What Tax System Do You Want? Why?

[Foxfyre]

Hypothetical: You have just taken a job as a lobbyist for a tax reform group. They're letting you lobby Congress for the kind of tax system you think we should have.

What do you lobby for and why?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I want a tax system where everyone has some skin in the game.

I like the idea of a flat tax for those things the government is empowered to do that are not payable as a fee for service. The defense of the country, for example. I would like a flat percentage of income to be dedicated to those governmental duties.

For things that the government is not specifically Constitutionally empowered to do but does anyway, a fee for service via a consumption tax would be very fair.

For example the more you drive and use government roads, the more gas tax you pay because you buy more gas than someone who uses roads less. But the trick here is to make sure all the gas taxes or other fee for service taxes collected actually get spent for roads and infrastructure or whatever they are for. You sure as hell know those billions in federal and state gas and excise collected every year have not been being used for roads as they should have been.

We should abolish Social Security and instead require people to hold that 15% of their income in a privately held account specifically for retirement where the government cannot get its paws on it as use for a slush fund.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I think most of the problem is all the folks who want to make other folks pay their share. No deductions, credits, "targeted tax breaks" or whatever your flavor. Here is your oar, pull your weight.

We have all these fancy breaks for all kinds of folks.

I am not totally blind that there should be some distinction, so I am all in favor of a large personal exemption. But any other ways of making others pay your way.... forgetaboutit

 

[Skull Pilot]

I think most of the problem is all the folks who want to make other folks pay their share. No deductions, credits, "targeted tax breaks" or whatever your flavor. Here is your oar, pull your weight.

We have all these fancy breaks for all kinds of folks.

I am not totally blind that there should be some distinction, so I am all in favor of a large personal exemption. But any other ways of making others pay your way.... forgetaboutit

There is no need for a personal exemption if the tax rate is lowered and applied to all income and all deductions are eliminated.

Seriously why should someone pay less taxes because they choose to have a gaggle of kids?

That family will use way more government and state services than do I who have no children and they should pay for it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think most of the problem is all the folks who want to make other folks pay their share. No deductions, credits, "targeted tax breaks" or whatever your flavor. Here is your oar, pull your weight.

We have all these fancy breaks for all kinds of folks.

I am not totally blind that there should be some distinction, so I am all in favor of a large personal exemption. But any other ways of making others pay your way.... forgetaboutit

There is no need for a personal exemption if the tax rate is lowered and applied to all income and all deductions are eliminated.

Seriously why should someone pay less taxes because they choose to have a gaggle of kids?

That family will use way more government and state services than do I who have no children and they should pay for it.

How about we allow a personal exemption for each kid who lives with you--not for any who do not--but eliminate federal government services other than those enumerated in the Constitution?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I went with "No Tax" even though I don't see the income tax as unconstitutional. The 16th Amendment makes the income tax constitutional. It's certainly immoral, however.

 

[Foxfyre]

I went with "No Tax" even though I don't see the income tax as unconstitutional. The 16th Amendment makes the income tax constitutional. It's certainly immoral, however.

"No tax" would be unconstitutional as the government must have some funds to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities, and expressly permits congress to impose taxes in order to do that. The responsibilities of government are also expressly limited by that same Constitution, however, and should the government restrict itself to its Constitutional mandate, it would need a tiny fraction of the taxes it now collects in order to do it.

The Fair Tax/National Sales Tax, should it replace all other taxes now imposed by the Federal government, would require a repeal of the 16th Amendment to remove all temptation to Congress to reinstate an income tax.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I went with "No Tax" even though I don't see the income tax as unconstitutional. The 16th Amendment makes the income tax constitutional. It's certainly immoral, however.

"No tax" would be unconstitutional as the government must have some funds to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities, and expressly permits congress to impose taxes in order to do that. The responsibilities of government are also expressly limited by that same Constitution, however, and should the government restrict itself to its Constitutional mandate, it would need a tiny fraction of the taxes it now collects in order to do it.

The Fair Tax/National Sales Tax, should it replace all other taxes now imposed by the Federal government, would require a repeal of the 16th Amendment to remove all temptation to Congress to reinstate an income tax.

I misunderstood what you meant then.

 

[Foxfyre]

I went with "No Tax" even though I don't see the income tax as unconstitutional. The 16th Amendment makes the income tax constitutional. It's certainly immoral, however.

"No tax" would be unconstitutional as the government must have some funds to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities, and expressly permits congress to impose taxes in order to do that. The responsibilities of government are also expressly limited by that same Constitution, however, and should the government restrict itself to its Constitutional mandate, it would need a tiny fraction of the taxes it now collects in order to do it.

The Fair Tax/National Sales Tax, should it replace all other taxes now imposed by the Federal government, would require a repeal of the 16th Amendment to remove all temptation to Congress to reinstate an income tax.

I misunderstood what you meant then.

