Conference back40::soapbox

    Jesus commanded us to render to Caeser what is Caesers and render to
    God what is Gods.
    
    Stop yer infernal whining!
    
    -Jack

    
    re -1
    
    Dear Jack -
    
    It ain't whining (are you replying to the wrong
    conference, perhaps?) when one works hard for your money, and yet
    have no control over how it is spent!
    
    Perhaps you're one who manages to enjoy the remaining loopholes
    left because you either make too little (highly unlikely, right) or
    you make too much!! This affects you too, don't you agree???
    
    and what does your religious pontification has to do with this topic?
    get a life, Jack!
    
    
    
    

    re: .1
    
     I could have sworn you were the one whining about paying taxes a
    week or two ago...
    
     I'd do much worse with a 17% flat income tax (assuming the kept FICA
    separate.) Do the math and check it yourself.

    I was just trying to tick you off because you were complaining about
    too many religious strings.  Delayed smiley face!  :-) :-)

    re -1
    
    sorry, you must have gotten the wrong person -
    not me!
    
    are you satisfied with the tax system?
    
    

    .3
    
    I'd do better with a flat 17% rate, even if FICA were separate.  I did
    the math.

    Ooops...sorry.  I thought you were complaining about the new string on
    the two crosses and said, "Can't we talk about taxes or something??"
    
    No, I think the current system penalizes hard work, effort and
    prosperity.  It is a liberal model which says...shame on you for
    excelling and succeeding in life.  We must spread misery evenly...how
    dare you not pay your fair share and how dare you have a bad attitude
    about supporting a central regime.
    
    The current system must be gutted to make Washington DC more
    accountable.
    
    -Jack

    Are you in a high marginal rate or do you have no deductions?

    
    "...too many religious strings..."?  It's not that there's too many but
    that there's any.  Any rational person realizes that explicitly
    religious topics in this conference are a tiny, tiny amount of the
    total.  The real complaint is with religious participants and the
    extent to which they mention their religion or support their arguments
    with religious belief.
    
    Religious people should go 'round complaining about all the pagan ideas
    being promulgated in the 'box.  Not really but maybe it would make a
    clear point.
    
    jeff

    >Religious people should go 'round complaining about all the pagan ideas
    >being promulgated in the 'box.  Not really but maybe it would make a
    >clear point.
    
     You say it as if they don't.

    .8
    
    Assuming that your question is directed at me...  I have deductions for
    myself, my wife, charity to the tune of 1/10 of everything, a mortgage,
    and business expenses.
    
    My wife prepares taxes professionally, and I'm morally certain we take
    every deduction we're legally entitled to.  We'd do better.

    rply clash -- kaboom -- sorry
    
    mr levesque - nope, that wasn't me complaining abt taxes
    in here 2 weeks ago. I am now obviously!!!
    
    Remember 1986 tax reform - guess what - it's not done yet!
     For 1994, one cannot deduct club dues (including professional dues),
     you better be horribly sick (including dental) before you can
     deduct anything, plus the IRS is clamping down on job-hunting
     expenses!
     
     It seems that anything a citizen does positively to take care of
     oneself (savings, good health, finding better job, etc) can
     penalized!
    
     My SO was laid-off with a lump sum severence pay - well, no income
     averaging, that money was taxed as though it a lottery winning with
     no provision for the leaner years when he's trying to find another
     job!
    
    Whew - sorry abt that. The system is simply UNFAIR!
    

    >mr levesque - nope, that wasn't me complaining abt taxes
    
     I was referring to Jack Martin.

    
    Flat tax --> No.
    Federal sales tax --> No.
    
    Minimun tax --> Yes.
    Capital Gains tax --> No.
    
    A flat tax takes the ability for the government to provide incentives
    for certain economic behaviours and stifles risk taking.
    
    A federal sales tax hurts the poor more than anyone else.
    
    Capital Gains == double dipping tax and should be corrected.
    
    A minimum tax % for everyone above a certain income will insure that 
    everyone who can contribute, does contribute.
    
    There, I said it. I feel much better now :-)
    
    Doug.

    
    
    Taxes that are extremely unfair:
    
    Property tax
    
    Inheritance tax
    
    Gift tax
    
    
    to name a few.......

    
    A flat sales tax....
    
    I don't want to ever penalize the incentive of making money, either
    as an individual or a corporation.  I'd rather penalize consumption.
    (has interesting side effects - less waste more conservation)

    While inuitively it would seem to hurt the poor, I'd like to see the
    math.  I'd like to see what gets taxed.  If food and rent do not
    get taxed, I can't see it hurting the poor disproportionately.
     
    

    .15
    
    > Taxes that are extremely unfair:
    > Inheritance tax
    
    The Fed doesn't hit you with an inheritance tax unless the amount of
    the legacy is in excess of $600,000.  If you're that rich you prolly
    can afford to pay the tax without bellyaching.  The states have some
    lower thresholds, but their percentages are lower, and you get cross
    coupled writeoffs.  It's not nearly as bad as you think.

    
    doug - I'm curious about your stmt that "a flat tax takes the
    ability for the govt to provide incentives for certain economic
    behaviour and stifles risk-taking". Assuming that you meant "takes
    way...", would you pls elaborate and perhaps furnish an example?
    
    Flat Rate implies minimum tax, does it not? 17% of $5000 is
    proportionally the same as 17% of $500,000.
    
