It's way past time to Abolish the IRS

It would be possible Theoretically to have a simplified PROGRESSIVE income tax that cost most people less money.

If they made it simple enough that there were no loop holes, thene those who pay an unrepresentative share for their level of income would have to pay - easing the total burdon on everyone else.

I wouldnt know what the actual numbers would look like. But in total dollars if it started at 0% income tax at minimum wage and ended at 30% at 100,000+ a year it probably would be a decent amount of money - just to totally Guesstimate.

With a lower top rate it would ease some of what some higher wage earners are paying now/ while making those who currently benefit from Tax Shelters pay more.

I consider myself a liberal, but I strongly believe that progressive or graduated taxation is immoral. Successful people are essentially made slaves of the collective as a punishment for being successful. Because of this they use their power and sway to create loopholes and cheat the system leaving a disproportionate burden on the middle class. The only fair form of taxation is one where everyone pays the same amount of tax on every dollar they earn. Period. A consumption tax instead of an income tax seems like the fairest form of taxation possible. You choose how much to contribute by deciding how much to consume above and beyond the basic necessities of food, shelter, and education. No tax should be levied on anyone before they've provided those basics for themselves

Pragmatism is so ugly. How about do what is Right, and if people are too dumb to do the same (eg avoid violent conflict) well then.... that's just people for you. Deal with it. But first do Right.

Even if your assertion is true and the burden would be shifted, the answer is not to keep doing what is wrong, or what is immoral as Chip states. Perhaps you should instead consider ways to decrease the "burden" for everyone. (that is, cut fed spending) Unjustly placing the burden on those who are less likely to create violent conflict in response is not the right answer, although it may make you feel warm and fuzzy in your pragmatism.

There's nothing unjust about taxing the rich more heavily than the poor. You do not become rich in a vacuum. You become rich because society enables you to, providing you transportation infrastructure, a well-regulated market, security from angry poor people, loan guarantees, protections for your savings and investments, etc., etc. The price for that is a greater obligation to provide for the general welfare than Joe Paycheck has.

If you feel no obligation to contribute to the general welfare, then go re-read the Constitution. Maybe this isn't the right nation for your needs. There are plenty of countries that shuffle the poor off to shanty-towns and tax the rich not a cent (save for the customary bribes). Of course, the roads suck and with no public health you may catch one of the periodic pandemics... but there are always trade-offs.

Umm... you just made that up. Says WHO? You can't just decide this and it be true. Nor can a large group of likeminded people decide this and thus say it is true.

You ought not desire to rig the system so that it meets your desires concerning your own definition of fairness.

Everyone playing by equal rules is evidently fair. No gaming and rigging the system necessary. This way we don't have to worry about different groups and special interests seeking to rig the system to promote their values. (such as those you so clearly state in your post) Just because you think the wealthy owe more than their fair share back doesn't make it so. Keep your values to yourself. Stop shoving them down the throats of the rest of us.



Yeah, that made no sense. Your efforts to distract and mislead readers (and the populace) with lines such as "There are plenty of countries that shuffle the poor off to shanty-towns" are fooling fewer and fewer of them by the day.

I think most of us here are aware that we are discussing reformed and new taxation systems. No one is considering or discussing shuffling the poor off elsewhere and not taxing the wealthy. In fact, those of us who admire the FairTax idea are precisely for avoiding classifications of people. And for elimination of systems that tax different GROUPS of people in different ways.

People are people are people are people. Try thinking this way for a change. You might like it. It will alleviate your guilty conscience a little, perhaps.

Actually Arcadia's post was very well written and fair - it is the reason a Progressive income tax was used in the first place.

The only fair way is for the rich to pay more than the poor , becuase the poor need to survive.

Its also the only way the system can survive. If you use a flat tax across all income levels it directly reduces the income the poor have to live on.

Directly reducing poor people's standard of living to allow for more disposable income for the wealthy is basically opression, and can - and has - led to riots, revolts, revolutions.

