President Bush mentioned a possible tax system overhaul today. This means that there is a possibility of a flat tax, or a national sales tax to replace the IRS. Either would be better than our current system.
I predict if President Bush firms up this idea and places it in his speech at the Republican national convention he will get accolades from many different corners of the political spectrum. In fact, he may turn this election into a runaway with the proper program!
How do the rest of you feel about an overhaul of a our current tax system? Do you like paying over 50% (Federal and State) in taxes? What sort of system do you think should replace it?
flat tax with VAT …its fair to all, and those that spend more i.e. the rich who have more disposable income, pay more in taxes…its much easier to manage too.
UGH. Please, no VAT. It’s too easy to raise that tax to ridiculous levels because no one ever feels its cost – it’s just added on. It doesn’t even show up on sales receipts – you just kind of have to know its there. Taxes have to be painful. We should start by repealing federal witholding and work from there.
As for a sales tax, it would be more efficient, but I don’t know if it would be a good idea to give businesses yet another burden: tax collectors for the state. How much bureaucratic red tape would they inherit then? What sorts of hoops to verify sales levels? How long to keep records and receipts? The mind boggles.
Flat tax is probably the best idea – hope it’s a feasible one (politically that is).
ZEB where did you see this at. I’m usually liberal or democrat in my thinking but if Bush actually proposed something “new” and not just your ordinary political B.S. I might actually vote for him (which would make me a very hypocritical man).
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
UGH. Please, no VAT. It’s too easy to raise that tax to ridiculous levels because no one ever feels its cost – it’s just added on. It doesn’t even show up on sales receipts – you just kind of have to know its there. Taxes have to be painful. We should start by repealing federal witholding and work from there.
As for a sales tax, it would be more efficient, but I don’t know if it would be a good idea to give businesses yet another burder: tax collectors for the state. How much bureaucratic red tape would they inherit then? What sorts of hoops to verify sales levels? How long to keep records and receipts? The mind boggles.
Flat tax is probably the best idea – hope it’s a feasible one (politically that is).[/quote]
Sorry BB, I meant a sales tax, as opposed to a value added tax. I am all for a flat tax, but i dont think it will ever be able to get implemented in this day and age so i think a combination of the two is best.
Why wouldn’t you pay taxes based on your income? You have more, you give more - the price you pay to live in a beautiful country. Our taxes pay for the social programs designed to ensure a minimium standard of living for all.
It’s an empirical fact that every individual’s health, life expectancy and quality of life are positively correlated with average health, life expectancy and quality of life. In other words, even if you are rich, if the average life expectancy is low, you won’t live as long as someone of equal privilege in, say, Canada. What are you willing to sacrifice for a few thousand dollars a year?
Institute a federal sales tax, including mail order and internet sales. Also institute a flat tax. Allow people to take the amount of federal sales tax paid over the year as a tax credit, when receipts are provided.
Most people won’t bother to save their receipts, so they’ll pay the tax twice. Those who do bother to save their receipts should generally find that they already paid all their taxes this year.
Discontinue all tax refunds except those arising from government error. For these, send a tax credit voucher good for the following year.
Discontinue tax withholding. Give people their whole paycheck, not even a social security deduction. Stop charging employers 7.5% of employee pay to support a shit system that doesn’t work.
Make social security voluntary. Send in your contribution with your taxes each year.
We should locate enough revenue from unsaved receipts, refused refunds, and lost tax credit vouchers to support the remaining social security participants.
But I’m no expert, so maybe there are big flaws in this idea.
If one man makes $100,000.00 per year and another man makes $40,000.00 per year and they both pay 20% the man making 100-K is already paying $12,000 more than the second man. Why is there a need to also raise the percentage that the first man pays? That is inherently unfair and non productive!
If you owned a business would you penalize your best sales people by actually paying them less as there sales go up? That is what our current regressive tax system does, and it’s time for a change!
It’s an empirical fact that every individual’s health, life expectancy and quality of life are positively correlated with average health, life expectancy and quality of life. In other words, even if you are rich, if the average life expectancy is low, you won’t live as long as someone of equal privilege in, say, Canada. What are you willing to sacrifice for a few thousand dollars a year?[/quote]
What???
Please tell me you can figure out the logical fallacies inherent in these statements on your own, or I will be utterly flabergasted at the thinking ability of my fellow man.
It’s an empirical fact that every individual’s health, life expectancy and quality of life are positively correlated with average health, life expectancy and quality of life. In other words, even if you are rich, if the average life expectancy is low, you won’t live as long as someone of equal privilege in, say, Canada. What are you willing to sacrifice for a few thousand dollars a year?[/quote]
Umm, no. The individual numbers are correlated to the average because the individual numbers, taken in aggregate, are the average. The average does not directly affect the individual. Certain factors would normally affect them both, i.e. the level of technology available affecting health care for an individual and the hypothetical “average.”