    On principle, I consider  savings and investments "goodness" not as
    an end but the means for better living, and undisciplined consumption as  
    a serious problem. So whatever the tax "reform" may become, I would
    like to see it encourage the former and discourage the latter; I think
    the so-call "consumption tax" is the politician's answer to the latter,
    which is I do not agree with.
    
    I concur with you on the capital gains tax.
    
    
    

    
    >The Fed doesn't hit you with an inheritance tax unless the amount of
    >the legacy is in excess of $600,000.  If you're that rich you prolly
    >can afford to pay the tax without bellyaching.  
    
    Personally, I don't consider an estate of $600K to be that rich.

    
    I'm curious...
    
    Is this number (17%) mean anything? Did someone just pull it out of a
    hat?
    
     How was/is it derived..
     

    Well, that's the number of a potential national sales tax (to replace
    the income tax altogether.)

    
    Thanks Mark... I wasn't aware of that figure...
    
    Is it (%17) to insure the LEVEL of government now?
    

     mr levesque -
     really? A VAT to replace income tax? So would that mean
     the local sales tax (like 8.25% here in Alameda Cty, CA)
     would go away, and how about state income taxes? Probably
     not. Sigh!
    
     If there's are EEC noters in here, you do pay other SALES TAX
     in addition to VAT?
    

    .19
    
    > Personally, I don't consider an estate of $600K to be that rich.
    
    Let me put it to you this way:  If I inherited $600K today, I could and
    would retire immediately.  Income from $600K invested in the right
    places, plus the bits I could pick up doing occasional stuff I enjoy,
    would keep me going in a reasonable style until age 65, at which point
    my pension would kick in and up the ante quite comfortably.
    
    If that's not "rich," it looks to me like a very good facsimile of it. 
    It's a whole helluva lot more than I'm worth at present.

    
    
    Well, I don't know Dick, I still think it's unfair.  That money has
    already been taxed.  Just because it changes hands to another family
    member/friend shouldn't entitle the government to more of it, they've
    already gotten their hands in it once.
    
    
    Mike

    b-b-b-b-b-b-butt........  you'd junk the IRS with a flat tax.....
    ***shock,horrors,etc...***
    
    I'm more for a consumption tax.  Now, what consumables do you get
    taxed on, and at what rate.

    
    I'm with Wannahoney.  Why in the world should I have to pay tax on
    money that's already been taxed just because my mother dies?  And the
    rules about how much money one person can give another without paying a
    gift tax, well dammit, it's so intrusive.  No wonder people stuff their
    mattresses with dollars 8^/.

    
    RE: Note 386.26 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK  
    
    Actually not only do you put the IRS out of business, but 
    you can effectly tax "unreported" incomes.  It's estimated
    to be 200 Billion dollars.  You may not tax the income of a 
    criminal but if he/she buys anything, he/she pays.
    
    My gut feel is to not tax food/rent/medical services.
    Tax everything else EQUALLY.  
    Tax both personal and corporate purchases at the same rate.
    Keep it simple.  Whole thing should be written on 1 Page or less.
    No deductions, no public policy via tax incentives or write offs. 
    
    It may cost a few extra bucks at first as we'll have to pay unemployment
    insurance for all those tax lawyers. 

    <<< Note 386.14 by BRITE::FYFE "Lorena  Bobbitt for Surgeon General" >>>

>    A federal sales tax hurts the poor more than anyone else.
    
    	How so?  Every fed sales tax proposal I've seen exempts
    	food, rent, and certain other essentials from tax.
    
    	This would seem to be to be the most fair tax of all for
    	poor people.

    <<< Note 386.26 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

>    b-b-b-b-b-b-butt........  you'd junk the IRS with a flat tax.....
>    ***shock,horrors,etc...***
    
    	I don't see this happening.  We'll still all have to file
    	a form, albeit much simplified, and all of our incomes would
    	still have to be verified, and businesses will still get to
    	deduct expenses.  ANy form of income tax will allow the IRS
    	to exist very much as it does today.

    Regardless of what it gets spent on, the poor spend a greater portion
    of their income on goods and services.  It's the wealthier folks who
    have money left over for savings and investments.

    
    <-----
    
    So?

    
    While on the subject, they should pull Social Security off Budget.
    
    It was designed to be a self sustaining fund, not as a mechanism for
    reducing the budget deficit.  (believe LBJ owns that one, as a way of
    paying for Vietnam.)
    
    Read someplace that if all the money being takein in as FICA being
    applied to the federal budget were actually put in a real trust fund
    collecting real interest, FICA would actually be a lot less (the exact
    number escapes me).
    
    I'd rather have higher taxes with lower FICA.  Somehow it seems more
    intellectually honest.
      
     
    

The thing I like about the concept of a consumption tax rather than a
flat tax (assuming it's collected when the money changes hands) is that
it could potentially eliminate all of the federal bureaucracy associated
with collecting and administering an end-user income tax system. No
annual filing, no audits, no forms, no amounts due, no refunds, no
W2's/W4's, no H&R Block (sorry Wafflefartz), etc.

17% would be a tad high for my tastes given the comparison to the status
quo, however, so somebody (presumably the poor) would have to be making
out like bandits.

    re: Note 386.30 by CSC32::J_OPPELT
    
    Bzzttt... wrong-o
    
    I am an individual American.  I am free.
    A Business is an entity, sanctioned by the government.
    
