Let the debate begin.

I wish I had the time and expertise to design my own system right here and now, but I think the first thing on the list should be simplicity. Nobody who makes under 100k ought to need an accountant and lawyer.

I would agree, generally. Some use accountants and lawyers due to the source of their income - businesss, tax shelters, oil deals and the like. The need for professional advice usually arises from special breaks available to those activities not avilable to the wage earner.

hmmm....choices between "fair tax" proposals make it even harder to answer..

Friend Judy has a tax plan of her own, maybe she'll lay it on us again. I'm sure a lot of people haven't seen it.

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/wwwboard/messages/4906.html

American Constitutional Research ServiceRep. Linder/Boortz Fair Tax Fraud!



The overwhelming majority of Americans, including business owners, agree the IRS and “income taxation” must be ended. There is no real dispute here. But the so called Fair Tax does not put an end to Congress imposing a tax calculated from income, nor would it end various types of misery now suffered by the American people under the existing Internal Revenue Code!

The so called Fair Tax promoted by Rep. John Linder and Neal Boortz is a fraud being perpetrated upon the people!

Contrary to what the proponents of the Fair Tax claim it will do, the unadulterated truth is, the Fair Tax proposal would expand the number of tax gathers in the United States to include individual tradesmen and entrepreneurs, and, even ordinary working people engaged in self employment, forcing them to "register" with folks in government in order to pursue a livelihood [ see SEC. 502. REGISTRATION], and would require these poor souls, along with America’s businesses, to become a modern-day regiment of enlisted tax gathers for the federal government, increasing the number of tax gathers throughout the United States to an all time high, and compelling them to maintain burdensome and inquisitorial records and reports under a penalty of perjury, just as is now done under the existing IRS Code.

The Fair Tax would, if adopted, give birth to a new tax raising code to satisfy the wants and fancies of tyrants in government___ all the above to be implemented under the pretext of the "Fair Tax Reform“, a reform which promises to abolish the IRS and income taxation, but in substance and truth will only tighten the iron fist of government around the people’s productivity, and demand the less fortunate people in our society to shamefully kneel to the iron fist of government to receive their monthly government check___ a family consumption allowance which cleverly creates a new army of voters dependent upon folks in government for their subsistence. Were we not warned by Hamilton in Federalist Paper 79 that “A POWER OVER A MAN’s SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL”?

In order to accomplish the featured attractions of what Boortz and Linder claim their plan will do with reference to abolishing “all corporate and individual income taxes, payroll taxes, self-employment taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes and gift taxes”, there is but one, and only one answer. The American voter must demand their elected public servants, their employees, to put the following wording into the federal Constitution:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay “any” tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, or any other lawfully realized money.



Keep in mind the Fair Tax proposal is a list of suggestions to future Congresses to not lay and collect “corporate and individual income taxes, payroll taxes, self-employment taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes and gift taxes“. It leaves the door wide open for a future Congress to re-establish such taxes in addition to a newly created across the board consumption tax.



Real change can only be guaranteed by a constitutional amendment which binds the hands of Congress. The ring leaders who promote the snake oil Fair Tax, flat tax, value added tax, etc, all have one thing in common . . . they leave the door open for Congress to tinker with taxation, manipulate it as is now done, and they do not promote permanent and real change by a constitutional amendment which expresses the will of the people. I suspect this tax reform crowd is either very stupid, or very slick___ government friendly slick!

In order to accomplish what Boortz and Linder are selling, the words must be put into the constitution! As Thomas Jefferson has warned us "In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"

Well then, let's get rid of the breaks along with the taxes. I'm mostly talking about low-middle income wage earners that still have to hire preparers and worry over complex forms. Generally I consider time and money real people have to spend on taxes mostly wasted, not to mention the disincentives to economic activity inherent in taxation at it's most expensive and complex.

The problem America faces is a Congress out of control; a Congress which will be happy to use the Forbes flat tax, or the Boortz Fair Tax, or even a value added tax to engage in its ongoing reckless spending and borrowing practices which have created a national debt which now exceeds $ 50 TRILLION and is the big problem which America faces.

