Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Thank God! A post with some substance!

I’m all for whatever it is you’re proposing, as long as I pay less in taxes and still get federal money for unemployment, health care, Social Security, welfare, public education, etc, etc.

Thank you Eric, that’s a great post.

I recommend a sales US tax. This way everyone pays the same, rich or poor. Even if the money was stolen, gotten from drugs or whatever, everyone would pay. I agree with doing away with the IRS. Also Education dept. Also suggest The figures we make up our budget from are last years figure so we will know what we have to spend and stick to those figures just like folks have to do. Thank you.

William L Silliman
Jacksonville, NC

This way everyone pays the same, rich or poor.

Is that true? I’d be interested in seeing spending numbers across the economic spectrum. I know a couple rich guys who live in hovels and get their clothes from the families of recently deceased people with similar clothing sizes.

How about we just simplify the current progressive tax structure?

great post! This is one of those ideas that makes too much sense to ever get through Washington (like allowing private social security accounts). The bottom line is that of all the proposals the various special interests (be they left wing or right wing) fear, it is this one. That is because almost every group, no matter how egalitarian their rhetoric, has its hand in the buying-a-loophole-in-the-tax-system jar. If we proposed eliminating all loopholes, you might see for the first time an alliance of almost every single lobbyist and special interest group in Washington- giving this proposal a snowball’s change in Congress…

wow, lets just screw the poor and middle class and allow them to suffer, as long as the rich can continue to get richer! there are two things that we have to understand in the debate about a progressive tax system: the first is that most americans have a basic sense of compassion that allows them to recognize that as human beings (and christians, jews, muslims, or any other religion) we have a resposibility to provide for the poor, the second is that the basic expenses of living do not follow a linear path. this means, for example that the quality of life of a family making $30,000 a year is hurt significantly more by a $3,000 tax burden than that of a family making $150,000 is by a $15,000 tax burden. there is a minimum amount of money needed to life a dignified life. any basic economics textbook will tell you that the marginal propensity to consume goes down as income goes up. this isn’t speculation, it’s a well-tested theory.

[1] …most americans have a basic sense of compassion that allows them to recognize that as human beings (and christians, jews, muslims, or any other religion) we have a resposibility to provide for the poor,

[2] …the quality of life of a family making $30,000 a year is hurt significantly more by a $3,000 tax burden than that of a family making $150,000 is by a $15,000 tax burden. there is a minimum amount of money needed to life a dignified life

1. You’re right, most Americans do feel a responsibility to help the poor. This is not at issue. What is at issue is whether or not it is more efficient and if it is even moral to have the government control a monopoly on charity. Which brings up the question: Is the Federal Income Tax primarily for revenue, or is it for redistribution of income?

2. Which is why most of the Sales Tax proposals still have some kind of ‘rebate’ program for those who are poor.

If a universal rebate tied to poverty thresholds is coupled with the national sales tax, as is the case in the Schaefer-Tauzin bill (H.R. 2001), the sales tax is about as progressive as the current income tax. Alternatively, if a payroll tax rebate is provided to low-income families, the new system is only slightly less progressive than the current income tax system. cato.org

If you are on a payroll you pay tax. If you have a Congressman in your pocket you don’t. Don’t blame the IRS, the system was created by crooked politicians from both parties. To move to a consumption tax would further erode the already comically low rates paid by those whose lifestyle is unaffected by the price of gasoline. A straight sales tax may benefit the economy by putting a lot of lawyers and accountants out of work, but it is also a way of shifting additional tax burdens to the weakest poorest citizens. It is consistent with Bush’s alleged “tax cuts” and other bullshit put out by the Republicans.

Bush could not handle the simple task of going after OBL and finishing the job. He mistook Iraq for a terrorist stronghold and more pressing threat than al Queda.

Now you imply we should trust this man with something as immensely complex as completely reworking how the federal government is to acquire its revenues? I don’t even think so. His regressive national sales tax idea (now withdrawn already for its ludicrousness) announced in the last two days is a perfect example of why working people should not trust nor vote for this man in November.