NOW - an effort to make it so people who are better off pay a More FAIR ammount compared to each other - seems a valuable one to me.

I see no reason Person A making 100,000$ a yeah should pay 35,000$ in taxes while person B makeing $100,000 payes only $20,000 or Person C making $200,000 payes only $15,000

The tax shelters and loops holes basically mean many sucessful people pay unfair shares compated to other sucessful people - and that is wrong.

Reducing this effect could allow tax burden on those sucessful people who pay more - I think this benifits everyone.

In addition Coorporations are the same - some pay more their fair share than others. THese loopholes need to be adressed as well.

The obligation of the rich to provide for the poor dates back to pre-agricultural societies. Some tribes measure status exclusively in terms of not how much a person has, but how much that person gives away. In medieval Europe, the obligation was referred to as "noblesse oblige" and referred to the duty of the nobility to provide for the peasantry. In the modern world, most industrialized nations require MUCH MORE of the wealthy in terms of taxation than the United States. The duty to "provide for the general welfare" is written into the Preamble of the Constitution as one of the reasons for its very existance.

So no, I didn't just "make it up". It's a universally-recognized principle of governance... except to the very greedy and the very corrupt.

It seems self-evident to me that those who get the most out of the system ought to be the ones putting the most back in.

Or in the words of one of those rich folks:

Don't have time now, but I look forward to responding to the last couple of posts and smashing them to smitherines.


-It is absolutely certain that only the Sith believe in and deal in absolutes....oh, whoops!

Considering you're arguing against about 7,000 years worth of history, good luck.

LF

I should bail out of this flaming heap, but I'm starting to see this idea as a possible improvement... still skeptical, but it's interesting.

Of course I'm not gonna read nuffin about it until I have extra free time. Reading about tax law ranks about the same level of importance as checking the bulk junk mail part of my email inbox, so once I'm about to do that maybe I'll do some reading instead. lol

LF, LF, LF.... history has nothing to do with values statements and propositions made by those on this forum, which is the core issue here: The values and religious beliefs of some citizens who wish said values to be incorporated and interwoven into tax policy. More to come...

Great; now we're going to hear the "Godful Preachers are Corrupting our Society" angle.

Won't somebody THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!?!

Your favorite Deist,

LF

Dignity of Humans and their right to a living wage is not a religeous belief.

Basicaly thats what were talking here - some have less ability to pay on a PROPORTIONAL basis.

they shouldnt have to.

The one who can , but dont. - Such as two peopel making $200,000 a year with different tax burdens - those are the ones i think deserve more fairness.

Any tax where someone of lower income pays more compared to their cost of living than the weathy incomes - is inherently unfair.

Wasn't the point of the "rebates" to negate the fact that low income earners are suddenly paying massive sales tax? If the poverty level numbers are correct (which I'm pretty certain they currently are not, it'd need to be fixed), and rebates are given (uniformly I guess?) to everyone, doesn't it work out?

I don't get why ya'll are still arguing that anyone with a low income loses out, and about all this "fairness" stuff...did I miss a post?

Any extra money that low income earners are paying in sales tax would be refunded fully--monthly (yearly wouldn't cut it). Anyone spending much more than the minimum amount to buy stuff would still get the same cost-of-living type refund, but compared to what they paid in sales tax it'd only be a part--in some cases a tiny fraction.

There IS some other major concerns I'd still have about it, but I don't think the distribution of wealth is the big issue if I understand the system right (entirely possible I don't ).

actually i think your right - but right now we have a graduated income tax (albeit with too many loopholes) what they are discussing is a flat tax

Well actually the flat tax and the fairtax are both options on the table for new tax law.

From what I've read, the flat tax will mesh easily enough with our current system and be much like PA's state tax (every is taxed the same rate on their income). Also I'm told that under a certain level of income pays no tax, like our current system. However, may various forms of shelters, loopholes, special interest incentives and additional taxes will still exist at various governmental levels.