Actually I prefer that Congress be restricted from giving any form of earmark or charity to anybody and then go with a flat income tax of an amount just necessary to cover the Constitutional obligations of the federal government. Everybody, rich and poor, pays the same flat percentage without exception. To me that would be less regressive than a sales tax as everybody would have 90% (or whatever) of their income that would not be taxed. With a sales tax, and the poor spending all that they have just to get by, they would be taxed on 100% of their income/expenditures while the rich would often be taxed on a comparatively small percentage.

The prebate that was part of the Fair Tax formula would offset some essentials, but would not really simplify the system. I want the Perot style tax report that fit on a postcard.

I do want all Americans to be taxed however. I think it is very unhealthy for some to have no stake and for there to be no consequences when Congress passes legislation that affects others. That is a sure prescription for encouraging Congress to punish the productive and continue to let the least productive have a free ride plus other perks.

 

[wjhermann]

I favor a concept that embraces all the advantages of Fair Tax with the onerous effect on retail etc. It is a flat tax with no exemption or deduction. It is automatically collected as transaction occur through the banking system. Therefore it uses the largest possible tax base and thereby achieves the smallest tax rate. So before reacting that every move you make is being taxed -- stop and do the math. The addition of so many especially large players who paid no tax to the mix makes it excellent for everyone. Another absolute necessity to consider the APT tax of benefit to ALL is that EVERY other Federal tax must be eliminated -- then things, especially regarding business make sense.

Let's do the math. A family is fortunate and has income of 100K, spends or saves it all, and "churns" invested assets in the amount of 100k -- that would be $300k of transactions fopr a year. At a rate of 0.3% (3 cents per $1000) the family would pay $900 in total Federal tax. That's 0.3% on ech side of every transaction. If the family had the misfortunate of having the opposite side of every single transaction passed to them the worst case is $1800.

Sounds impossible but before the economic debacle of last year and still continuing the rate was only 0.25% -- we have a little more deficit to cover right now. That rate is based on using only 50% of the theoretical tax base which is a complex analysis using several databases to calculate, however, a current estimate is over a quadrillion dollars.

Still sound preposterous? The whole concept is certainly not mine - it was published in a peer review econ journal in 2000 by an internationally known Professor of Economics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Dr. Edgar Feige. Additionally, I have been debating this concept for about four years and objectively have yet to find an argument that makes it fatally flawed. The details of the idea and answers to the many obvious questions that pop up are found at apttax.com. The Automated Payment Transaction Tax[/url] . I encourage you to visit the site before discarding this really beneficial concept.

Lastly, why haven't you heard of this type of transaction tax -- because the volume of noise made by the Fair and Flat taxers is hard to beat -- though these are dead ideas but still provide political coverage for politicians wanted to support a tax reform proposal that they know will never fly -- they love that. Transaction taxes have met with such success in Latin America psrticularly Brazil, that the elites have kicked them out since they could not be evaded as is commonplace with their income and VAT tax. The recently proposed Tobin Tax to pay for the financial debacle is another example. These however have one very big difference with APT -- they have been focused on one part of the economy or they were used as add on the top of all other taxes -- not as a total replacement as with APT.

 

[Oddball]

No unapportioned direct taxes, repeal the 16th Amendment, abolish the IRS and control spending.

 

[Neubarth]

Fifty percent of everything over forty thousand dollars.

 

[Foxfyre]

I favor a concept that embraces all the advantages of Fair Tax with the onerous effect on retail etc. It is a flat tax with no exemption or deduction. It is automatically collected as transaction occur through the banking system. Therefore it uses the largest possible tax base and thereby achieves the smallest tax rate. So before reacting that every move you make is being taxed -- stop and do the math. The addition of so many especially large players who paid no tax to the mix makes it excellent for everyone. Another absolute necessity to consider the APT tax of benefit to ALL is that EVERY other Federal tax must be eliminated -- then things, especially regarding business make sense.

Let's do the math. A family is fortunate and has income of 100K, spends or saves it all, and "churns" invested assets in the amount of 100k -- that would be $300k of transactions fopr a year. At a rate of 0.3% (3 cents per $1000) the family would pay $900 in total Federal tax. That's 0.3% on ech side of every transaction. If the family had the misfortunate of having the opposite side of every single transaction passed to them the worst case is $1800.

Sounds impossible but before the economic debacle of last year and still continuing the rate was only 0.25% -- we have a little more deficit to cover right now. That rate is based on using only 50% of the theoretical tax base which is a complex analysis using several databases to calculate, however, a current estimate is over a quadrillion dollars.

Still sound preposterous? The whole concept is certainly not mine - it was published in a peer review econ journal in 2000 by an internationally known Professor of Economics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Dr. Edgar Feige. Additionally, I have been debating this concept for about four years and objectively have yet to find an argument that makes it fatally flawed. The details of the idea and answers to the many obvious questions that pop up are found at apttax.com. The Automated Payment Transaction Tax[/url] . I encourage you to visit the site before discarding this really beneficial concept.