I mean how dim can you get to say we should look at a regressive sales tax a few short months before an election. If he had any sense at all he would have touted a flat tax, but, dim is as dim does. And this light in the whitehouse is burned out.

Eric, you’re absolutely right on this one — especially with regard to the outrageous complexity of the system. Few things irritate me more than having to decide every year whether to spend money on an updated version of TurboTax or pay a tax preparer for what should be a simple process.

I’m certainly not one of the “rich” who are so despised by liberals (except for the rich ones, of course), but I’ve been on the planet long enough, and have worked hard enough, to have to prepare a complicated return on the little that I actually earn. I long ago gave up on anyone in Washington having the guts to simplify the existing “progressive” structure. Hey, I think I just figured out why liberals prefer to be called “progressive” these days. How appropriate!

If you want to hear the nation squeal, just announce that house payments are no longer tax deductible, that those who don’t make enough to actually pay income taxes will no longer be receiving a free check from the gummit to make up for it, or that businesses can no longer write off many of their expenses.

Drop all that nonsense, adopt either a flat tax or a consumption tax, and allow NO exceptions. If you want fairness, that’s as fair as it gets.

Many of the good folks in Europe pay a value-added tax. Perhaps if Kerry is the next prez, he’ll push for that approach, since he’s so sensitive to their views. Good luck with that one.

If you completely eliminate the IRS what then happens to those 100,000 people who are employed by it? Would it not place a bigger strain on the economy if you suddendly have thousands of people unemployed? Complete elimination of the IRS is way to drastic of a change to fly in this country, it is quite ubiquitious in our lifestyles that such a change would in a sense be “too much to handle” for the american people. Like most of our other systems in this country complete abolisment is rarely the answer…reform is.

If you completely eliminate the IRS what then happens to those 100,000 people who are employed by it? Would it not place a bigger strain on the economy if you suddendly have thousands of people unemployed? Complete elimination of the IRS is way to drastic of a change to fly in this country, it is quite ubiquitious in our lifestyles that such a change would in a sense be “too much to handle” for the american people. Like most of our other systems in this country complete abolisment is rarely the answer…reform is. Posted by: Dave at August 12, 2004 02:46 PM

Poppycock! I worked for the feds in one capacity or another for most of my life and I promise you that very few gummit employees are ever laid off. They are usually offered jobs within the same agency or elsewhere. Some may require relocation but since most IRS weenies are in the DC area, I think that the impact of cutting back or closing the agency would be minimal. There may be good arguments for not dismantling the agency but boosting the unemployment rate isn’t one of them.

As a liberal, I would gladly support a national sales tax in place of income tax. I like the idea of only being taxed for what we can afford to consume. It would make even more sense if food and other necessities received a lower tax rate than luxuries.

However, this will never happen. Corporations would go ape shit about the 20%-30% sales tax rate, in fear of customers consuming less of their products. Corporate lobbyists have too much influence over the votes in Washington, and it would never pass, no matter who’s in control of Congress.

I don’t think you have to be a liberal, moderate or conservative to see that the existing tax code is burdensome to all. Some of the “fat cats” who get something for nothing are actually those who get the inappropriately named earned-income tax credit. Didn’t make enough to pay taxes last year? No problem, we’ll cut you a check. Not only is the system a mess, it includes this sort of silliness designed solely to put votes in politicians’ pockets. Argh!

Flat tax above a marginal subsistence level income is the only way that has a chance of being fair. Republicans get to keep low wages for workers, and Democrats get to keep government from moving workers into poverty, and the Green Party gets the fairness and pragmatic solution it should be backing without hesitation.

Great Scott. The people who benefit from most of the crap that makes our tax code so convoluted are the rich and the corporations. They’re the ones getting the breaks. It amazes me that your people are so willing to go on all boosters on your “incentives”, but when tax time comes around, you’re complaining about the complexity that builds into the system.

If you seriously think that abolishing the system that enforces the collection of tax dollars is a good idea in this time of high deficits, you might want to talk to me some time about my bridge and South Florida real estate deals.

Finally something we can agree upon, Eric.

I’m a strong believer in flat tax. But I am a realist and know special interests will never let it get through congress.

Sadly this is just politic speak with little or no meaning in reality.

