Quote:
THE POWER TO DESTROY
Senators plan push
to end income tax
Lawmakers looking to replace current code with flat-rate levy on business transactions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 25, 2005
3:28 p.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.
A South Carolina senator dissatisfied with the results of a Bush advisory panel's recommendations on tax reform is set to introduce a bill to abolish federal income tax in favor of a levy on business transactions.
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., told the New York Sun he would put his plan before the Senate tomorrow. The proposal calls for an end to all personal income taxes and the attendant bevy of related taxes, deductions and exemptions, including the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax. The plan would eliminate the need for Americans to file income tax returns.
The president's panel, led by former Sens. Connie Mack and John Breaux, issued two proposals to reform parts of the tax code, but it didn't go far enough for many tax-reform activists.
DeMint told the paper the recommendations were "not the real reform we need."
"With the panel endorsing small changes," DeMint added, "I felt it necessary to get my plan for comprehensive reform out as quickly as possible."
According to the Sun report, the DeMint plan, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., includes an 8.5 percent federal retail sales tax on all new goods and services. Corporate income taxes would be replaced by an 8.5 percent business transfer tax charged during purchases of supplies or equipment.
Senate staff members tell the paper the 8.5 percent figure had been determined after consultation with economists to assure the proposal would remain revenue-neutral.
Under the plan, every American living below the federal poverty level would get a rebate for 8.5 percent of poverty-level income – which, for a family of four, is about $19,000 a year, the paper reported.
"There is a growing urgency and consensus that the tax code is killing our ability to compete in the global economy," DeMint is quoted as saying. "It's as if we have huge signs on our beaches saying, 'Take Your Business Somewhere Else!'
"Tax reform has never been more relevant."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.
What do you guys think? This should be an interesting discussion.
I think Alan Keyes ran on a simliar platform.... needless to say, he isn't our president.
Personally I would have voted for him. But not really on the income tax issue. I guess im hesitant to say its a good idea.
Thats what Steve Forbes has been pushing for years, either a flat tax or a national sales tax. I love the idea personally. It would encourage people to save tremendously
I think a flat tax across the board is the way to go. everyone pays in 8.5% or some similar figure to the goverment. If your Oprah or Nautica you give up the same percentage of your income. I just think it is more fair. Sorry for those of you making multimillion dollars a year you will now see what the rest of us talk about when we say we are being taxed to death.
This will be interesting to say the least.
I think that it'll be shot down in flames, but what do I know.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
The basic problem with this idea is that rich people have this *TERRIBLE* problem of not being able to possibly spend all their money. /sarc
So if you make $1mill a year, and only spend $100,000, you've paid taxes of $8,500. Far below what they would of paid if they were income taxed.
Now, you may say "What about the loopholes!". Well, most loopholes are complicated and would have to be examined and applied case by case to even argue about it.
---
Mike Woolever wrote:I think a flat tax across the board is the way to go. everyone pays in 8.5% or some similar figure to the goverment. If your Oprah or Nautica you give up the same percentage of your income. I just think it is more fair. Sorry for those of you making multimillion dollars a year you will now see what the rest of us talk about when we say we are being taxed to death.
umm yea, you know a flat tax across the board will benifit the rich right?
and agustin, the beautiful thing about it is, that it promotes savings. If you don't spend it, you don't get it taxed. but in the long run, it will get spent, and taxed.
Personal, i'm for it.
Promise that forever we will never get better at growing up and learning to lie
I didnt say it would benefit one person one way or another. All I said was that it would be fair to everyone. That way nobody can say well I pay more taxes than you.... maybe in $$$ they would but not percentage wise.
Niceguy4186 wrote:
and agustin, the beautiful thing about it is, that it promotes savings. If you don't spend it, you don't get it taxed. but in the long run, it will get spent, and taxed.
Right... so it doesn't promote anything.
Further, there is one big down-side to savings.... money not in circulation is money not in the economy.
Once more, if you're rich and planning to buy something big.. say a $150,000 Porsche, I bet dealerships along the Mexican and Canadian borders would explode.
Same could be said for boats, internet ordered items, etc.
If your aim is for a flat tax, it needs to be income-tax based.
Further, a flat-tax is a simplistic idea to a complex problem, which is wealth distribution.
---
Quote:
Once more, if you're rich and planning to buy something big.. say a $150,000 Porsche, I bet dealerships along the Mexican and Canadian borders would explode.
That's why they could charge you a new high tax for importing a car from out of state/country...
The loopholes would be covered once time goes by. I just don't see how they would deal with tens of thousand's of accountants being unemployed for that part of the year.
