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. But as far as I am concerned that is simply not the issue. I am not interested in improving the current system. I am interested in destroying the current system because its philosophy is unfair and anti-freedom at its core. The flat tax system still gives the state a right to take by force what people produce, giving them no control or choice in the matter. The flat tax also requires a gargantuan bureaucracy that by force maintains the ability to pry into private lives, threatening individuals and corporations with audits, liens on private property and a host of other intrusive actions. The flat tax is the leftist's third best dream, next to the present system. By taxing consumption, all of this is removed, while the natural inclination to save and invest is left unharmed.
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. When a family is poor, any increase, whether spread out over four quarters, stolen from a weekly salary check or paid in a lump sum out of income, is an extraordinary burden. With a consumption tax, poor people can decide for themselves whether they wish to pay taxes on Cheetos or rice. Either way, the tax gets paid and the impact to the family is relatively minimal.
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. This is not the issue. 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.
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. I reject it practically. Without cutting expenditures, few people relative to today will benefit of the flat tax or consumption tax because overall effective tax revenue levels must still be maintained. This means ever increasing taxes, whether flat or otherwise. Nothing gets fixed. Since I think revenues from a suitable consumption tax, one people will accept, would be too low to maintain our current spending rate, I think a change in the country's fundamental spending philosophy would be required.
States and localities get their money from: property taxes, sales taxes, fees.
Property taxes ought not exist in the first place.
(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. States consist of people, many of whom vote. If the public can be helped to understand the available options, it can vote itself a proper structure.
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. That ought not be. If some tax officials have the idea that they should add a consumption tax to the current system rather than change spending philosophy, well, they are not with the program. This is no commentary on the consumption tax itself.
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.
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.
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. |