Lastly, why haven't you heard of this type of transaction tax -- because the volume of noise made by the Fair and Flat taxers is hard to beat -- though these are dead ideas but still provide political coverage for politicians wanted to support a tax reform proposal that they know will never fly -- they love that. Transaction taxes have met with such success in Latin America psrticularly Brazil, that the elites have kicked them out since they could not be evaded as is commonplace with their income and VAT tax. The recently proposed Tobin Tax to pay for the financial debacle is another example. These however have one very big difference with APT -- they have been focused on one part of the economy or they were used as add on the top of all other taxes -- not as a total replacement as with APT.

It is an interesting concept, but I'm afraid the way you have presented it will be/is over the head of most of us. I'm not sure that I understand the actual concept here, but red flags immediately popped up in my head.

Can you simplify it? For instance follow a loaf of bread from the purchase of the wheat seed to it being stocked on the grocers' shelf? Is there a transaction tax applied to every step? If so, what does that do to the cost of the loaf of bread?

This question relates to the cost of taxes to we the people in addition to those taxes we pay directly.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Flat tax, everyone pays the same, no exclusions no loop holes. With a base level at which one does not pay anything due to poverty.

 

[Oddball]

Problem being that our now ridiculously convoluted federal tax system started out as a flat tax.

Give those stooges in the District of Criminals the power to pick who wins and who loses, whose activities are worthy of deductions and whose are not, and you'll always end up where we are now.

 

[Foxfyre]

Flat tax, everyone pays the same, no exclusions no loop holes. With a base level at which one does not pay anything due to poverty.

You have a lot of support for your preference. It would certainly be far more fair and less corrupting than what we now have.

But at gut level, I think if there are no exclusions, then there should be no exclusions for anybody. Those at poverty level are likely either living with somebody else and being supported or receiving some sort of charitable aid. And how do we know who are the truly poor and who are being supported by somebody else and therefore choose to spend their time in mostly non-income-producing activities. How do we know they aren't kids with an after school job?

I think the poor have as much stake in good government as anybody else so that they have the best possible shot to become rich or at least substantially richer. And I would prefer that every American, rich and poor alike, including the kid with his first steady job, be interested in good government. Otherwise it is too tempting to promote a nanny state that will take care of them personally and not care what happens otherwise.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Hypothetical: You have just taken a job as a lobbyist for a tax reform group. They're letting you lobby Congress for the kind of tax system you think we should have.

What do you lobby for and why?

A flat tax. One where everyone pays the same percentage on their earned and unearned incomes.

No tax breaks for the rich, no loopholes, no writeoffs, just a flat percentage tax rate for all americans.

Why? Because that would be fair.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hypothetical: You have just taken a job as a lobbyist for a tax reform group. They're letting you lobby Congress for the kind of tax system you think we should have.

What do you lobby for and why?

A flat tax. One where everyone pays the same percentage on their earned and unearned incomes.

No tax breaks for the rich, no loopholes, no writeoffs, just a flat percentage tax rate for all americans.

Why? Because that would be fair.

Okay, based on my response to the Sgt, you and I are on the same page. But let me play devil's advocate here for a bit.

A Constitutional expectation of the federal government is that it will promote the general welfare. The general welfare could be seen as promoting the traditional family, promoting charity, promoting home ownership, promoting new business startups and business expansion, etc.

So long as this is applied evenly across the board without respect for the standing of any citizen, is there no room even in a flat tax for the government to promote such activity?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Hypothetical: You have just taken a job as a lobbyist for a tax reform group. They're letting you lobby Congress for the kind of tax system you think we should have.

What do you lobby for and why?

A flat tax. One where everyone pays the same percentage on their earned and unearned incomes.

No tax breaks for the rich, no loopholes, no writeoffs, just a flat percentage tax rate for all americans.

Why? Because that would be fair.

Okay, based on my response to the Sgt, you and I are on the same page. But let me play devil's advocate here for a bit.

A Constitutional expectation of the federal government is that it will promote the general welfare. The general welfare could be seen as promoting the traditional family, promoting charity, promoting home ownership, promoting new business startups and business expansion, etc.

So long as this is applied evenly across the board without respect for the standing of any citizen, is there no room even in a flat tax for the government to promote such activity?

Ah but see promoting the general welfare is not the same as Providing for it . And that very line of the constitution goes on to say Provide the General Defense....if the founders inteded the government to provide us with "Welfare" they would have written provide instead of promote .

Ok ok that was semantics lets put that aside and get back to the devils advocate and my response.

That still leaves all the room the government has now to help promote the general welfare. They will still have the same amount of tax money coming in and they can still fund such programs with that money.

I was going to go on and on with examples but i'll stop here and save those for future responses .

I like good debate.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I would like our taxes to be something like this. Absolutely no income taxes from either the State or Federal government. No tax loopholes for anybody. The only tax in America would be a 15% national sales tax on everything sold in America. That 15% could never be raised and everybody would be the same and required to pay it if you purchased anything except for food, medicine, and clothing. 10% of this money would go to the federal government. 5% of the money would go to the State government. Each State would only get 5% of the money that was collected from their State. If you didn't want to pay taxes, then it's simple. Don't buy anything except medicine, food and clothing. This way, everybody would pay the same taxes including the illegal aliens and the guys like Bill Gates. Everybody would be equal.