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: JDN who wrote (710758)	11/3/2005 6:46:34 AM
From: CYBERKEN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

The two insurmountable obstacles to flat tax reform are the much-beloved and poorly-understood mortgage deduction, and the insistence by every pin head who has ever worked on the flat tax that it be a double-digit tax or fiscal disaster will follow. One good solution I have heard is that the FT could be voluntary, if the taxpayer signs off on a side-by-side computation of his tax under the new and old methods. Few (though some) would elect the higher number, and a flat tax under 10% would create so much prosperity and revenue that the government would be looking to cut AGAIN within 5 years. A lessor though efficient solution would be the "Capital Formation Act of 2006", which permanently sets all taxes on capital formation: dividends, interest, capital gains, and corporate GAAP-calculated net income, at 5%. The ensuing prosperity would finally drive the soak-the-rich demagogues out of the public ideas marketplace...

To: JDN who wrote (710758)	11/3/2005 8:40:17 AM
From: HPilot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I dont have a mortgage at all, but I think to keep an INCOME tax and do away with mortgage and r/e tax deductions is awful. If they reduce the rate about 25% or so, then I would be better off without the deduction and with the rate cut. Though someone with a larger mortgage might not agree. But it does create artificial economics, and therefore the deduction should go.

To: JDN who wrote (710758)	11/3/2005 3:09:07 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

"If they wish to go that route we ought to have a FLAT TAX PERIOD" Just watch out for how your define income. Some people (think Buddy) call any transfers of money income. Earn once, tax many.

To: JDN who wrote (710758)	11/3/2005 4:33:45 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769667

"Frankly, my impression of the recommendations of this panel are that THEY STINK." I think there are some very good ideas in the Bush Commission plans, and some really poor ideas. Neither proposal is very much worth enacting as they stand, but the best ideas from each could be pulled out to make a very good tax plan --- if they only had the guts! "I dont have a mortgage at all, but I think to keep an INCOME tax and do away with mortgage and r/e tax deductions is awful." Mortgages occupy a special place in America (I get that...), but in principle, I DON'T think the government should favor one form of asset accumulation over any others. If the government isn't giving an equal tax break for RETAINED EARNINGS, for EQUITY ISSUANCE, for DEBT ISSUANCE (for corporations and individuals, same / same)... then they shouldn't be in the business of favoring DEBT over all other forms of financing. The government --- through it's tax policies --- should be NEUTRAL in the matter. "If they wish to go that route we ought to have a FLAT TAX PERIOD and just base it on gross income less maybe extreme health costs or something like that with a nice big deductible to protect low income persons. jdn" I AGREE COMPLETELY. ALL INCOME (regardless of source) should be taxed at exactly the same flat rate --- with the bare minimum of loopholes/'special tax preference items'/exceptions, etc. --- which should apply to ALL regular individuals and all corporates (which are considered 'individuals with infinite life' under US law...) If it becomes necessary to vary slightly from one flat rate (out of political necessity to get the plan passed), then a modest number of closely-compressed rates (like the two rate CATO plan below) would be an acceptable compromise: cato.org