Recently, CNN reported rampant income tax fraud of a new sort. Thieves steal social security numbers then file tax returns on the accounts of these social security numbers. They then receive the refunds that were due honest working citizens. The segment went on to suggest the IRS is not doing its part to curtail such activities.
The income tax has been seriously flawed from its inception. Every working citizen spends hours annually preparing tax returns: what a waste of citizens’ time. There are myriads of persons, whose salary we pay, working within the IRS shuffling all this paper: what a waste of citizens’ money.
The income tax should be replaced by the Fair Tax. This would replace the very expensive, inefficient IRS with all its imperfections. The Fair Tax is a national sales tax to be collected at the point of sale.
The Fair Tax has been “in committee” in both the House and Senate for over a year. Ask your congressional candidates about the Fair Tax before you vote.
Glen Terrell
Arlington, texas
Dale Whiting posted at 8:54 am on Mon, Mar 26, 2012.
Yes, Glen, even Fareed Zakaria of CNN suggests we have a value added or sales tax at the Federal level. Mainly Fareed would like to see a two page tax code, one which does not grant so many obviously unfair privileges to those with the money to buy them.
But where our taxing system, whether big or small long or short, has always been "progressive," meaning the more you make the high a percentage you pay, and where either sales taxes or value taxes are 'regressive,' it would appear that we'll be stuck! I prefer the Warren Buffett Rule. Rich People ought not to pay a lower percentage in taxes than do their employees, unless of course they pay congressmen first!
chatmandu002 posted at 9:11 am on Mon, Mar 26, 2012.
For a country that demands everyone be treated equally, when it comes to income taxes this country treats everyone like a communist state. From each according to their ability to each according to their need. With the big government determining who has the ability and who has the need.
Pass the Fair Tax Act. Check it out at fairtax.org
Dale: The Buffett Rule would not raise enough money and would penalize achievement.
Arizona Willie posted at 11:57 am on Mon, Mar 26, 2012.
I could go for a Federal Sales Tax ( VAT ) if and only if there were graduated rates on different classes of merchandise.
The progressive taxation principle has long been accepted as a fair idea --- those who receive more from society owe more to society.
So first with a national sales tax, there should be no tax on basic food from a grocery store.
No tax on basic medical care.
There should be a luxury rate on luxury goods and services.
Say normal purchasing activity would be taxed at say 10% national sales tax.
Luxury goods and services like yachts, caviar, gourmet restaurant meals, b-o-o-b jobs and other vanity plastic surgery etc. etc. should carry a vanity level national sales tax of say 20%
That way the wealthy who live high on the hog would pay more.
The average Joe would pay 0% national sales tax on food and medical care. Buying stuff like clothes and normal furniture and such would carry the standard national sales tax of 10%.
All business to business purchases would carry 15% national sales tax.
Then the national sales tax would be fair and raise plenty of money. Those tax rates might not even need to be that high, we would have to see after they were implemented if they needed adjusting.
But if millionaires paid only a 10% national sales tax they would get a HUMONGOUS tax cut because they buy little more than average people, but what they do buy is of a higher quaiity. Only taxing them on what they spend would get very little money from the rich.
antirino posted at 12:42 pm on Mon, Mar 26, 2012.
"Those who receive more from society"?!! How about those who work their posterior off or work smarter to provide a good or service that benefits society?
Arizona Willie posted at 4:08 pm on Mon, Mar 26, 2012.
Nobody said they didn't work for the money. Bricklayers work their rears ends off too.
So because the rich worked for it means they deserve to get hundreds or thousands of times as much money as the bricklayer?
Oh right, right wingers think no one works but themselves. Everyone else is sponging either from the government or the employer.
No matter how they get it --- the rich receive more FROM society so they owe more TO society.
It's been considered an elementary principal of fairness for many years now -- except of course to the right wingers who don't believe in paying back to society at all --- they claim taxes are theft etc. etc. and don't want to pay any taxes at all.
sockratties posted at 5:00 pm on Mon, Mar 26, 2012.
While the “fair” tax will replace income tax, we still have payroll taxes to contend with. These include FICA, Social Security, etc. The IRS or Treasury or some government bureaucracy will still be required to track and handle that.