    Two SEPARATE ISSUES.  Don't even confuse businesses paying a
    consumption tax, maybe they could pay that as well as what they
    currently do.  They _can_ be taxed.
    
    Now, the government has no business needing to know how much I make,
    or where it comes from.  No forms or nothing.  Now, I want a new
    Corvette, I get to pay $4000 tax when I purchase it.  Not many poor
    folks are going to be buying corvettes and getting clobbered by
    the taxman.  I want one, so I buy it and pay the tax.  Or I buy
    a Cavalier and pay $1500 tax, or I walk.  my choice.  Oh gawd, 
    there's that "choice" word again, and the government lost control
    of me to boot (no more keeping tabs on my money.  Gasp...)  

    		<<< Note 386.28 by PATE::CLAPP >>>

>    Actually not only do you put the IRS out of business, but 
>    you can effectly tax "unreported" incomes.  It's estimated
>    to be 200 Billion dollars.  You may not tax the income of a 
>    criminal but if he/she buys anything, he/she pays.
    
    	You're describing a consumption tax, not a flat tax as was
    	the entry you referenced.  A consumption tax WOULD virtually
    	wipe out the IRS (I can't see it ever going away entirely)
    	because the tax is collected at the point of sale, and won't
    	require individual reporting of income, etc.
    
>    My gut feel is to not tax food/rent/medical services.
>    Tax everything else EQUALLY.  
    
    	Perhaps certain transportation should not be taxed.  Maybe
    	the first x-amount of car purchases ($2000).  This would
    	allow a person to get SOME vehicle tax-free, but if you
    	want something nicer you'll be taxed on the 'luxury' portion.
    	And don't tax city bus fares.  This (or the ability to get
    	a minimum car) would allow the poor to get to work without
    	having to pay taxes.
    
    	There are probably other things too.  Clothing?  If so, should
    	a designer jacket go tax free?  We agree on 'food', but all
    	food?  Designer ice cream and lobsters?  Junk food?
    
    	I think that a person ought to be able to live a simple existence
    	without having to pay any sales tax.  Anything over that will be
    	subject to tax.
    
>    It may cost a few extra bucks at first as we'll have to pay unemployment
>    insurance for all those tax lawyers. 

    	A consumption tax will encourage savings.  The tax guys can get
    	jobs in the investment markets!

    re: 386.30
    
    >I don't see this happening.  We'll still all have to file
    >a form, albeit much simplified, and all of our incomes would
    >still have to be verified.....
    
    Why so?  Who would care how much anyone made.  The feds get their
    money on the uptake side.  The structure tocllect taxes is already
    in place, just have the states forward the $$ above and beyond
    their cut to the feds.  then the feds could send it back to the 
    states as block grants (sounds kinda silly when you think about it)
    
    
    
     
    

    .31> It's the wealthier folks who
    .31> have money left over for savings and investments.
    
    And this is a BAD Thing?  I thought this was America, where you
    bust your hump to improve your life and your childrens life...
    
    > Regardless of what it gets spent on, the poor spend a greater portion
    > of their income on goods and services.
    
    see earlier notes, WHAT gets taxed?  Not food, not cloths, not
    necessities.  Luxuries, I can see a tax on.  A $1500 suit can have
    some tax.  A Vette can be taxed.  But if your one of those poor
    folks, take the bus or walk.  Not a problem.  Maybe they'll bust their
    but so they could eventually buy a corvette and get to pay some
    tax too.
    
    On the other hand, this could be seen as penalizing rich people
    only.  But if someone has to be taxed, it should be people who
    have the means to deal with it.  I don't see paying tax on an
    item that's considered a "luxury" bad.  Taxing is a bad thing.
    Tax the hell out of imported cars.  Ta-da, there goes our trade
    imbalance.
    
    Let's see what else we can solve in soapbox today.
    
    Aides?  Safe Sex. BANG  fixed.  Next issue...
    
    Welfare...
           

    re: 386:36
    
    I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I'm cautious about
    not taxing things equally..
    
    For example - who defines "junk food" (Oscar Myer?) ?
    How defines luxury clothes ?  
    I'm concerned that someone is going to try and create policy
    by creating a variable tax structure.
   
    I prefer a simple flat consumption tax.
    
    If they want to create policy, at least be honest.  give 
    cash, so it appears as a line item in the budget, to be held up
    in the light and seen by all for what it is.  
    
    
    
    
    

    Wouldn't some fed bureaucracy have to exist to collect all of
    this consumption tax from the gazillions of businesses that
    have collected it from the consumers, though?  It seems that
    no matter how you do it, they'll find a way to create their
    little kingdoms.  Granted you can reduce it, though, and the
    consumption tax would seem to be the best of the alternatives.
    
    Chris

    > While on the subject, they should pull Social Security off Budget.
    
    Junk social security.  Pay folks back what they paid into it and
    shut it down.  
    
    Create an optional savings plan, competitive with a bank, which
    competes for our money.  Call it "The USA DOUBLE EAGLE WIZ-BANG FUND"
    10% interest, Please read prospectus carefully before investing in
    any risk taking venture. 
    