Neither the Forbes flat tax nor the alleged Fair Tax or a value added tax does anything to control the wasteful spending and borrowing practices of Congress; does anything to encourage Congress to start following sound fiscal and economic policies beneficial to America’s businesses, industries and labor; nor does any of the above proposals compel Congress to extinguish annual deficits in a manner in which members of Congress would be quickly held accountable by their State Governor and Legislature for their reckless spending and borrowing habits!

Sad thing is, in this respect, the Forbes flat tax, just as the Boortz plan [H.R. 25, the alleged Fair Tax] and the value added tax plan, are nothing but cleverly concocted plans to allow Congress to skin the goose which lays the golden eggs and continue in its unaccountable profligate borrowing and spending habits which is the worm at the root of the tree . . . all the above are variations of a plan offered which is intentionally designed to support existing big government and the countless political plum jobs on Capitol Hill, many of which have six figure salaries.

So, what should the people be supporting to end the existing oppressive system of taxation which unjustly burdens our nation‘s industries, businesses and labor? Support those are promoting a return to our Founding Father’s original tax plan by adding the following words to our Constitution:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay “any” tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

Adopting the above wording into our Constitution will bring us back to our Founding Father's original tax plan.

Now, how does our founding father’s original tax plan differ? Well, it was designed by “tax rebels”, people who fully understood the subtleties and oppressive nature of taxation and how taxation was formally used to benefit the King and not the people. And so, they carefully constructed a tax plan favorable for the people and their business interests. They created a plan which granted sufficient power, almost unlimited power to raise revenue to the new government they were creating, but carefully and intentionally designed it in such a manner to not only disburse the costs of government in a fair and equitable manner while removing various known tools of oppression from the hands of government. They likewise included a number of checks and balances to control the actions of Congress.

Let us now examine just one important part of the Founder‘s plan, an intended method to extinguish deficits in a manner creating a moment of accountability for every state’s Congressional Delegation!

Under the founders plan, if insufficient revenue was brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes [Congress normal taxing powers] and Congress borrowed to meet its exigencies, Congress was then intended to lay a direct tax apportioned among the states for the total sum of the deficit created. I call this the Founding Father’s FAIR SHARE FORMULA

Under the direct tax each state was intended to contribute a share of the total figure being raised by Congress to extinguish the deficit based upon its number of votes in Congress___ representation with proportional obligation, something which our big spenders in Congress dread! But under the Founders plan there are no loopholes, no manipulation, and, those state congressional delegations with the biggest mouth in Congress, who would dare use their large voting strength to squander federal revenue, create big government or send our money to distant lands through a united nations [a money laundering operation] were to bring home to their state’s Governor a bill for the largest share of the direct tax ___ a very important check and balance of our founding fathers encouraging each state’s legislature and governor to keep a jealous eye on their congressional delegation’s spending habits while in Washington, which is no longer being practiced, but if practiced, would be an immediate cure for today’s irresponsible spending habits of Congress who have enslaved our nation’s younger generation with a national debt which now exceeds $50 trillion!

There is no smoke and mirrors with the 'FAIR-SHARE' method of balancing the budget. The emergency direct tax ought to be statutorily imposed whenever Congress closes a fiscal year with a deficit. The structural mechanism which would immediately bring fiscal sanity to Congress is the requirement of having Congress send a bill to the Governor of each state, notifying him/her to remit their state's apportioned share toward extinguishing the deficit created during the year by Congress___ the governors and state legislators being left with the burden of having to raise this money, only then to then send it off to Washington, D.C.

Picture for a moment the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature, if New York should receive a bill for its apportioned share [29/435] of the 2005 federal deficit. This threat would create a compelling incentive for the Governor of each state, and the various state legislatures, to keep a jealous eye on the spending habits of their Congressional Delegation . . . it would require the fiscal accountability which the state governments once demanded from their Senate and House Members!

For a $20 million direct tax being imposed upon the states in 1861, and the amounts required to be paid by each of the various states, see HERE and use the buttons at the bottom of the page to go forward and backward.

