Reduce the spending!! A simplified tax system would be nice ... BUT A couple of issues I see. Unless there is some type of progress element then it will never sell with the vast majority of Americans the minute they figure out they would pay even more taxes then they currently do. Unless the government reduces spending to a level where they need less taxes, they will find a way, through other taxes to make up the difference. Income tax, sales tax, property tax, FICA, and so many other taxes ... it is hard to keep track of all the different ways I pay taxes! Getting rid of the IRS ... now that is a dream regardless of what tax system is put in place. As a business owner, I deal with state tax collectors when it come to sales tax collection to forwarding to the state ... just like the IRS. If America went to a salex tax or flat tax then some indivduals would look for new ways to cheat. Either the rest of us pay more to make up for the non-payers or some government agency (IRS?!?) has to handle that function. I'm not a big fan if the IRS or paying lots of taxes, but I do see a certain needs for government ... but a government that lives within its means would sure be nice change.
Some of the presidential candidates have advocated spending billions on a wide variety of social programs. Hmmmmm... Lets see, I think this would be their idea of a tax form that you would fill out every year. It would only have one line... Line 1. How much income did you make from all sources? ____________ Make your check payable in the amount of line 1 to the US Treasury and send it in...:eek:
I don't think the Fair/Flat tax systems will ever work as I think we miss what taxing "TODAY" is truly about. As long as we use the reason for taxing is someone hurting, we'll never see a real balance. Only temporary paper/fictional surpluses. Think about it, if you were in debt last year and in debt again this year should you run a small surplus the next year, you're still in debt! And it's this very time that the numb nuts that we put in office want to add new programs. But that's what happens when you elect folks based on bring home bacon and not actually paying bills. And even when they get there saying the right things, that is quickly surpressed and changed by the old guard who MUST continue their self-importance stances. Now, after saying that I don't think this is the reason that the proposed systems will not pass/work or be enacted. The basis for my opinion is the "Impression & Opression Factor." Today we are constantly told that the rich don't pay their fair share. In a consumption based setup, the wealthy will further accelerate the so-called gap between the rich and poor. Actually, it will be on steroids. If I'm to understand it properly, everyone will be taxed at the time of infraction, the same amounts? So a guy who earns $60k wil pay the same tax on the new $35k car as the guy who earns $250k? Doesn't bother me in the least there. But what will the politicians do when the pundents now start talking about the $70k in capital that the guy no longer has to send to the government? Should he choose not to spend it for four years he'll be widening his asset base and be stabilizing himself, but the poor guy who is not saving his cash will not be climbing the ladder. Or at least won't be climbing it fast enough. The rich (smart) will be getting richer at the supposed expense of the poor again. And what happens when the political idiots outspend the tax revenues then? Will the lie be that folks will start consumin' again and the budget will balance? We'll still be told that a single earner household with three kids won't be able to afford XXX with their income and that we need to have more compassion. Will we be told that the government must send them YYY dollars every quarter to help them out? And when will any of this make the politicians stay within the then "set-in-stone" budget guidelines? It's a stupid concept put together by those phantom experts again. Whatever you do, don't believe the hype!!!
It's obvious that some of you have not even taken the time to read The Fair Tax, by Neal Boortz & John Linder. I think most reasonably intelligent people, if they took the time to understand it, would find the Fair Tax to be one of the best ideas to come around in a long time. Understand this first, the Fair Tax is revenue neutral. It is not designed to balance the budget. The idea is to GREATLY simplify the tax code and rid us of the IRS and all the nonsense that goes with it. Balancing the budget should be completely separate. One thing at a time. Completely changing the way the federal government collects taxes is big enough to tackle by itself. Hell, just this one part of it alone, makes me love it. Every illegal alien and every visitor to this country would be helping to pay our SS & Med. tax and federal taxes. Every time they buy a Wendy's burger and Coke........ cha-ching, thank you very much.
But under this scenario, what if the rich guy owns a business? Would he not have more money to create new jobs? I believe this was part of the Reaganomics economic theory called trickle down economics. Right? And, yes the government could offer tax rebates to the poor guy to level the playing field a little. And, when the government starts spending more than what they are taking in, won't they start borrowing money like they always do? So what's the difference? No, the government's receiving revenues under the fair tax system should give them incentive to cut wasteful government spending anyway. The post above from Alpine is excellent. I toldly agree with him.
And, let not forget about the taxes that would be collected from all of the illegal activities in this country. I would think the government would have much more to spend under the fair tax system thereby having more money to fund the various social programs also. Win-Win. In my opinion.
Interesting debate here. First, what if he didn't create new jobs at a government acceptable rate? What if he just became more efficient and spent less? There's always a rub from folks who don't understand many business models that never comes to a complete agreement of the right way to go about this whole thing. As a business owner (a couple of 'em), I don't need more employees to increase my cashflows. Or I should say, the ratio of worker-to-income is not a straight line. There always a sense of mindset to create jobs, create jobs. Technology sometimes does not need new jobs to be effective in the business model. So the assumption here doesn't fit seemlessly. And trickle down was more a function of the wealthy SPENDING their capital, not creating jobs. The tips, the extra purchases, the upgrading of goods, hardware and options on the purchases made the trickle effect spread. Now that did require the poor/needy to be out there pitching. And therein lies the rub for many. And no, the government shouldn't offer rebates just because the person can't do as much as they'd like. There should not be a government "Feel Good Stipend' just because. That's not a good way to, as you say, level the playing field. One person earns $40k, another earns $75k, yet another earns $250k. That's the world! You can't just start writing checks. And in that same universe are those earning $17.5k, and they are a reality. The true answer, while simple and complex, is one that most do not care to accept. And they need your sorrow! Government spending more than they have? Therein is the root of most of the trouble. Budgets can balance! It's called spend only what you have in house! Period! Will it happen? Not as long as WE continue to allow them to play on heartstrings and sympathy as the basis for over-spending. The public doesn't have the balls to stop them yet. But will they ever? And somehow we are to BELIEVE that because it's now going to be a Fair Tax System that they'd adhere to spending limits? That the shortfalls will just go away? The ebbs and flows of the market and economy won't cause a glitch that we need to overlook because we are a caring and loving peoples? PAAAA--Leeeeeese! And let us not factor in government corruption, mortgage bailouts, banking troubles, housing slowdowns, wall street jitters....the need to save social security. And have you noticed that administrative costs are never even close to target. But they'll start now with Fair Taxes I'm sure.