    BANG.  Fixed. next?

    	re .37
    
    	I was responding to the term flat tax.  Flat tax means that
    	we pay a flat INCOME tax without the complications of deductions.
    	This will still require a tax return to declare what we made,
    	how much we owe.  It will require an IRS to process all our 
    	tax payments/refunds.
    
    	If you are talking about the fed getting the money on the uptake
    	side, then you want to be supporting a CONSUMPTION tax, or a 
    	SALES tax, or a POINT OF SALE tax.  If that's what you are 
    	referring to, then I agree with you, and I also agree that it
    	would virtually eliminate the IRS.

    re:  386.41
    
    what would all the folks working in the SSA and IRS do?
    (something productive maybe?)
    
    re: 386.40
    
    actually, the states could collect the feds money when they collect
    the state sales tax (lucky New Hampshire).  Simply have the states mail
    a check to the feds (can a state say a check is in the mail? :<{)..)
    
    
    

    <<< Note 386.40 by DECWIN::RALTO "Made with 65% post consumer waste" >>>

>    Wouldn't some fed bureaucracy have to exist to collect all of
>    this consumption tax from the gazillions of businesses that
>    have collected it from the consumers, though?  

    	This is why I say that the IRS will never be eliminated.
    
    	But the IRS as it stands today is so big because it has to
    	process all those tax forms, process tax checks/refunds
    	associated with those forms, and prosecute those who do
    	not use the forms right, or who do not use them at all.
    
    	The IRS is already processing stuff from your local Quik-Stop
    	as it is, so to have to process a different form from them is
    	about the same effort.  But in processing that new form from
    	them, it will mean that the IRS won't be processing all those
    	forms from all the consumers that shop at the Quik-Stop.  In
    	essence it eliminates the entire strata of forms from the
    	individual.
    
    	Finally, most states (New Hampshire is not among them) already
    	has the structure in place to handle state sales tax processing.
    	The Fed can tap into that pretty easily.  Perhaps pay the state
    	to process the Fed's portion of the sales taxes collected, and
    	reduce accordingly the IRS even further.

    Re: .32
    
    So a consumption tax is regressive; the poor pay a higher percentage of
    their income in taxes.
    
    
    Re: .38
    
    >And this is a BAD Thing?
    
    What?  Savings and investment?  Of course not.  Is it a bad thing that
    the poor don't have a lot of money for those things?  Of course.  It
    means they don't have money for things like job training and good
    clothes for interviews and copies of resumes.
    
    >WHAT gets taxed?
    
    Let's see -- I've bought dishes, cleaning supplies, lightbulbs, TV
    Guides, pots and pans, furniture, lamps, curtains, ....  They aren't
    exactly necessities, but they're not exactly luxuries either.

    I've contemplated saving up all my old tea leaves and mailing them
    in with my return (a Reese mini Boston Tea Party); but then I've
    have to stop filing electronically.
    
    

    Any sort of simplified tax system will NEVER happen. Part of the
    governments method of contol is to force us to waste more and more time
    succumbing to complicated laws and tax systems. Efficiency is the
    opposite of government regulation. Without the cumbersome, time
    consumming, government control by force and regulation, government would
    be unnecessary.
    
    ...Tom

     
    Reese, I second that! It's time for another tax revolt. Boston sounds
    splendid!
    
    
    Chelsea, I don't think this is a poor vs rich class
    issue (what's poor and rich by your definition). Let's look at
    our own Digital community - my guess is most of us are in that
    "middle-class" sandwich, probably with income between 40K-80K 
    (heck I don't know!). How much taxes are we REALLY paying in total??
    
    From my CA paystub:
    --- Federal, State, Local
    --- FICA, Medicare, Disability
    and of course current consumption tax ie sales tax of 8.25% on
    everything (including newspaper!), more of course on gasoline.
    
    My TOTAL tax (I tallied it once), and I am not kidding, is about 50-55%!!!
     What do I get for it? I am NOT entitled to the services I've
    paid taxes for. I don't count on SS being there when I retire, and I'm
    doubly taxed when I save for my retirement (except for the 401K). 
    

    Re: .48
    
    >what's poor and rich by your definition
    
    I don't have definitions.  (But then, I didn't use "rich," so there's
    no reason why I should supply one for that.)  So long as the rich have
    more income than the poor, the poor will always pay a higher percentage
    of their income in tax if you have a tax on consumption.

            <<< Note 386.49 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    So long as the rich have
>    more income than the poor, the poor will always pay a higher percentage
>    of their income in tax if you have a tax on consumption.
    
    	How can you back this up?  If a consumption tax were set up as
    	most proposals propose, most things that a poor person would
    	buy would not be taxed.  And if they can afford to buy those
    	things that are taxed, they ought to be able to afford to pay 
    	the tax.  And for the taxable items they do buy, they'll have 
    	additional cash in their pockets becasue their take-home pay 
    	will increase by the amount that is currently being witheld from 
    	them for federal tax.

    

    
    We're not the only ones talking about this.  Just caught a few minutes
    of McNeil/Lehere and they were talking about this topic.
    
    The proponent of the flat tax stated 5 BILLION hours went into
    computing/avoiding/filing taxes as they are right now.  Since the
    opponents did not challenge this, I'll have to take it as a 
    "reasonable" estimate.
    
    Seems like all these bright folks could do something more useful with 
    5 BILLION hrs, like work on aids reasearch, a cure for cancer etc etc.
    

