Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (666671)	1/3/2005 3:08:47 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

[That's the idea. All income treated the same.] "That's fine, but I think as long as people's productivity is taxed, the burden will be felt more acutely by the poor than by anyone else and we will still continue to have compliance issues." 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 --- as that has been the clear result in every single nation that has moved to flat rate, simplified national tax systems in recent years. [Why? Wouldn't payroll deduction be operated the same as now?] "It is quite a lot to expect of folks who typically pay no taxes. In addition to the considerable challenges already before them, you are demanding that they pay chunks of their money to the government four times a year," 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. Overall, rates (or 'rate') would average LOWER then they are now, because most of the compliance costs would be removed from the system (over $300 Billion per year currently...), most of the loopholes to be axed disproportionately benefit the highest income filers anyway. "Taxing consumption and not income could put everyone on an equal footing, at least legislatively, while also radically simplifying the tax code." Wrong. Consumption taxes are some of the most complicated taxes in operation anywhere... with AMPLE incentives for cheating, evasion, phony books, blackmarket activities, etc. [Reduce wasteful government spending: Certainly an excellent solution under nearly any circumstances, but the two are not mutually exclusive.] "Perhaps not where the flat tax is concerned." Cutting spending AND simplifying and making fairer the entire tax system are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE goals... in fact, they are mutually REINFORCING goals. [The States and localities will never allow the Feds to horn in on one of their primary sources of revenue.] "I don't see why not, especially if it meant the total elimination of the income tax and the gigantic federal bureaucracy required to maintain it." States and localities get their money from: property taxes, sales taxes, fees. (They have historically opposed EVERY effort to impose federal sales taxes, and, I predict they will continue to do so. 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.) [Actually, it's exactly the OPPOSITE! The wealthy 'consume' at a far lower rate (proportionate to their income) then do the poor... the wealthy invest at a higher rate.] "Well, I am not really concerned about the consumption to income ratio." (I guess not, since it tilts in the opposite direction from that that you stated.... :) "I think in simple terms wealthy people are required to consume more than the poor" LOL!!!!!! (The wealthy are not 'required' to consume anything... 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.) "It really is a matter of how the tax is applied and to what it is applied." [Well... if you are going to have a LONG list of special exemptions, special rates, and other loopholes... then I fear 'consumption taxes' will be an even bigger mess, and drain on the citizen's wealth, and a bigger enabler of government bureaucracy and tax evasion... then what we have now.] "I doubt it. The list needs not be long at all, essentially giving Americans incentives to simplify their consumption while giving a break to the poor." 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?