As to Mr. Forbes, I don’t think Mr. Forbes is really politically naïve. I think Mr. Forbes is doing a very important job very similar to that of Boortz, Linder, and those who offer various other tax reform plans to the public which do nothing to control the actions of Congress and merely divide the people into various tax reform groups which diminishes their strength. We all know that there is a 70 - 80 percent approval rate among the American People to do away with “income” taxation and repeal the 16th Amendment, which would ironically bring us back to our founding father’s original tax plan. And so, our clever folks in Washington have found a way to make such a large segment of our population impotent____ they have conned the people into thinking a replacement tax plan is needed if the 16th Amendment is repealed, and they have offered various government friendly tax reform plans for the people to argue over as a replacement to income taxation, which separates them into various tax reform advocacy groups and diminishes their overall strength. But the truth is, the only tax reform needed is to return to our Founder’s original tax plan, and that can be accomplished if the people unit and demand their employees add the following words to their Constitution:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay “any” tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

To see what real conservatives in America are promoting with regard to raising a federal revenue, CLICK HERE

For those who are unfamiliar with our Founding Fathers original tax plan, as they intended it to work, a plan which also includes a specific method to extinguish an annual deficit, CLICK HERE and scroll down to :

American Constitutional Research Service Before the
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
June 1995





“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence






.





It seems that we have another John Kurowsky fan here.

Hard to do. Most of the breaks come in the form of defining net income - what counts as income and how expenses may be calculated.

Since these same factors have to be defined for financial reporting, one solution would be to base taxes on profits reported under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Business would hate that, since tax law and regs show much lower profits than those reported to the public.

I would favor such a change because it would raise more or the same revenue at lower rates, and motivate business not to overeport income that they haven't earned yet.

If you want the "income" to be reflected in your stock price (or your financial report to your lenders) , then be prepared to pay taxes on it.

But we get representation, sort of.

We do?





End of hijack.

Fighting accountants with accountants? As long as the average person isn't burdened with more pages of rules and regs I'm in. At the business level I suppose accountants and lawyers are all well and good, but poor people ought not have to spend over $100 just to have a fairly simple form filled out for them.




Less than "sort of" ?

An interesting sales pitch, with incentives that make sense. Of course the politics is another matter altogether.

You've just said sense and politics in the same quote.


Politicians have no incentive to change from the status quo. That's why they're politicians instead of being statesmen. We have but one statesman inside the Beltway, that being Dr. Ron Paul.




BTW, have you ready Edward Ellison and John Kurowski's book on the State Rate Tax Plan? It's quite informative.

For starters, fixing the tax code isn't going to fix the overspending problem. For that, I'd like to see (gradually, so it doesn't sink the economy and allows for somed prepatory real spending cuts) tax rates of whatever kind "floated", so that they automatically adust to collect however much revenue is needed to cover the previous year's spending. The point of doing this would be to retore the relationship to taxes and spending in a way directly impacting, right in their wallets, the general public.

As for raising revenue, my preference is for a real flat tax (one of my own devising, and emphaticallly NOT for a Forbes-stlye plan which isn't "flat" at all, since it excludes many sorts of income, has a rather high deduction, still allows for other forms of taxation, and doesn't address the problem Space pointed out in passing out tax breaks in the form of definitions of income and expenses different from GAAP.

I've lost my own tax plan (it was on my old comp when I donated it), but I'll outline it, and if you want more details, type it out again.

1. It replaces all other forms of Federal taxation (except tarriffs, I'll explain why if you ask), abolishing FICA, corporate income tax, capital gains, inheritance taxes, transportation taxes, "sin taxes"--all of it.

2. It abolishes all deductions. Yes, all of them, even medical expenses and mortgage interest. (We can replace these as outright handouts if we wish, rather than hiding them in the tax code.)

3. It taxes ONLY income received by individuals, and it taxes ALL income received by individuals, of whatever kind, at the same rate, whatever that rate happens to be. (Could be set by Congress, but as noted above, I'd prefer it automatically float.) By all income of whatever kind, I mean fringe benefits, capital gains, inheritances, in-kind income, dividends, any and all. It does NOT tax corporate income, and taxes closely held corps and parnerships and sole propriatorship based on GAAP, based on the same balance sheets and P&L statements one shows to mortgage lenders, which generally reflect a much higher income than that arrived at via Schedule C.

4. It's linked to the grandfathering out of SS and Medicare, and their replaced with a means-tested poverty prevention program and BASIC single-payer UHC admistered at the the state level.