    
    Frankly the system is so totally cumbersome and complex that
    I think that figure (5B hr) is probably on the low side.
    
    Really, don't you agree that unless you're using the 1040EZ,
    you're probably spending 1 day (at least) gathering, entering,
    let alone analysing if what you did was right? It's a monster
    to begin with, and now it is totally out of control. The issue 
    is the mechanics of doing it (that's painful too) but to get
    it right (the interpretation etc), especially if there is other
    issues, like having a start-up business.
    
    We Americans have better, more productive things to do, I'm sure!
    

    >Seems like all these bright folks could do something more useful with
    >5 BILLION hrs, like work on aids reasearch, a cure for cancer etc,etc.
    
    Yes, this is what I was talking about. The wasted time, that could be
    used for the betterment of human life is wasted by the laws and
    regulations set forth by the government. :-(
    
    ...Tom

    So far, Canada has no inheritance tax.

    
   I wonder if we're missing the point. The reason folks are propsoing tax
    plan alternatives is because of the complexity of the current system
    and it's perceived unfairness.
    
    Currently, taxes are high, the debt is high, the deficit is high, and
    any flat tax rate will have to bring in the same coin as the current
    system. The difference is that some folks who curerntly pay less will 
    pay more and some people who pay more will pay less.
    
    Will a flat tax have a minimum income requirement? Should it? Will
    there e any provisions for providing incentive for desirable behaviour
    such as savings (IRA's) or home purchasing (interest deductions)?
    How would passive profit/loss be handled?
    
    See, none of the technical problems go away with a flat tax and all of
    the current problems could be fixed in the current system if the folks
    downtown would just do it without worrying about the next election.
    
    Worried about the folks that pay little/no taxes? Employ a minumum tax
    rate (10% ?) but don't stiffle risk taking.
     
    >doug - I'm curious about your stmt that "a flat tax takes the
    >ability for the govt to provide incentives for certain economic
    >behaviour and stifles risk-taking". Assuming that you meant "takes
    >way...", would you pls elaborate and perhaps furnish an example?
    
    A flat tax rate implies paying a tax without deductions. Currently,
    investments require risk taking (money). Today's system rewards
    risk taking, whether you succeed or fail. A flat tax say 'pay up even
    if your investments failed' and by the way, we'll tax the guy that
    took the money that you lost and just payed taxes on ...
    
    If you have to plan to pay a flat tax, it takes money that otherwise
    would have been available for investment.
    
    In the seventies, the government provided tax incentives for investing
    in energy saving technologies in an effort to reduce this contries
    dependency on foreign energy sources (mostly oil). 
    
    I have yet to hear a credible reason why a flat tax would be better
    than what we have today. They use feel good words like fair and equal
    but so far, there has been no depth to the discussions.
    
    Doug.
    
                                               
    
    
    Flat Rate implies minimum tax, does it not? 17% of $5000 is
    proportionally the same as 17% of $500,000.
    
    On principle, I consider  savings and investments "goodness" not as
    an end but the means for better living, and undisciplined consumption as  
    a serious problem. So whatever the tax "reform" may become, I would
    like to see it encourage the former and discourage the latter; I think
    the so-call "consumption tax" is the politician's answer to the latter,
    which is I do not agree with.
    
    I concur with you on the capital gains tax.
    
    
    

| <<< Note 386.54 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Special Fan Club Baloney" >>>


| So far, Canada has no inheritance tax.


  Is that because no one in Canada has anything of value to give away??? :-)

    I suppose you're right. All we have here is rocks, animal skins and
    little pots of seal blubber.

    Don't you all have some strange sort of bacon also?

    You mean back bacon? I believe it is touted as Canadian bacon in the
    U.S. It's good isn't it?

    .23
    
    no, only VAT, at least in the UK.
    
    tax regime here is :
    
    you get various allowances depending on your circumstances - married,
    single etc
    
    above that, there is a system of bands, 20%, 25%, 40% as your income
    rises
    
    then there is 17 1/2 % VAT on most goods - recently they put VAT on
    electricity to most people's utter disgust as, generally, VAT is not
    levied on so-called essentials
    
    ric

    i like the idea of a consumption-only tax, with "essentials" being
    zero-rated, and other items being zapped in line with their level of
    "non-essentiality" - so a Ferrari, alcohol, cigarettes, antiques and
    the like would get absolutely hammered while food, electricity,
    clothing and so forth would be zero rated
    
    thus, if i want to buy a luxury item, i pay for that luxury through the
    nose - the choice is mine
    
    ric

    A consumption-only tax would be my pick, as well.  Let the states
    collect the monies and then forward a % to the fed.  What I would add
    to this, is that states send only what is needed to keep the fed going,
    with the people voting on sending more money for specific programs (I
    realize this could be a mess, but it sounds good on the surface  8^) ).  
    
    I find that sending a large % of the money to the feds, only to be sent
    back as a block grant for this or that FEDERALLY  approved program to
    be, in essense, extremely wasteful as well as usurping states rights
    ('you do what we want and we'll send some of your money back to
    you'-type blackmail).
    
    The only way to reign in federal spending is to control the funds being
    sent to it.  As long as we allow the feds to control the purse strings
    in this nation, we will never amount to anything more than tax slaves,
    with little real pull in the workings of our overlords (a bit
    melodramatic, maybe, but not too far off the truth, IMO).
    