From what I understand of the fairtax, many things need to be done to completely revamp the system before it will work properly. IF they can all be done, it is a much better system in my opinion. Unfortunately the revamp involved would require the appeal of the amendment that allows taxation of income, the removal of other tax systems, the unification of tax code across state and local levels, and the ability of local, state, and federal government to all follow the same tax guidelines that a federal governmental body sets up.

So while the fairtax does seem a much, much better system, I am betting on nationwide socialized healthcare before we ever see it.

The most amusing part about this is, on the subject of FairTax, I have now been called both a liberal and a conservative for thinking it a good idea. In both cases the person saying the word meant it offensively somehow. lol.

Harnessing the power of three parallel cat brains, the great experiment will shortly return to teach us how to fold socks.

~Ulrika~

The only flat tax that would really work without reaming the working class would be a flat payroll tax... and even then you'd probably want to gradiate it a little just to encourage small businesses. With a payroll tax, instead of taxing thousands of employees for a major corporation, you're taxing one number - the total payroll. That increases the efficiency of the process enormously. Companies can choose how to absorb that cost - those that lower wages as a result will become less competitive in the labor market and at any rate cannot go lower than the minimum wage, giving minimum-wage workers a significant boost to their take-home pay. Include rules to prevent abuse of "self-employed contractor" status (a dodge currently abused by, among others, certain game companies) and you're set.

Along with the payroll tax, I would keep a tax on income derived from non-employment sources, such as capital gains (outside of retirement accounts), inheritance, loan interest, rentals, etc. Most citizens wouldn't have to deal with these taxes at all, and those that do are those deriving the most benefit from the social contract.

Doesn't matter anyway. Anyone who "paid into" congress to have their personal/corporate/industry loophole added to the books (so they could pay less) will be against any form of change.

And how can we blame them for feeling this way? They should be allowed to get a return on their investment, right?


(italics = sarcasm)

I concur with this. The problem is, this system MAY be better than our current, but I suspect that nobody is prepared for the cost of implementing it, which I guarantee will be much higher than you'd guess. A flat tax, I guess, would be easier to implement...but I'm not sure it's the best idea.

Although, if you ever listen to Steve Forbes (is he the guy I'm thinking of?) talk about it, he does make a damn convincing case for it. Unfortunately I can't remember enough of that for it to really have a strong influence on my opinion.

Greetings,

This subject, a simple Consumption Tax, is one that has been near and dear to my heart. I have been advocating and resarching this very exact topic now for almost 15 years.

This would absolutely end the tax nightmare.

Why?

1) No one escapes. If you buy something you pay a tax on what you buy.

2) There are no loop holes. Everyone pays the tax for what they purchase. If a person buys a 30 million dollar house they pay the appropriate amount of tax for that expenditure. I've churned numbers and believe it or not, something in the range between 12% and 18% works. Why because EVERY one is participating equally at their income level.

3) There is no longer any income tax.


4) There is no longer any tax on your savings

5) There is no longer any Tax on Inheritance

6) There is no longer any Tax when you make money gambling

7) There is no longer any Tax when you make money in the Stock Market

There is no longer any Tax when you sell a house for a profit

9) and on and on…


What does that do? It frees up an enormous amount of money into the economy. Not to the Government but back in the hands of the people. Actually the rich, even though they would be paying more would benefit because they have much more gains than the rest of us that would not be taxed.

I know first hand how this works. Back in 1991 I had been working for years in a State that had very high State Income Tax.

During this period I changed jobs and moved to Texas where there was no State Income Tax. Immediately I had $7,879 extra dollars per year ($152 dollars per week) that was NOT being taken out of my check. What do you suppose I did with that money. I saved some of it but I spent it on personal "luxury" items that I had wanted to get. A new VCR to replace the one I had been using for 5 years. Some clothes, shoes, and home decorations. Another TV set to replace the one that was five years old. I also upgraded my stereo system. All in one year.