5. I prefer it NOT be made progressive, but begin at first dollar received, with the handouts we will no doubt choose to give being given as exactly that, handouts, to avoid what I see as the biggest flaw in our present system of government finance: The use of the tax code for social engineering and government interference in the free market, with all the evils of lobbying and rent-seeking (as noma calls it) that come with it.

I'm aware of the social and economic disruptions that would result from a complete restructuring of our federal financing (and one hopes, spending), and have given a great deal of thought to how it could be minimized. For one thing, there would be a lot of unemployed accountants and estate planners, the need for such planning having ceased to exist; disruption to the housing market as home ownership ceases to be subsidized; many industries having to restructure thier business models as such incentives as resource depletion allowances gradually fade, until corporate taxation disappears completely.

I'd be happy to explain in greater detail, if the idea of a truly flat intrigues you.

As for "the founder's concept", the founder's concept did not include such things as a standing military, communal infrastructure such as airports and the interstate highway system, or globalized markets. These things could not be supported through the tarriffs and luxury taxes the CONSTITUTIONAL founders enfivioned. And I remind you that allocation of Federal taxation to the states for them to raise as they saw fit was from the Articles of Confederation, and failed, which is why we ended up with the Constution.

The connection is VERY loose.




No, I haven't read it, and chances are the best I will get to do is condensed info on the web. I must admit my interest in taxes have fallen since I quit doing business and no longer have to fill out monthly tax forms and file all sorts of paperwork.

Too bad but I understand. Some say that the next American Revolution (soon, I hope) will be a tax revolution.

This is, by the way, NOT, what the writers of the Constitution meant. It was what failed under the Articles of Conferation. What the constitution said was:



A capitation tax is a per-head-count tax, directly or to be collected by the states, and is the most regressive all possible systems of taxation. Levying a tax of, say $3000 per person per year, whether to be paid "direct" (by each individual) or collected by the states, would be loved by rural areas, and hated by urban areas, and encounter the same problems that occured under the AOC.

Do you have any examples of, since the Constitution, such capitation tax having been levied, and actually collected by the states and paid to the Federal government?

I'm with you Samuel Adams. (Don't think much of your beer though) I have long been an advocate of apportioning Federal revenue requirements to the States to raise as they see fit. Whatever the startup history may have been, all 50 states in a position to collect revenue now. I would also add repeal of the 17th Amendment so that the State legislatures would return to appointing their States Senators who would represent the interests of the States in the Federal government...

I've just gotten to the point I'm tired of the poor who don't pay taxes bitching about the rich getting off easy, and the rich bitching about taxes even though they're rich.

But worst of all is the middle class who bitch more than anyone else even though the system is designed to give them the best deal because they make up most of the voting demographic and demand the most service for the taxes they pay.

Two votes for the status quo???


Agreed along with the Federal Reserve Act. 1913 was a bad year.


One thing that I like about Boortz is that he feels that those non-productive in society should go to the back of the line.


I'm not so sure it is that they bitch more about the system. I think it's that they don't understand the system, even the basic system of government, to get involved.

“One of the Penalties for Refusing to Participate in Politics is that You End Up being Governed By your Inferiors” - Plato

True but they had an understanding and a respect for Federalism. The vast majority of what goes on in the Fedgov belongs to the states or to the people as written in the 10th Amendment. There is also a plan to amend the US Constitution as stated in Article V but that's simply been ignored.

Change is scary.




Enough to get involved and vote for a lot of spending. I'm not sure how much involvement we can afford.

I get your point considering that most people condone and even expect the socialist redistribution of wealth done by the government.

Most only expect it to be redistributed one way.

I admit I'm for some redistribution, but there has to be some limitations on it. There's a reason I can't go all the way and become a real Libertarian, just like I'd never be a real socialist. (even though Libertarian might call me one)

You're the one that harps on unintended consequences. Changing the tax system is a good way to invite in a whole lot of unintended consequences.

As much as everone hates the staus quo, it is progessive. Them graphs that Rush loves to show are generally correct. The favored alternatives, "Flat" and "Fair" rely on over simplification of the issue and will tend to result in a higher burden for the middle class.

None of the real issues as to income measurement are addressed by claiming that one can fill out the back of a post card. Sure, you can do away with the wage earners' deductions, but the real big ones are inherent for the business and investor class.

Take a look at an annual report - all those lines of information and many more that you don't see because they are aggregated there are required to determine profits - income for the tax man.