    Since the federal government is all about power in this day and age,
    you can expect that huge federal beauracracies to remain the mainstay, as
    removing them would lessen governmental power over the individual. 
    You can expect that no matter what hype is pushed by either party in
    our one-party system, that nothing will be done to lessen their
    control or power.  We can only keep voting our representatives out of
    office, but it matters little in reality; because each Congress will
    chip away at our freedoms a little at a time.  
    
    Time will tell if this Congress is truly different in this respect, but
    to be honest, I am pessimistic.  Each party has their own special angle
    at tightening the noose.  They volley back and forth, the emotions and
    sensibilities of the American people, all the while slipping more and
    more unconstitutional law within their 2000-page bills they pass each
    and every year.
    
    
    
    -steve (pessimistic on a Monday)

I agree with Steve. I'd like to think that last November was the first of
many signs that the people of this country are getting fed up with an
overgrown central government and that we've got the nads to continue to
elect legislators who will work to contract rather than expand federal
powers, including the ability of the Feds to oppressively tax us in
order to support the ridiculous level of Fed programs we've come to
expect over the past 30+ years. But, also like Steve, I'm not too
optimistic that this will come to be. There are still far too many
voters in the country who either don't care, or who actually desire
to have Washington pick their pockets to keep the beast alive.

    Vote Liberterian.
    

If and when they ever put up an electable candidate I might just do that.
In the meantime, while they continue to put forth the likes of Andr�
"The check's in the Mail" Marrou, I'll have to respectfully decline.
We don't need another taste of 1992, whereby we have votes on unelectable
third party candidates rather than the GOP nominee, to thank for the likes of
what's occupying the Whitehouse now.

    Once again, what are essentials and what are luxuries?  Are clothes
    essential or luxury?  Are some brands of shoes taxable (do name-brand
    athletic shoes count as luxuries?) and others not?  What about jeans? 
    Is furniture essential?  Is there a limit to how much you can pay for a
    table before it gets taxed?  What about cleaning supplies or over-the-
    counter medicine?  Neither is a basic requirement of life.
    
    Before you jump on a bandwagon, take time to consider how it might
    break down.  If it looks secure, _then_ jump.

I heard on the radio a political announcement for Spector playing up his flat
tax proposal and 'being able to mail in your tax return on a postcard'.

Ya right ....

Doug.

I wouldn't have a problem with a graduated consumption tax - higher on
luxuries, lower on necessities, but something on everything. Theoretically
that should work out the way income tax does, more or less.

As long as it's a percentage, it shouldn't matter. If the tax on shoes
is decided to be 10% because they're a necessity, then 10% on K-mart's
store brand will be less that 10% on Reebok's top-of-the-line. If you
really "need" Reeboks, you shouldn't mind the higher tax that goes along
with the higher price.

    So, who decides what constitutes a luxury or an essential?  Do brands
    get reviewed periodically?  What kind of changes in content or design
    warrant reclassification?  And how can you avoid the influence of
    lobbyists in the whole process?  ("Corn Flakes has added sugar; it must
    be a luxury cereal.")

Search me. Not my day to solve that problem, Chels.

:^)

    The problem then is who defines what is a luxury item, and what is not.

    K-Mart vs. Reebok.
    Escort vs. Grand Prix vs. BMW M series vs. whatever.
    Toughskins vs. Levi's.
    Hershey's vs. Godiva. (OK, so this an extreme case. 8-) )

    SOMEONE is going to have to decide what the premium on each of these
    items is.  And we complain about government size and regulation now? 
    Just you wait...

    Some government agency is going to have to decide what brands and
    model numbers/names are luxury and which ones aren't.

    How about this for a quickie post that is not well thought out (I
    thought I'd put this disclaimer beforehand  8^) ):
    
    Don't tax food at all, unless you are eating in.  Therefore resteraunts
    would be taxed (unless it is a take out order), while groceries (food
    items) are not taxed.
    
    Don't tax clothes.  Everyone needs clothes.  Even suits are a necessity
    to some jobs (thankfully, not mine  8^) ), therefore they still fall
    into the necessity category.  It gets too complicated trying to figure
    out a graduated scale for this (which is something we are trying to
    avoid).
    
    Don't tax interest made on SAVINGS accounts.  This promotes savings,
    which is inevitably good for the economy.  
    
    Taxable items should include things like tabacco, alcohol, and yes,
    gasoline.  Same with electronics (and this intrudes upon my hobby), toys, 
    books and non-consumables (which would include some necessities, but a 
    10% tax on TP will not break anyone- even those who make little money).  
    Cars fall into the tax category, as well.
    
    No capital gains tax.  No inheritance tax (this is dishonest, to say
    the least, and is just another way for the fed to squeeze more money
    out of the taxpayers).
    
    No LAND taxes.  This is unconstitutional.  You can never truly own your
    little niche in the world as long as you are forced to pay taxes on it
    (and if you fail to do so ONE time, _your_ property is confiscated).
    
    I'll think of more as time permits. 
    
    
    -steve  

       re .72:
       
       Better yet, why have any taxes at all? 
       
       That's the ticket, and it would appeal to the heart of so many
       Republicans:  Read My Lips: No Taxes.
       
