[There will always be 'compliance issues' under ANY system of taxes... but under a simpler, fairer, less complex system (as I'm advocating with the elimination of nearly all loopholes, the lowering of rates, and taxing of all income regardless of source) we should see both FEWER compliance issues, and less cheating.]
"I do not doubt that a flat tax, or even a flatter tax would be better than the current system."
Good, since EVERY SINGLE ONE INTRODUCED AROUND THE WORLD OVER THE LAST DECADE OR SO HAS DEMONSTRATED VERY GOOD RESULTS.
"But as far as I am concerned that is simply not the issue."
LOL!!!! (Yeah... fairer, simpler, more efficient, and less economically destructive shouldn't factor into our thinking at all!!!!!! Ha!)
"The flat tax system still gives the state a right to take by force what people produce"
Well, DUH! That's the definition of taxes!
"The flat tax also requires a gargantuan bureaucracy"
Wrong!!!!!! It's the multiplicity of loopholes that requires a large bureacracy. A flat tax system with only a loophole for charitable contributions and a home mortgage deduction could result in the elimination of about 90% of the IRS's positions.
A consumption tax, on the other-hand, would require a HUGE new bureaucracy to enforce.
[Hey, YOU are the one who suggested that tax filers would get hit with large lump sum payments due --- I never said that, because I believe it would not happen. Such a result is ridiculous.]
"It is not ridiculous."
Of course it is! (The system of payroll deductions would function the same as it does now.)
"With a consumption tax, poor people can decide for themselves whether they wish to pay taxes on Cheetos or rice."
Oh YEAH!!!!! We REALLY want people deciding what to eat (or WHEN to eat) based on a complicated federal system of taxes and exemptions!!!!! You must LOVE huge bureaucracies and federal intrusion into every private economic act.
"Either way, the tax gets paid and the impact to the family is relatively minimal."
NOTHING is 'minimal' if it has to finance the entire federal government!
[Wrong. Consumption taxes are some of the most complicated taxes in operation anywhere... with AMPLE incentives for cheating, evasion, phony books, blackmarket activities, etc.]
"Of course these incentives would still exist under a flat tax system."
Incentives for tax cheating are FAR LESS under any reasonably simple flat rate system (assuming reasonably low tax rates). EVERY SINGLE ONE ENACTED has demonstrated this beneficial effect. How do you argue with proven success?
"From both the consumer's and corporation's perspectives, the consumption tax is far simpler than the flat tax and that alone will cause greater compliance."
HaHaHaHaHaHaHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ONE WORD: blackmarket!
[Cutting spending AND simplifying and making fairer the entire tax system are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE goals... in fact, they are mutually REINFORCING goals.]
"I don't disagree with this technically."
That's good... since it's self-evident.
"Without cutting expenditures, few people relative to today will benefit...."
I agree. The growth of government continues at an alarming rate... but it cannot logically ever reach 100% of the GNP, so it MUST hit a ceiling (or, better still: fall) at some point.
[States and localities get their money from: property taxes, sales taxes, fees.]
"Property taxes ought not exist in the first place."
A philosophical argument that has raged for hundreds of years.
[They have historically opposed EVERY effort to impose federal sales taxes, and, I predict they will continue to do so.]
"Perhaps, but we ought not abandon a fine idea simply because someone opposes it."
Someone???????? Try: 50 States, and *countless* localities. How do you propose that they pay for schools, fire departments, water and sewer? Is the federal government going to pick up the tab and abolish local government? (LOL, I THINK NOT....)
[Furthermore --- in many taxer's minds, imposition of a national consumption tax does not 'eliminate' the income tax... it's layered-on as a 'suppliment' to the income tax. IMO, that's a DANGEROUS expansion of federal taxing authority, that produces a HUGE expansion of the bureaucracy.]
"This is no argument. A flat tax system would be amazingly intrusive, allowing the government to track the actual income of individuals."
Negative. the federal government ALREADY TRACKS income... but they DO NOT currently track the imposition of sales taxes on HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of transactions, at EVERY LEVEL of the distribution chain.
THAT WAY lies the creation of the LARGEST FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY in the history of the world.
[LOL!!!!!! (The wealthy are not 'required' to consume anything...]
"What you are saying here is that the wealthy are not required to eat, buy clothing, fuel for their autos, factories, buy computers, supplies for their businesses, etc. Obvious nonsense."
(The only 'obvious nonsense' was your use of the word "REQUIRED".)
[in fact: the percentage of their incomes on average that they choose to invest - over spending - is far higher then the percent invested by the middle class or poor.]
"Irrelevant. The lifestyle differences between wealthy and poor would in simple terms mean the wealthy would pay more than the poor."
It is QUITE RELEVANT if you wish to consider the equity of the federal tax burden (as any good government should). And, OF COURSE the 'rich' would pay a higher gross amount of taxes then the poor under such a system --- JUST AS THEY ALSO DO NOW UNDER OUR CURRENT SYSTEM! Never-the-less, as a percentage of income (or as a percentage of family wealth... slice it any way you want to) a consumption tax-financed federal revenue system would be TREMENDOUSLY less progressive then even our current sad-sack of a tax system... shifting much more of the tax load to poorer families.
[And... how many millions of bureaucrats will be required to support the system? How large will 'off-the-register' transactions and the black markets grow?]
"It does not have to grow any larger than it is currently, provided the consumption tax is made very low by an alteration in spending philosophy."
HaHaHaHaHaHA!!!!!!!!!!
And, as long as you are ASSUMING things not in evidence... why not *assume* that pigs can fly, so we can all have bacon in the sky?
Furthermore... whatever makes you think that if the Feds get a slice of every transaction in the country (and issue a blizzard of loopholes for their favored campaign-contributor-constituents) that they won't always seek to rachet-up their slice of the action... once they are in the game of tracking EVERY TRANSACTION???????
You must TRUST BUREAUCRATS a Hell of a lot more then I do! |