But the idea that the level of the average affects the level of the individual in the areas you listed is false.
Just take this example for an idea of how this is incorrect. Imagine a skewed population in which there was a huge infant mortality rate due to some disease that struck only those aged 1 or younger, which, for the sake of example, killed approximately 50% of all children born. But those who survived past age 1 were not affected. That childhood disease affects the average lifespan by skewing it downward, but has no effect whatsoever on the lifespans of those who do not catch it.
Another example: Average education. Two groups make up the population of our example country: immigrants and native born. In this imaginary situation, immigrants come in with no education. This lowers the “average” education of the country, but in no way affects the education level of the native born citizens.
I was just reminded of another problem I have with the sales tax by CDDarklock’s post – I don’t want both a sales and an income tax. The more different types of taxes being thrown at you, the more difficult it is to really know how much of a hit you’re taking.
If we instituted a sales tax, we would have the sales and the income tax, because they just wouldn’t get rid of the income tax. Even if they did, it wouldn’t be permanently gone, and you would have constant agitation for the income tax from the “progressives” (going back to the labels when the 16th Amendment was passed) – you think the “they don’t pay their fair share” arguments are bad now… I can only imagine the level of howling with a sales tax.
No, you’d have to pass a whole new amendment to the Constitution banning an income tax. Then, maybe a sales tax.
Still, for now, I’d put my efforts toward a flat tax – and if I had any efforts left over, to eliminating withholding so people really felt how much the government took when they wrote the check for the whole amount on April 15 (or quarterly).
BB - I disagree about eliminating withholding because then you run into the problem of end of year compliance - people who did not set aside enough to pay their taxes and they don’t get paid. You now need to add another layer of bureaucracy (at a cost to taxpayers) to collect from these people. While I have no doubt that you would set aside enough to pay your end -of-year tax bill, most people would not. I have a simple rule that helps me deal with reality: If you accept the fact that 50% of the people have below average intelligence, suddenly, the world makes sense.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
BB - I disagree about eliminating withholding because then you run into the problem of end of year compliance - people who did not set aside enough to pay their taxes and they don’t get paid. You now need to add another layer of bureaucracy (at a cost to taxpayers) to collect from these people…[/quote]
But if the tax is hidden - like at the gas pump - people have no idea how much they really do pay in taxes.
If every tax payer in this country had to pony up the cash for their tax bill on April 15th - it wouldn’t take very long until gov’t spending was under control.
Umm - yes. This is true of all populations, due to many factors, the main one being that infectious disease doesn’t care how much money you have. I did a minor in public health and bioethics and I’ve read the studies.
It’s interesting - I included that as a point of interest, but you neocons seemed quite threatened. No one objected to the concept of a lower average life expectancy, only that this might shorten their own. Classic.
CDarklock - I agree that employee taxes should be repealed. I think, however, that these should be replaced by a Carbon tax, which I’m sure will be wildly popular in this forum.
And ZEB - 1/10th of a poor person’s income will cause a significantly larger decrease in quality of life than even 1/2 of a wealthy person’s. The actual dollar figure is not what is important, as I see it. Quality of life indices do not increase for individuals beyond 70000 dollars income, anyways - how much do you need? Yes, that paragraph was ugly. Give me a break - it’s 3AM.
BB - stop trying to correct me - I check my facts.
“How much do I need?” WOW! Stated like a true liberal! Liberals seem to be under the impression that at a certain point it is unfair for a man to keep all of his weekly pay.
Here is how much I need: As much as I am capable of earning! And at no point should I be penalized more than the fellow who is making half of what I earn.
Zeb, What do you think about students and people with circumstances like that. Do you think they should get the same tax breaks as they get now? Or wouldn’t a flat tax system change these things.
Another thing. I don’t think Bush will propose a flat tax. Especially before the election. I say this because won’t this actually raise a lot of people’s taxes. His big selling point with the tax cuts were that “everyone” got a tax cut.
I pay about a third (a little less) of my income into taxes (all of them not just national) and I would say I’m at the lower end of the tax scale. Now I favor this flat tax but that’s because I plan on advancing far into my feild (this is my first year out of college, starting my master’s in the fall). If I was stuck at my wage though I might be a little pissed about a new system.
Well I might not always agree with Bush, but I do like the fact that he doesn’t mind shaking things up a little more than your average politian.
yeah…this is not going to be a platform or anything…its something that a good number of house republicans sponsor and Denny Hastert will try and get passed next session of congress…not a huge thing for bush this cycle