       The only economic purpose of federal taxes is to limit inflation. 
       So, to hell with taxes, and let individuals deal with any inflation
       in their own way.
       
       --Mr Topaz
       
       p.s.: It doesn't seem to matter whether your posts are written
       quickly or with care; both have equal value.

re:              <<< Note 386.71 by CSEXP2::ANDREWS "I'm the NRA" >>>

No - the point should be that the _item_ is either a luxury or a necessity,
not the _brand_ of item. Higher priced brands of the same item would carry
a higher tax, even though taxed at the same rate (%).

re: .72

>    Don't tax interest made on SAVINGS accounts.  This promotes savings,
>    which is inevitably good for the economy.  

Bzzzzt. I thought we were talking consumption tax on all these categories.
Savings, like capital gains etc. are inapplicable for taxation purposes
on a consumption tax basis, no?

    Re: .74
    
    I don't have a problem with that at all.  I must have misread your note
    as saying the higher price brands get taxed at a higher rate...

    re: .75
    
    Oops, you are correct.  Told ya I didn't think much before posting. 
    8^)

    
    Used to be, sales tax in New Jersey was only on non-essentials. 
    Therefore while shampoo wasn't taxed, conditioner was, bla bla bla.
    
    Don't know if it's still that way.  And no, I don't know who decided
    what was an essential.

    
	Okay ... interesting discourse so far, but my queries in .0
	remained unanswered:

	---  Where do I go, what do I do, to really be an (dare I say it?!)
	     activist in this movement? Just imagine even in our little 
	     Digital community this is a hotly debated topic. Unfortunately
	     I don't think these discussion really helps formulate or
	     influence the tax reform/revolt. Apart from us chickens, who's
	     really listening to what is said here?

	---  I sincerely want to learn the facts of the various proposals
	     so that I don't fell prey to "sound-bites" and emotionalism.
	     Where do I get the information?

	Query: Would a FED sales tax replace the local state/cty sales tax,
	       which are enforced arbitrarily, it seems.

	       Would having a flat FED tax rate give state govt a bigger
	       excuse to raise and create other local taxes to make 
	       up for the deficit resulting from reduced state collection 
	       (esp for states whose tax system piggyback that of the Fed)?
	

                                         

re .71:

Massachusetts considers clothing priced under a certain amount ($150 I think)
as essentials and exempt from sales tax.  Items priced higher are taxed
(presumably considered "luxuries")

The problem with this is "bracket creep" over time due to inflation.

    A consumption tax is by far and away the best route.  the limits on
    what is not taxed should be an absolute and clearly defined set of
    products.  These would be the basic staples of life.  the items that I
    would include would be basic supermarket food staples; unprocessed
    meats, grains, fruits and vegetables.  All other items are taxed at the
    same rate and more expensive items pay more tax at the same rate. 
    Housing and related expenses, i.e., heat, electricity should be
    excluded.  All medical expenses and medicines, including over the
    counter items.
    
    Everything else is taxed at exactly the same rate, no exceptions.
    

    The problem with this is the burden of tax collection now falls onto
    the backs of the retailers. This is not a reliable source as the GST in
    Canada is now showing.
    Glenn

Theoretically, assuming honesty in retailers, it shouldn't be a problem,
as they currently need to report and be taxed upon income, which is in
some way proportional to sales. Even if we assume they cheat, there are
less of them than there are consumers, so, again theoretically, it should
be easier to keep them in line by virtue of their numbers.

    There ought to be something in it for the retailers if you ask me.
    
    Not everyone is Wal-Mart

    .74 and .81 have it
    
    it is the type of item not the brand that determines the category.
    thereafter, the different prices of the brands within the type
    automatically varies the amount of tax eg cars get hit at say 40% so a
    20k car attracts 5k tax, a 100k car attracts 40k tax.
    
    however, i would disagree with .81 that all other non-essentials get
    taxed at the same rate - i would suggest several categories.
    
    if the thought of the nightmares involved in this is too much, do you
    think the bureaucracy generated would exceed that currently in place -
    on both sides of the pond?
    
    ric

>Massachusetts considers clothing priced under a certain amount ($150 I think)
>as essentials and exempt from sales tax.  Items priced higher are taxed
>(presumably considered "luxuries")

I think it's $175.  Someone who used to work at a men's clothing store told
me that they would ring up a suit as a separate jacket and trousers to get
around this.

    The last entry shows exactly the problem when you get the wrong
    thinking involved in the tax system.  If you have separate categories
    for different items, etc then you invite abuse.
    
    If you set one tax rate for all items then the administration is simple
    and the compliance is easy.
    

      Count me as another for a consumption tax.  Imagine all the
      revenue coming from people who's income is illegal?  For
      example, criminal types still would buy, wouldn't they?
    
      It sounds real good to me.  No tax forms.  Ther govt. need not
      know what anyone makes (less intrusion hypothetically), savings
      are induced.
    
      It just sounds real good to me.

                     <<< Note 386.79 by SX4GTO::WANNOOR >>>

>	Query: Would a FED sales tax replace the local state/cty sales tax,
>	       which are enforced arbitrarily, it seems.
    
    	I doubt that the Fed sales tax would replace state/city/county 
    	sales tax.

>	       Would having a flat FED tax rate give state govt a bigger
>	       excuse to raise and create other local taxes to make 
>	       up for the deficit resulting from reduced state collection 
>	       (esp for states whose tax system piggyback that of the Fed)?
    