If we want to cut business and investing, we know how to do it.

(all) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6091100429.html

The issue here was income measurement.


As you can see, it makes a big difference.

The only redistribution that should be done is that which is voluntary through charity and not by the goons from the IRS. Wealth is private property and private property rights are the cornerstone of liberty. I'm not a libertarian, per se. I'm a paleo with a touch of libertarian qualities. I'm for small federal government and states rights.


Like reducing the $9 Trillion National Debt?


It's no wonder US companies are outsourcing. The taxes are killing them.

Yes, but you have to raise a certain amount of revenue and spend less. It's harder than it sounds. People do like their spending.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Everyone benefits from some stability and redistribution. Wealth in reasonable amounts, gained with some restrictions is great. For the most part I don't care how much people make, but in general I figure that when they benefit from the people and the system in the US, they ought to pay into the kitty to keep things going.




I understand, and I'm glad to see the view represented here. I'm a moderate on fiscal issues, but don't tell the lefties that, because they'd have nothing of it.

US corporations don't pay sheit. That what the Cayman's are for. If you want to cheat the federal government the Bush administration will actually help.

How bout all those Estate tax investigators they fired?

Here Adams, for the socialist view.

It's more like they like their free stuff starting with the socialist troika of Medicare, Medicaid, and Socialist Security.

Agreed. I think we already have all the social programs we need (and some we don't), but we do benefit from some. Yes, gubment interference with the market means less production, but I think we have a healthy balance.

Here is an example. Ford is closing several plants, one of them in Atlanta. Instead of keeping this plant alive, Georgia is giving Kia tax breaks to open up a new plant near Columbus, GA. I'm not sure if the Fedgov is giving more tax breaks. I don't have the facts on that one. In the meantime, Ford is moving plants to Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and wherever else because of both cheap labor and lower taxes.

And government healthcare.

Can't forget that bonus.

There's nothing free about Social Security. Lower wage workers benefit slightly more than the highest wage workers, but the program itself has been more than self funded by the SS tax from its begining.

Medicare and Medicaid are a different deal, since they rely on general revenues.


I think you will find that wages are a bigger factor than tax rates. Some plants are moved to developing markets in order to serve those markets as well.

Everybody benefits except for the people that Uncle Sugar takes from to give to others. Don't tell me that you wouldn't get pissed if somebody walked into your house without permission, went to the fridge, made a sandwich and took it to somebody down the street. What the Fedgov is doing is no different. If I wanted to take somebody down the street some food is one thing. I shouldn't have to.

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'" --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:466

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents" -- James Madison

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything you have.“ – Thomas Jefferson

Well for the time being the edmographics have been working out. In the out years with the current dempgraphic trend, and look at other industrialized nations who are already there, there is a problem. This is not the place for the lowest workers taxed to pay the largest benefit to the wealthiest seniors while 10% of seniors on SS and SSI remain below poverty line discussion.

It will never go away (though it might go broke), so you might as well work on accomplishing the possible.

That's a bonus??? Government is so big now that it can't tie its own shoe laces without tripping over itself. Just look at what happened with the Homeland Insecurity Department and Katrina not to mention the fiasco that's become the Medicare Drug Bill.

While I favor States billed for Fed Gov plan and I also had another plan last year I will have to look up on the Board, I am currently on the John Galt plan. They can't tax the taxable income I don't earn and they don't tax the non-taxable income I do earn.

An optimist, I see.

I doubt the founders would have supported a worldwide deployment of US troops, foreign aid, agribusiness subsidies, or a lot of other things either.

I don't doubt that you are correct in your assumption.

I'd like to see some cost/benefit analysis on programs, dump some and hold taxes where they are while letting the economy grow so as to slowly balance the budget. Then slowly move toward self-sufficiency in private SS accounts with maybe some VERY low base benefit added in.

Medicare, medicade and problems of that ilk are a whole nuther problem.

I try.

I suspect we're going to be getting our fiscal house in order when the Chinese cut up our credit cards a few years from now. The hard way.

You mistake my meaning.



The bonus is for the companies who leave the United States to set up in a country with national healthcare. If they don't have to cover that, health benefits it's a humongous bonus and and one hell of an incentive to leave our country.