Mike Huckabee had the fair tax idea,,no more irs,,i just paid over hundreds to have someone do my taxes then sent off a check to unca sammy for money owed. His idea of 15% is sound, this would bring in all the underground economy money,,heck we could pay for free health care just with that additional revenue. Special interest would never allow the 66,000 pages of tax code to be done away with,,they spent to much money on getting these provisions wrote, as grown ups we all realize that,,
This is mentioned a lot as a reason for lowering taxes, but I have a feeling that a lot of people who pay 0% in taxes now will not pay the 15% tax anyway. Is there any evidence that the number of people who would start paying taxes if taxes were lowered would be enough to offset the lost taxes on the honest taxpayers?
Huckabee did not have a fair tax idea, it was Neal Boortz. Buy the books. It is the only idea that will work. But the Government will never go for it because taxes are a control over the people and the fair tax puts the control in the peoples hands.
A) I never implied to defend AMT or anything of the sort. B) You are trying to using the concept of morality when it comes to the US Federal Government? Come on. C) My attitude sucks? Based on what I said, lol? I guess if you view it that way, I would rather have a sucky attitude than be in denial.
That's the point of having a consumption tax. Those currently evading taxes would have them collected automatically. And a broader and more consistent tax base should allow for lower tax rates.
Actually Neal Boortz wrote the FairTax book, but its not his idea. After Mike Huckabee becomes vice-president, you'll be hearing alot more about the FairTax.
I don't trust the government to implement a consumption tax. My feeling is that we would eventually end up with an income and consumption tax.
The AMT not be very popular is a help in getting tax reform along the radical reform lines the OP suggests as it and 99% of all the current tax code has been eliminated in the suggested tax code, which treats everyone exactly the same. As far as the argument between the "tax and spend" people and the "tiny government is good government" people is concerned, the proposed simple tax code of the OP is neutral. It is designed so as to make it easy and simple for congress to fund its expenditures by simply changing one or more numerical coefficients in the simple "You owe" tax formula given in the OP. The intent was to try to move towards a "pay-as-you-go" financing (at least in peace time when this should be possible) If each generation places greater debt burden (and associated interest charges) on the next and also consumes the more cheaply produced minerals, including petroleum, then the termination of this process is rather obvious. Fact that it is easy for Congress to increase taxes by simple change of a coefficient tends to temp them to add programs (and associated tax increase) but the fact that everyone not only feels the pain immediately (Instead of their not yet born grand children) but also see exactly (high transparency in the formula) how Congress is taxing them more, makes it more difficult for Congress to add programs of little common benefit.
"Ain't necessarily so." For example I am a retired US citizen, but I no longer live in USA. I would not even be cheating when I pay no taxes on my US investment earnings under a pure consumption tax. The OP's tax plan taxes every US citizen by the same simple formula, regardless of where they retire. (and taxes all the non-citizens (resident aliens) living in the US, (if IRS knows they are there.)