Good and humorous post though!!!!

David,

Flat tax above a marginal subsistence level income is the only way that has a chance of being fair. Republicans get to keep low wages for workers, and Democrats get to keep government from moving workers into poverty, and the Green Party gets the fairness and pragmatic solution it should be backing without hesitation.

SOLD! I’ll take it.

[Comments deleted for failing to Critique the Message instead of the Messengers] If you want to call people stupid, find another web site, there are a great many which abide that sort of incivility. — WatchBlog Manager—]

The Problem with a flat tax is that it’s about as flexible as a concrete block. It’s advantageous for the wealthy, who have to pay more percentage wise from income, but it’s terrible for the poor, and here’s why.

Essentially, When the going gets tough, and the government wants to be fiscally sound, the people who get the worst of the new burden put upon them will be the poor and middle class. It’s just good old fashioned math and home budgeting.

There is no social justice in the flat tax. It does not put more of the burden on those who can afford it first. It insteads hits the poor the worst in proportion to everything else.

The only reason to employ the flat tax is to try and starve the beast. When has that happened, though? When have tax cuts actually inspired belt-tightening. Have Bush’s tax cuts inspired fiscal responsibility, or destroyed it? Does any Republican have the idiocy to tell the rest of us that 400-500 billion dollar deficits don’t constitute a pretty big breach of fiscal responsibility?

The truth is, the Republican Party wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants to have low taxes and high budgets, starve the beast tactics and please the public programs. It wants to be the party of smaller government, but it has overseen the most giant expansion of the government in decades.

Make up your minds, fellas.

PEOPLE(and retards),

First of all without taxation we have no money, bet you didn’t know that but it’s absolutely true.

[additional redundant blather mercifully deleted]

Posted by Um Okaaay? at August 13, 2004 01:15 AM

Who said anything at all about abolishing taxes? If you’re going to have government, you obviously have to pay the bills to support it. While each of us may have an opinion on how that resource should be collected and distributed, I haven’t seen anyone in this forum suggest that taxes should be abolished. You really should get back on your meds.

You don’t have to bother radically changing the tax code to screw the poor. The CBO just confirmed that the tax burden is now squarely on the middle-class.

Congratulations to the top 1% from one of the bottom 99%. It looks like you’re guy in the White House is going to make the tax-cuts-for-the-rich stick longer than even Reagan dared to do.

Stephen, the proposal being discussed is one in which the poor are exempt. Upon reaching a marginal middle class income per number of dependents, the flat tax kicks in. I don’t have the exact amounts at hand but, lower middle class would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 18,000 per year, for a single person, 28,00 per year for a couple, and an additional 5,000 per year for each underage dependent or elderly dependent. With these kind of cutoffs before flat tax kicks in, the flat tax system avoids pushing the lower middle class into poverty. And those in poverty are no worse off.

That is the only way a flat tax could be made fair and amenable to reason amongst the various parties, save the ultra-Libertarians, who want to fund military and intel and little else from the federal government.

American Pundit, you beat me to the punch on the CBO Report.

I see the Republicans are already trying to spin it, but there’s not much to be spun. The bottom line:

“The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.

Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.”

Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle

There it is in black and white.

The people hit hardest by the recession are the ones stuck paying the bill. Knowing that we were entering a downturn, was this the appropriate time to shift that burden in favor of the wealthy? I didn’t see the logic then, and I don’t see it now.

David:

Removing the burden entirely from the poor, while treating the middle class and the rich interchangeably, seems strange. If it is justifiable to remove the tax burden to the poor so that they can keep a certain standard of living (subsistence), then why would it not be equally justifiable to lessen the tax burden of the middle class when compared to that of the rich?

Of course, I’m in favor of systems which aren’t income-based so much as income-driven. Income-based systems seem to me inherently unfair because they are essentially paying the government for the work you do. (I realize you get things in return for this, but I would prefer the transactions to be separated to a greater degree.) I believe Japan or China once had a system wherein tax was assessed by the number of doors your dwelling had, with the only exemption existing for orphanages. Since houses and the land they sit on are one unchanging indicator of social status throughout cultures, perhaps a more comprehensive property tax system would be preferable, since it would tax each person according to how much services he was receiving (After all, bigger, more elaborate, more expensive houses require more police protection and more work by firefighters if a fire should break out, and also make more use of one resource that all nations only have a limited supply of: geographic space.) I don’t propose, of course, that a similar modern system be as simplistic as the one used in the east in ancient times and merely count the number of doors to determine the elaborateness of the house, but I think it is a good idea to build upon.