Now suppose if I had all of the extra Federal Income Tax at my spending disposal What would happen then?


If you have no taxes what so ever unless you buy something. And say you buy only food and pay rent or mortgage, then how long do you think it would take you to save the cash for a new car, or just be able to make payments on a new car?

You control the amount of tax that you have each year by your spending habits.

This is where "trickle down" really works nicely.

A person making $100,000.00 per year could afford to go out and buy a new top of the line refrigerator, or TV, or Stereo every two to four years if they wanted to. A person making $50,000.00 could afford to do the same thing in a slightly lower bracket and so it goes for the person making $20,000.00. A person could save up and buy a house more easily, or do home improvements etc. IT IS BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars NOT BEING SUCKED out of the population but put back in.

Instead of holding on to furniture, or appliances or anything until it breaks down you now have a significant amount of the population that can afford to buy more things more frequently. That puts more people to work because of the increased demand. More people working buying more things and that stimulates the economy even further.

With an increased amount of disposable income people will be able to donate more to charities and churches like they used to. The Welfare system could be abolished and local churches and charities could then use their increased monetary gains to help with shelters, clothing and food.

Another good thing is that the poorest section of the population now benefits. Thrift shops instead of having junk that is almost worthless would start having appliances, furniture, clothes, TV sets, entertainment items that are of a higher grade than ever before.

Corporations and business could actually start charging less for their goods and services because they don't have the enormous expense of doing taxes with the army of accountants and tax lawyers.

Yes, (and not too sadly) it would put a whole group of scum-sucking-bottom-feeder lawyers out of work but those kind of people are parasites, they don't contribute anything other than perpetuate the disparity between the rich and the poor because the 'rich' have ways of reducing their obligation.

It would also mean that more people would probably be saving which can really be a boost to the economy. Next, more and more people would have the ability to save and start their own businesses which in turn puts even more people to work. Instead of the spiral down we have a spiral up economy.

A loaf of bread costs the same for someone making $10,000.00 per year as well as $300,000.00 per year fixed costs are the same. Regardless if you buy a $25.00 dress or a designer gown for $10,000.00 the appropriate tax applies. If you buy a 25 million dollar home then the tax will be quite a bit more than the $50,000.00 home.

It's not a perfect system, in that even with this approach, there can be much dishonesty that can creep in. The rich people can go outside the country and purchase a Yacht for 17 million dollars. There would have to be some safeguards in place.

I will say that there is absolutely no need for an IRS, or the 10 - 15 thousand page tax code that is currently in effect.

It is time for the system to be changed, and we the people need not ASK Congress but DEMAND that it be changed.

Don't be led down the current brain washing path that so many of you younger people today are ascribing to. CONGRESS is SUPPOSED to WORK for US not the other way around.

The system was designed for us to TELL them what we want.

In "my" perfect world, if everybody thought and believed like I did, we would collectively vote every single person who currently holds an office from the city congressman, every sitting Judge, every one all the way up to the President out of office. (of course this coming election the Pres. does not count because he is out anyway, but certainly Senators and Congressmen) What kind of message would be sent to the Government if not one sitting politician survived the next election. It would say that We the People mean business.

Also in "my" perfect world everyone for a short period of time would sit down and analyze their driving habits to save 1/7th (of their current usage) of a tank of gas per week. That would mean that every 7 weeks one gallon of gas would not be purchased. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics reported that there are 204 million vehicles and 191 million drivers. Long story short that is approx $72,740,571,000.00 of lost revenue per year to the Oil Conglomerates (including OPEC) Just how long do you think it would take before gas prices plummeted below a dollar.

But alas that is in "my" perfect world, there isn't 1 in 100,000 people that when reading this would take it to heart and see the benefit, or get the inspiration or have the discipline to do this. Very few, if any, are willing to make a temporay sacrafice. Nor is anyone willing to put any brain cells to action on it.

