Comments on: Giuliani Cozing Up To Flat Tax?

By: GN

GN — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:51:58 +0000

Ah, Sleipner, there is an interpretation I can wrap my brain around.

By: sleipner

sleipner — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:04:20 +0000

This fairtax plan sounds like a way to make sure corporations pay even less tax, and also a great way to make sure no one pays any tax on their capital gains income. In addition, I believe it would significantly increase the tax burden on the middle class, while lowering it for the upper class.

The biggest problem with a consumption tax is that the rich generally tend to spend a much smaller percentage of their income, preferring to invest a large chunk of it, or spending a large percentage on an expensive house, neither of which would generate any tax revenue.

The best way to fix the tax code (imo) is to remove most or all of the devious loopholes that rich individuals and corporations use to avoid paying anywhere near the amount of taxes that they should be paying. The social security income cap should be removed completely, and capital gains income should be considered as regular income instead of being taxed as a separate much lower rate as it is now. House deductions should be capped much lower – it’s ridiculous that someone can deduct the mortgage for their $50 million mansion.

I was talking to a Republican friend the other day, who constantly gripes about how some people abuse the welfare system by either going the “welfare baby route” or by collecting while working under the table, etc. The thing he fails to realize is that the total dollar value of all social program fraud is probably less than 5% of the amount lost to the government through tax evasion and loopholes used by the rich and corporations, and probably an even smaller percentage of the amount given to corporations and industries as tax breaks or subsidies – funny that Republicans only dislike welfare when it’s given to poor people.

By: Richard Brogger

Richard Brogger — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:50:58 +0000

Over 90 years ago we started with an income tax that was as flat or flatter then most of the current “flat tax” proposals. There is only one current tax proposal that is truly flat and that is the very popular Fair Tax, HR-25. It has just one rate and taxes consumption (as proposed by Alexander Hamilton) instead of income (as proposed by Karl Marx).

By: Clark Burton

Clark Burton — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 08:05:18 +0000

Here is another YES for the FAIR TAX, HR 25. This legislation might do it in less than 10,000 words too.

By: Rick Johnson

Rick Johnson — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:29:11 +0000

While the Flat Tax may be better than what we have today, it pales in comparison to the FairTax (HR25). HR 25 will untax the poor via the prebate, be progressive so that the more you spend(not earn) the more you will pay, eliminate the unfair payroll tax, help level the foreign trade imbalance, and finally rid our products of the embedded cost. Finally, our citizens will know the cost of taxes, not have them hidden in every product. The reduction of the IRS to a minor department will be the cherry on the top. Go to http://www.fairtax.org to learn more. This bill is at least 1000 times better than what we have now and a 10 year old can understand how it works.

By: Jeff Locke

Jeff Locke — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:27:34 +0000

As posted earlier, the problem with a flat income tax is that it will never remain flat as long as politicians find more inventive ways to spend our money. But there is a plan that will tax ALL that visit and live in America both legally and illegally, in a progressive manner and still remove the regressive nature inherent in any purely consumption-based tax. I mean the Fair Tax plan H.R. 25/ S. 25 as introduced in the 110th session of Congress. This bi-partisan plan untaxes all poverty-level personal consumption through the use of a monthly “prebate”. This ensures the citizen a means to release all poverty-level taxation without resorting to the need for a blizzard of exemptions/deductions.
A slick method that ensures no Washington D.C. Tax Lobbyist will have an influence on our tax code in the future. And just as important, no need for politicians to waste 50% of their time in Congress dealing with the tax policy. A simple, fair, transparent tax that will remain so. That is head and shoulders above any other tax reform plan proposed. The FairTax is the answer as more and more Americans are coming to find out. Go to http://www.fairtax.org and read their “white page” section. Judge it from all angles and you’ll see why this hayseed plowboy endorses the BEST alternative to our current 60,000 page mess we call the current federal income tax code.

By: bob in fl

bob in fl — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:11:46 +0000

It doesn’t matter what kind of tax system we have. I have seen very many versions of the flat tax in the past 20 years or so. It matters not how fair it is nor to whom. If a tax system is passed by Congress today, in 10 years it will not resemble today’s system at all. Congress will continually “refine” it, just as they have with the current income tax system. So we would end up with the same complicated mess we now have. There is no legal way to keep taxes out of politics, or politics out of taxes, & no practical way either.

However, there is one way to make a difference in the whole political process. Impose a limit of, say, 10,000 words for any bill introduced to Congress. And the first such bill should be a requirement to word them in plain English. Of course, it wouldn’t even make it into a committee.

By: GN

GN — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 01:30:21 +0000

Thoughts? Well, my my first thought was “Damn Justin, is this what you call a light post?” Then I thought I don’t see what difference a flat tax will make, but I am not an economist. My initial reaction is that the more you have, the more you should pay. I don’t know how much sense that makes because I am not an economist. OTOH, I don’t see any attention in the flat tax being paid to social services. There is a significant difference between the relief proposed for the bottom third earners, but what about non-earners … many of whom are mentally ill or debilitated in some form and are a growing populace. I think the topic in itself might be a little above my capacity, though I find it interesting.

By: wj

wj — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:08:25 +0000

If we’re going to keep Social Security without massive changes (and I’m not at all sure we should, but just for the sake of discussion), not only does it make no sense to exempt income above a certain amount, it also makes no sense to exempt certain kinds of income. Whether it’s earned income, interest, dividends, rents, or whatever, income is income. If you are going to tax it for Social Security, tax it no matter where it comes from.

By: Rich Horton

Rich Horton — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:27:09 +0000

It sort of depends on what your purpose is in doing something like this. I could sit here and propose something on the basis of “fairness” (defined any variety of ways) or “to maximize government receipts” or any of a thousand other ways.

My own take is to look for a simplification more than anything else.

How about this:

$20,000 personal exemption.
Up to $500 exemption on charitable contributions
(Maybe keep some sort of home mortgage exemption?)

Tax rate of 15% on taxable income up to $180,000.
Tax rate of 22% on the rest.
Payroll taxes continue until the $500,000 mark.

The thing is, I have NO IDEA what such a system would do to the government’s take.

However it strikes me as fair and a hell of a lot easier.