Colin, how the heck can I pick a decent fight if you keep
agreeing with me? <GG>
Maybe it's just my nature, but I read an entirely different
set of ideas in your last couple of posts than your
earlier ones.
My idea of a flat tax implementation is exactly that; no
exceptions. (I DON'T mean that the cost of producing
income should be taxed.)
You imply -- heck you
outright state -- that that is not what flat tax advocates
are after. I don't doubt that there are lots of
agendas going under that name, though I have no direct
evidence of that either. But, correct me if I've misread
you again, you seem to be imputing that to ALL flat tax
ideas. I could quote several statements that sound this
way to me, such as this from your lasted post:
All the talk is to raise MONEY for those touting the Flat Tax. Many
people will actually vote for those politicians because they praise the flat tax / NST.
Many others will actually send their money as contributions to various
Flat Tax organization on the Internet. The more $$$ they send, the
more $$$ the "officers" will have to spend on salaries and perks!
Not to deny this as an issue, it is. But it's not the WHOLE issue,
nor does it automatically make everyone favoring a flat tax
a member of the "officers" club. Sorry if you didn't mean that;
it's the way what you've posted reads to me.
Fundamentally, I and (I believe)
many if not most flat-tax advocates see it as an easily grasped
concept which if ACTUALLY implemented would end the governments'
social engineering and tinkering (in tax policy,
anyhow), simply because there's no wiggle room.
It's plain when the tinker toys come out. In addition,
it would relieve the high cost the tax code imposes in
itself.
It's not a panacea; the tax code is certainly not ONLY problem;
government can still do lots of harm and no doubt will. But
if the tax code isn't the only government tool that's misused,
it's one DAMN big stick.
"Tax related work" about 45%.
Of that 45% tax work the LION'S SHARE would be CORPORATE
WORK, and that of HIGH NET-WORTH INDIVIDUALS. It is my
GUESS that the 1040 work that would "fit on a postcard" might be 2% of the CPA's profession.
So what do the CPA firms DO 43% of the time in tax work for
corporations and high net worth individuals? Why would not
the bulk of that go away if a genuine, no-kidding flat tax
were implemented? This is a genuine question. I'm not
asking for a detailed list but rather a characterization of
the activity. I have no idea what it might consist of if
it's not to take maximum advantage of/minimize harm from,
the hyper-complex tax code. I'm assuming that real cost
accounting (determining the bottom line from the
top line accurately) is part of the other 55%, yes?
IT IS A LONG WAY OFF IF EVER
THAT WE WILL SEE ANY ELIMINATION OF TAXES AS
YOU'VE DESCRIBED AND A LOT CAN HAPPEN TO THE CPA
PROFESSION BY THEN.
That's the gist of it, though. Like the coach-fitters,
you find useful work if your once-useful livelihood goes
bye-bye. I'm a hell of an assembler-language programmer.
It doesn't sound like either one of us have any illusions
about how likely it is, either.
As to my earlier statement about "fixed pie argument", I
simply meant that your statement to the effect that "somebody
has to pay the taxes you don't" assumes that my proprtion of
income paid in taxes gets smaller, (and tax revenue is fixed)
then someone else's proportion has to rise. No, if the
economy expands (which lower and fairer taxes have done
historically, and it DID happen under Reagan), we can BOTH
pay a smaller proportion while the greedy government gets
as big a rake (in constant dollars). Takes a while. In
fact, IMO Clinton is enjoying the rake from Reagan's programs
right now (while, of course, taking credit while he tries
his darndest to dismantle it).
It seems to me that we are actually standing pretty close
together while shouting off in oblique directions (talking at
cross-purposes I mean). Most of the time, anyhow.
Spots |