Accuracy posted at 5:05 pm on Mon, Mar 26, 2012.
Glen Terrell, from Arlington, Texas, seems to be promoting the replacement all Federal Taxes with the Fair Tax Act of 2011 (HR 25 & S296).
Proponents of the Fair Tax are saying that our current method of taxation is wrong, but they will not get “Replace the income tax” drive to go through Congress and happen this year. With elections coming up – tax increases are on the horizon – and President Obama will try to keep a lid on the tax-hike talks, and do everything he can to keep it out of the Liberal Media, through the November election.
The Fair Tax Act of 2011 – through H.R. 25 and S296; where both bills (House & Senate) are to replace the federal income tax code with the Fair Tax. To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States. The Fair Tax Act would replace all federal income taxes with a flat national sales tax. First introduced in 1999, the legislation would tax all new commercial goods and services at a rate of 29.8 percent.
Opponents argue this would accordingly decrease the tax burden on high income earners and increase it on the middle class. While supporters contend that the plan would effectively increase purchasing power, and decrease tax burdens by broadening the tax base.
With Fair Tax, as basically a sales tax, people would only pay taxes on items they buy, except for food, basic clothing, and other kinds of necessities.
The Fair Tax, which would eliminate federal taxes including levies on corporations, would “reboot the American economy,” Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, running in the Libertarian party for President, said. The Fair Tax would provide enough revenue to fix Social Security’s financing problem, he said.
Dale Whiting posted at 6:02 pm on Mon, Mar 26, 2012.
One of the tenant principles of conservatism is respect for traditions. Where traditionally the more one makes, the higher is their marginal tax rate, conservatives must place some value on the graduated income tax rules. What that value is can vary from individual conservative to indivicual conservative. However, the trickle down theory is not conservative. It's nuts, based upon unproven, even undemonstrated balderdash!
Accuracy posted at 12:04 pm on Tue, Mar 27, 2012.
Eight out of ten businesses in America file their taxes as individuals and those that file taxes as individuals will see their tax rate go to 44.8 percent.
With the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, the federal tax on capital gains will increase from 15 percent to 25 percent on Jan. 1, 2013, and the top federal income tax rate will go up from 35 percent to 44.8 percent.
In_God_We_Trust posted at 4:46 pm on Tue, Mar 27, 2012.
Hey Arizona Willie, who gave those bricklayers a job making enough money to buy a home and raise a family? Why don't you just call for the nationalization of all bricklaying companies? You don't give those who create wealth their fair due.
Arizona Willie posted at 6:36 pm on Wed, Mar 28, 2012.
In Fantasies We Trust --- this isn't true. I have no big quarrel with the wealthy.
The problem is -- the wealthy don't give credit to the workers.
In our system only the possession and investment of money counts.
Someone works for their company for 30 years and invests their labor and imagination and maybe comes up with better way to do things or better products and they get NOTHING but their salary while the people who own the place get ALL the rewards of his labor and inspiration.
You may think that's fine ... until it is you in that situation and suddenly you will find yourself thinking that it isn't fair at all.
There is a partnership ( or should be ) between labor and capital.
It takes both.
A multi-millionaire can build a widget factory but without someone to WORK in that factory all his investment is useless.
And from the opposite point, the workers need the wealthy to build the companies and places for them to work.
Capital needs Labor and Labor needs Capital.
But in our system only Capital gets the rewards.
Every business should have profit sharing.
A few do but it should be that way in EVERY business.
That is the only way to fairly split the rewards between the two partners .. Capital and Labor.
I'm not at all against capitalism, but that doesn't mean it is a perfect system and no changes should ever be considered.
sockratties posted at 12:59 pm on Thu, Mar 29, 2012.
azw – that's what contracts are for. The wealthy risk their money and if they made a good decision and they run things right they reap the rewards. Labor is in the business of selling their time and effort. They do it for so much an hour. If they make a contract with the business owner it can include those other things you mentioned. Unions tend to do this but over time often become the benefactors of the membership's labor.
Since the worker often has little to offer besides time and effort they take what they can get. When times are hard they have to settle for less because of competition from their fellow workers. Education can make them more valuable and put them in a bargaining position. Laborers are just that and can't expect to benefit from the risk taken by the investor. Their only risk was hour by hour.