Jarin, while your proposal of progressivity to the tax system has merit, and I agree, those who consume more of the nation’s resources should pay a bigger share, such a progressive system leads to what we have now, a morass of unenforced tax laws, giant loopholes and exemptions for those in least need of them, and the endless debate and struggles in Congress over who is more deserving and for what reasons.

A flat tax has a basic appeal of fairness on both sides of the political spectrum, does not “punish” those who are successful or lucky in acquiring wealth any more or less than than those who are not as successful or lucky. In addition, it provides an easy and efficient way of ensuring that those who drop below a subsistence income, are assisted by the tax code in a manner that will not result in a political tug of war everytime a recession and layoffs hit the economy.

A flat tax based on income eliminates corporate taxes, one of the most costly aspects of the tax code for our government (therefore tax payers) to enforce. It will remove the divisive debate over hamstringing capital needed to create jobs, and make the path to balanced budgets smoother by removing the decision making process of who is going to bear the cost for balanced budgets. A flat tax means every income earning person (working or not) capable of sustaining a lower middle class livlihood or better, will bear the cost. Thus no more wrangling over discriminating who will and who won’t pay to balance the budget and pay down the debt.

Finally, the American public will yield significant benefits in the reduction of cost of administering the flat tax provisions, (requiring fewer IRS employees and enforcement officials) thus saving all wage earners some taxes over the current system.

Eric, said regarding flat tax: “SOLD! I’ll take it.”

I told you I was a fiscal conservative at heart. After the flat tax is implemented, we can go back to war over what and whom the government should be spending money on. Their we part company significantly on many issues, so, I see a future for WatchBlog still. :-)

a progressive system leads to what we have now, a morass of unenforced tax laws, giant loopholes and exemptions for those in least need of them

Why don’t we enforce the laws and close the loopholes?

Most of the argument for a flat tax here seems to be that it’s simpler. Why not just simplify the current system?

Lets face it. As long as special interests can donate or threaten to withhold campaign funds to our reresentatives, there won’t be a fair tax system, flat or otherwise.

Fix the root problem, then sort out the tax system based on economics rather than special interests.

A. Pundit

We can’t enforce the laws as they exist. The cost of doing so would exceed the recovery. With the convoluted and maze like code, defense tax attorneys can tie up the government for years in their effort to collect. It is not cost effective.

A flat tax based on income will be far less costly to assess, and enforce. Far less ambiguity and nuance of meaning in the flat tax code will translate directly into cost effective enforcement.

I don’t know, David. It sounds to me like an idea that looks good on paper, but doesn’t work when people and personalities are thrown into the mix - like communism or supply-side economics.

Even if you could get it passed, somebody would lobby for an exemption based on something - maybe even a legitimate something - and it’s all downhill from there.

I think it’s more practical, if less “visionary”, to tighten up the current system.

Eric, I love this quote from your link:

“”We need to stop taxing productivity,” King told Talon News. “As Ronald Reagan said, whatever you tax you get less of. “

So instead of taxing corporations and investors (producers) we should tax consumers. If Reagan is right, taxing consumers should create an excess of supply and shortage of demand. What is that called?
RECESSION !!!!!!!!!!

LOL. You guys…. And this on the back of a modest economic recovery… tsk, tsk, tsk!

A. Pundit, I understand you line of reasoning, but, let’s face facts here. If someone lobbies for an exemption, it will no longer be a “FLAT TAX” and defending the definition of a flat tax is a helluva lot easier than defending loopholes championed by oneside of the aisle while the other side champions an entirely different se to loopholes, resulting in compromise in which both sides get loopholes.