Currently I reworked my schedule to reduce my gas guzzling by almost 35%.

regards,

wizzie

Wiz, you make too much sense. A lot of people are going to hate you (and your ideas) for it.

First, "Dignity of Humans" is not at issue here, as how the federal taxation system is structured has nothing to do with civil rights. That's typical leftist reaching, grabbing, revising and extending.

Secondly, "Dignity of Humans" is a religious or philosophical belief unless you can demonstrate scientifically that humans have or should be treated with "dignity".

Now, a Constitutional issue "Dignity of Humans" may be. Fortunately there is plenty of support in a strict interpretation of the Constitution for the dignity of man. But again, that has nothing to do with taxes. It has to do with civil rights, equal rights, the right to not be persecuted, the right to be treated fairly, and YES even the right not to be UNFAIRLY persecuted by the government or the masses simply for living in or having different circumstances, or for being a part of an atypical class.

(Perhaps in your interpretation it could mean the right not to be taxed at disproportionably high scales in efforts to satisfy the misgivings and guilt of those part of or empathetic to certain classes of citizens and their special interests).

And of course, there is no right to a "living wage".... there is only a right for those who are able to earn a living wage- and not to be inhibited by the government in attempts to do so.


You know, I'm sure you have been reading about how well the FairTax deals with this. We all get together in a compromise and decide, "Okay fine. Enough of us insist upon classifying and diving people. So we will all agree to determine who should be considered officially 'poor'." And yes in the FairTax system, much like today, the "poor" effectively pay no tax. (That certainly demonstrates our collective benevolence, with our willingness to unfairly and unjustly yet graciously let the poorest of us get by without having to contribute back to the system, doesn't it?)


So says you and your values or personal beliefs. But keep them to yourself. If you feel this way, then I am sure you are disproportionably giving your wealth away to those less fortunate than yourself. But I really think it odd your willingness to abandon one of your core principles and force your beliefs and values on the rest of the population. Well ok, not really. Inconsistency and irrationality are the price of being "liberal".


Again, it is only you and your philosophical beliefs upon which you make such claims. There is nothing in the Constitution that says, implies, or suggests this.

I mention the Constitution because as far as I know, it is the one plumb-line we all refer to when considering matters of governance.

You have no real basis to proclaim that taxation ought to be based on anything other than flat percentages of income or expenditures, other than "because I say so" or "because it feels and sounds right to me" or maybe even "because Pink Flamingo Goddess of the Northeast told me so"

The same way for every citizen. The same rules for every citizen. Like I said before in a previous post: One man, one vote. One man, 18%. (or whichever it needs to be) Or, one man, one national sales tax for all expenditures. And then there's the universal rebate mind you!

Now THAT is inherently, evidently FAIR. We are instructed to provide for the general welfare? Okay geat! What better way to provide for the general welfare than to likewise abide by all of our other governing priciples in the Constitution and collect taxes openly, evenly, universally, and fairly?



Actually, come to think of it.... based on your reasoning maybe I could argue (as some have before) that my vote ought to have a weight commensurate with my contributions to the government in tax dollars, relative to the total of the dollars contributed by (I mean taken from) my fellow citizens. It should work that way too, right?

Bleh bleh, why don't ya guys stop debating semantics about "fairness" or whatever you're talking about and go back to the original topic?

I'm starting to consider the system a pretty good one. But I fear the transition into it. Man, how would it effect the business world? Stock markets? Big panic? Optimism?

The impetus behind a "fair tax" system is the assumption that the current system is somehow horribly UN-fair. Proponents regard this as self-evident. Opponents don't (or see the unfairness as leaning in the opposite direction). Proponents accuse opponents of stupidity and/or manipulation because they won't admit what is so plainly obvious (to them). Opponents get frustrated at being called idiots or liars and snipe back. The debate drifts into semantics. Hilarity ensues.

If and when the discussion drifts out of "bash the liberals!" and back to the question at hand, I might get back into it. Until then, have some pie. There's a non-partisan consensus that pie is good.