UpstateNyZ24 wrote:Quote:
Once more, if you're rich and planning to buy something big.. say a $150,000 Porsche, I bet dealerships along the Mexican and Canadian borders would explode.
That's why they could charge you a new high tax for importing a car from out of state/country...
The loopholes would be covered once time goes by. I just don't see how they would deal with tens of thousand's of accountants being unemployed for that part of the year.
Right right.. we'll make new law after new law to cover loopholes. Pretty soon, we'll have a tax code book that's huge again.
---
AGuSTiN wrote:Niceguy4186 wrote:
and agustin, the beautiful thing about it is, that it promotes savings. If you don't spend it, you don't get it taxed. but in the long run, it will get spent, and taxed.
Right... so it doesn't promote anything.
Further, there is one big down-side to savings.... money not in circulation is money not in the economy.
Once more, if you're rich and planning to buy something big.. say a $150,000 Porsche, I bet dealerships along the Mexican and Canadian borders would explode.
Same could be said for boats, internet ordered items, etc.
If your aim is for a flat tax, it needs to be income-tax based.
Further, a flat-tax is a simplistic idea to a complex problem, which is wealth distribution.
I'm not sure what you mean by it doesn't promote anything... cause it promotes saving. Before you gave an example that if someone makes 1million, but only spends 100k, they will only get taxed 8500. What i was saying, that in the long run, they will spend that extra 900k, and when they do, it will be taxed.
and the money is not in the circulating in the economey? Do you think they just stick the money under the matress? No, it gets invested into the economey.
as for buying cars and boats and what ever over seas... currently, if you buy a car out of state.... don't you pay your own state's sales tax??? (unless i'm wrong on this?) Something like that would be easily fixed.
and i don't see very many accountancts losing there jobs. Places like HR block that do personal accounting would go out of business, but a flat tax requires a lot more accounting on the business end. if anything there would be an increased need for accountants.
But also as a plus, flat line tax supposely leaves a big paper trail, so it would be very hard for companies to cheat on there taxes.
Promise that forever we will never get better at growing up and learning to lie
Niceguy4186 wrote:AGuSTiN wrote:Niceguy4186 wrote:
and agustin, the beautiful thing about it is, that it promotes savings. If you don't spend it, you don't get it taxed. but in the long run, it will get spent, and taxed.
Right... so it doesn't promote anything.
Further, there is one big down-side to savings.... money not in circulation is money not in the economy.
Once more, if you're rich and planning to buy something big.. say a $150,000 Porsche, I bet dealerships along the Mexican and Canadian borders would explode.
Same could be said for boats, internet ordered items, etc.
If your aim is for a flat tax, it needs to be income-tax based.
Further, a flat-tax is a simplistic idea to a complex problem, which is wealth distribution.
I'm not sure what you mean by it doesn't promote anything... cause it promotes saving. Before you gave an example that if someone makes 1million, but only spends 100k, they will only get taxed 8500. What i was saying, that in the long run, they will spend that extra 900k, and when they do, it will be taxed.
and the money is not in the circulating in the economey? Do you think they just stick the money under the matress? No, it gets invested into the economey.
as for buying cars and boats and what ever over seas... currently, if you buy a car out of state.... don't you pay your own state's sales tax??? (unless i'm wrong on this?) Something like that would be easily fixed.
I knew if I gave the car example, people wouldn't go beyond and see what I was trying to say.
First, you have to remember you're talking about a federal income tax. Forget the cars for a moment, what about international internet purchases? Is the federal government going to spend billions hiring people to open each package coming into the nation, place a value on it, setup a system to dispute value, and be effecient about it? Doubt they would, because I doubt they could.
And that's just ONE example of many. A flat sales tax is not the solution, because it allows many more means of avoidance.
And I still don't see how the flat sales tax promotes savings other than because you say so. Getting taxed at purchase time is exactly the same as it is now! I can buy some small stuff and pay sales tax of 7.75%, or save my money and buy something bigger, and get taxed 7.75%.
---
If you want to get rid of income tax, start auditing and confiscating political graft ex post facto and the U.S. deficit will be closed in a matter of nanoseconds.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
yes there will be people trying to cheat the system, but they already have that today. They already spend a boat load on the IRS, which woulndn't be needed. but as i said before, this type of system creates a huge paper trail which is much easier to track.
also, it promotes savings by more money up front for compounding interest.
i wrote a 10-15 page paper on this typic a year or two ago. Wish i still had that.
Promise that forever we will never get better at growing up and learning to lie