If a flat tax were implemented, I don’t think a Congressperson would have a snowball’s chance in Haiti of being reelected if they proposed a bill that would undo the flat tax and send us back to the old system. The American people will wrangle and suffer through a transition to a flat tax, especially one that truly addresses the deficits and the debt, and they will not tolerate some congressional porker trying to undo what the American public will suffer and sacrifice to achieve.

David, I am continually amazed at what “the American public” will put up with. :)

I guarantee the very first thing that will happen is an intense lobbying campaign to exempt certain demographics… Oh wait, exemptions for certain demographics are already built into your “flat” tax plan.

C’mon, David. Everybody is going to want an exemption for something - probably even something legitimate - and at that point the line blurs even more. All of a sudden, you’ve got a “somewhat flat” tax plan, and people lobbying really hard to stretch the definition further.

I predict that a flat tax plan would look like the current tax plan within a generation. It’s better to just periodically streamline and tighten up the system we have.

We have a completely relative and somewhat chaotic tax system, and everybody lives with it because we all think we’re getting “tax breaks” that the other guy is missing out on. The system is perceived as responsive to our needs, rather than rigid and oppressive.

Jarin, while your proposal of progressivity to the tax system has merit, and I agree, those who consume more of the nation’s resources should pay a bigger share, such a progressive system leads to what we have now, a morass of unenforced tax laws, giant loopholes and exemptions for those in least need of them, and the endless debate and struggles in Congress over who is more deserving and for what reasons.

That’s a slippery slope argument. It is not a given that anything short of a flat tax will become too complicated to use. Especially since the system that I proposed as a model gave only one exemption, for orphanages. It’s a lot harder to find justifiable exemptions for houses and the property they sit on than it is for income. I think by nature a tax based on the type of house owned would never become as complicated as one based on income.

A flat tax has a basic appeal of fairness on both sides of the political spectrum, does not “punish” those who are successful or lucky in acquiring wealth any more or less than than those who are not as successful or lucky. In addition, it provides an easy and efficient way of ensuring that those who drop below a subsistence income, are assisted by the tax code in a manner that will not result in a political tug of war everytime a recession and layoffs hit the economy.

I don’t know that it does have a basic appeal of fairness on both sides. You’ve already admitted that the rich consume more resources and should pay for that.. by taxing the rich and the middle class the same, aren’t you essentially making the middle class pay for the extra resources used by the rich? You may not be punishing anyone for what they earn, but you would be punishing the middle class by making them shoulder the burden of the extra coverage required by the rich. Finally, you’re wrong if you think this tax structure would eliminate the tug of war about subsistence level living… with the flat tax structure as you have it, the debate would merely rest upon the appropriate income level to start taxation at to account for inflation and cost of living. It would be the same tug of war as found in the present debates over minimum wage.

A flat tax based on income eliminates corporate taxes, one of the most costly aspects of the tax code for our government (therefore tax payers) to enforce. It will remove the divisive debate over hamstringing capital needed to create jobs, and make the path to balanced budgets smoother by removing the decision making process of who is going to bear the cost for balanced budgets. A flat tax means every income earning person (working or not) capable of sustaining a lower middle class livlihood or better, will bear the cost. Thus no more wrangling over discriminating who will and who won’t pay to balance the budget and pay down the debt.

Frankly, I think you ascribe too many benefits to a flat tax system which are not necessarily inherent to the system. Also, you forget that legally systems can be changed so there will always be legal wrangling over the introduction of bills to alter the system, no matter what base system we work from.

Finally, the American public will yield significant benefits in the reduction of cost of administering the flat tax provisions, (requiring fewer IRS employees and enforcement officials) thus saving all wage earners some taxes over the current system.

Nice try. You neglect to mention, however, that moving from a progressive tax system to a flat tax system would require us to make up the difference in taxes presently paid by the rich. In order to keep our government funded, the tax burden paid by them would need to be redistributed across our entire populace, thus requiring an increase in taxes for all wage earners below a certain income level. I haven’t crunched the numbers to find out how big that increase would be, but I would highly doubt that the decrease in taxes from paying fewer IRS employees would be enough to equal it, let alone provide a decrease in taxes in spite of it.

Income tax made me realize how a woman feels after she has been raped.