked to more than offset this difference. Middle-class families spent a larger share of their income and thus paid more sales tax. Gasoline and property taxes also ate up a larger share of the middle-class family's budget. Finally, the payroll tax is limited to 15.3 percent of income, so the wealthy paid a smaller share.

Governments at all levels have voracious appetites for cash, but taking revenue from the middle class is a politically risky maneuver; after all, that's where the votes are. So lawmakers have crafted ingenious ways around the dilemma, imposing hefty levies on those with lower incomes but relying on stealth taxes to do it. If you're going to tax widows and orphans, you'd better be quiet about it; use a sales tax.

Government thus takes more from the wealthy through income taxes, but extracts more from the poor with all the other taxes. By doing this, politicians get to pretend that they are virtuously redistributing wealth from the richer to the poorer, and they can maintain that fiction without sacrificing the cash. Voters seem to like this approach.

Countless other minor features add to the tax system's near-immortality. For example, the mortgage-interest deduction, an economically unjustifiable bauble, pleases millions of homeowners, creating a natural constituency against change. But the most interesting phenomenon is the steady scale of the overall take. If federal taxes are lowered, then people will have more money to spend, and they will end up paying more in sales taxes. Because of this, and more explicit offsets, governments at all levels have for some time been taking a bit more or a bit less than 30 percent of income from a large fraction of taxpayers.

Which must mean that 30 percent is something of a magic number. In fact, a recent review of polls by my colleague Karlyn Bowman found that "people think Americans should not pay more than 25 percent of their total income in taxes." If you consider that payroll taxes that go into Social Security deliver future benefits and so may not be fully thought of as a tax, then the amount that government raises from citizens seems to be a little less than the amount they tend to think is fair.

King George III's taxes came to the colonies like a new species but failed to survive. Unlike today's government, which spends tax revenue on parks and schools and other things that citizens cherish, the king failed to provide a good story about why he needed the money. But other taxes found their way here and have evolved and flourished.

A simpler, more economically efficient code is indisputably desirable. Recently reviewing the economic literature, Berkeley economist Alan Auerbach and I concluded that a fundamental tax reform could theoretically increase all our incomes by an average of about 10 percent over 10 years, simply by removing the current inefficiencies in the tax code.

But such a broad change may never happen, because lawmakers would have to acknowledge that the existing code was forged in a political environment. And who's to say that politics wouldn't lead a reform back to the same place again? Our policies often look bizarre and irrational in isolation, but viewed as a response to the give and take of democracy they can acquire a newfound luster.

The tax beast that has evolved in this land may be a monstrosity, but it is our monstrosity.


[email protected]


Kevin Hassett is director of economic policy studies and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041302088_2.html

 

[Annie]

I read through that article above. I've thought this myself for years, which is one reason I'm not too keen on 'fair tax' or 'flat tax' unless from the get go, all other taxes are ended. I've filed taxes jointly with over $150k and I've filed with 3 kids and income of $25k.

We have flat taxes on phones, gas, sales taxes, etc. They are not fair, it's regressive. Necessities are taxed the same for the rich and the rest of us. Sure, my car taxes costs less than a Mercedes, but not in percentage of income.

 

[pegwinn]

I read through that article above. I've thought this myself for years, which is one reason I'm not too keen on 'fair tax' or 'flat tax' unless from the get go, all other taxes are ended. I've filed taxes jointly with over $150k and I've filed with 3 kids and income of $25k.

We have flat taxes on phones, gas, sales taxes, etc. They are not fair, it's regressive. Necessities are taxed the same for the rich and the rest of us. Sure, my car taxes costs less than a Mercedes, but not in percentage of income.

I, OTOH am opposed to the current income tax 'up to the neck and to the death'.

Being the selfish guy that I am, I don't care if it is progressive, regressive, or just plain a-gressive. What I want is to not even notice that I am paying. I want April 15 to be just another day.

Everyone is hung up on the word "income" due to force or habit. I say that income is not relevant except on your personal level. Lookit Paris Hilton. She likely pays zero to near zero taxes on the income from her trust funds. But, under the fairtax, she'd contribute every time she buys a diamond studded dog collar or throws a party.

Up above I posted beaucoup links. Please, read em. And pass em along.

 

[Annie]

I, OTOH am opposed to the current income tax 'up to the neck and to the death'.

Being the selfish guy that I am, I don't care if it is progressive, regressive, or just plain a-gressive. What I want is to not even notice that I am paying. I want April 15 to be just another day.

Everyone is hung up on the word "income" due to force or habit. I say that income is not relevant except on your personal level. Lookit Paris Hilton. She likely pays zero to near zero taxes on the income from her trust funds. But, under the fairtax, she'd contribute every time she buys a diamond studded dog collar or throws a party.

Up above I posted beaucoup links. Please, read em. And pass em along.

I'd likely agree, if I weren't where I am, but I am.

 

[red states rule]

I read through that article above. I've thought this myself for years, which is one reason I'm not too keen on 'fair tax' or 'flat tax' unless from the get go, all other taxes are ended. I've filed taxes jointly with over $150k and I've filed with 3 kids and income of $25k.

We have flat taxes on phones, gas, sales taxes, etc. They are not fair, it's regressive. Necessities are taxed the same for the rich and the rest of us. Sure, my car taxes costs less than a Mercedes, but not in percentage of income.

It is not uncommon for some to fork opver 50% of their income in taxes

It is insane