    	The sales tax is not the same as the FLAT TAX that you are hearing
    	about in the news this week.  The flat tax is on income.  The sales
    	tax is on sales (outgo).  I prefer the latter.

    How would this sales tax effect business? Would it be a flat
    percentage of sales price? If so, you will clobber the economy
    dead in no time.

    Big ticket, capital equipment items (like the ones that keep
    us here) are write-offs today, and thus there's an incentive
    to buy. If you start putting a sales tax on such items, it
    throws the whole balance off, and creates an incentive not to
    buy.

    -b

    	regarding the solution of micro-managing what-gets-taxed here in
    	this discussion:
    
    	Why bother getting ulcers over it here?  If a consumption tax
    	gets enacted, you can be sure that it will be worked out.  It's
    	obvious for most items.  TVs are non-essential.  Bread is
    	essential.  Clouding the issue by splitting hairs over a
    	processed pizza vs the individual ingredients to make a pizza
    	is counterproductive.  Most states have already done a pretty
    	fair job of determining those things for themselves, and most
    	states seem to aggree on most items.  It seems that for most
    	items it should be fairly easy to set some sort of standards.
    
    	True, there will be some mistakes.  So if you don't want to pay
    	tax for those items, you are free to choose not to buy them.
    	That's the beauty of a consumption tax.  You get to control 
    	to a large degree how much tax you pay.  And for those items
    	that you find are essential for you, but are not classified
    	as such by the tax man, your increased take-home pay (due to 
    	the absence of federal witholdings) will be able to handle
    	the tax on those items.

    ref  j. oppelt
    
    Yes, I am clear on the fact that we are actually talking about 2 
    very different and mutually exclusive taxes: flat rate on INCOME 
    and consumption tax on items BOUGHT.
    
    What I was asking was this: 
    If the FED levy a flat INCOME tax, states that bind their state taxes
    to the FED rates will probably see a decline in their tax collection.
    If we assume in fact that is the case, wouldn't the states be
    tempted and motivated to be more creative in generating taxes to 
    make up that difference?? Possibilities: jack up property taxes,
    county/local sales taxes, more speed traps for the Local PD, etc.
    
    In a way I am anticipating this unfortunate tax backlash as an unintended
    consequence of having a flat rate INCOME tax.
     

    	re .90
    
    	There are currently provisions in most states that have sales
    	taxes to exempt from tax certain purchases made by businesses.
    	(For instance purchases made for resale.)  Why not extend that
    	to the federal level too?
    
    	But to further address your question, it has always been bad
    	business policy to conduct business solely on the tax implications.
    	To fail to make a capital acquisition simply becasue there is 
    	no longer a tax benefit to it will mean that the business will
    	lose out on the increased profit (which will now be tax-free) that
    	the purchase of that equipment would have generated.  If the
    	purchase of that equipment would not have added to the bottom
    	line (except for tax implications under the current system) then
    	it really wouldn't be a very good purchase to begin with.

    	re .92
    
    	Oh.  I see what you are saying now.
    
    	Colorado is like that.  "Take the number from line-whatever on your
    	federal return, and pay us 5% of that"  (pretty close, anyway...)
    
    	Yup, they'll have to rework things.  Perhaps they'll scrap income
    	tax too, and just adjust their sales tax policies to make up the
    	difference.

    	Regarding the FLAT TAX proposals that have made the news so far,
    	I really can't see why opponents can say that they are soaking
    	the poor.  Armey's proposal is a flat 17% of everything over a
    	certain amount.  For a family of 4, it was $36,500!  That's a
    	pretty hefty chunk of income for a 'poor' person!  Another 
    	proposal used an exemption of $25,500, with deductions for
    	mortgage interest and charitable contributions.  Tax anything
    	over the limit at 20%.
    
    	I like the first proposal better, personally, and I think it has
    	the better support in congress.  I fail to see how this will hurt
    	the poor.
    
    	I still prefer a sales tax, though.

    Re: .95
    
    >Armey's proposal is a flat 17% of everything over a certain amount
    
    From what I recall, that's insufficient to sustain the budget by an
    order of billions.

    re: .96
    
    From what I've read and heard on this subject, 17% was the minimum
    needed to sustain the budget as is.  
    
    Make a few cuts and guess what?  Surplus to pay on the national debt. 
    [Like this will ever happen.  Washington seems more interested in making
    sure our currencly will collapse, than in paying off our debt.]
    
    
    -steve

    Re: 96
    
    That's precisely the beauty of Armey's proposal.  Part of implementing
    a flat tax, which I prefer less than a consumption tax, is that part of
    the bargain is that you reduce spending.
    
    This proposal is not a revenue neutral proposition.  It intends that
    the current level of Federal spending is reduced to keep in line with
    the anticipated revenues.
    

    Re: .98
    
    >part of the bargain is that you reduce spending
    
    What, again?  It's been hard enough getting people to agree to cut
    stuff this time around.  The more rounds you go, the meaner the
    lobbyists get.  I doubt you'll ever get Congress to stand up to the
    lobby for retired folks, for one.

    
    armey's flat tax falls about 200 billion short of current spending,
    but he doesn't care.  he wants the federal government to be starved
    for funds so washington will be pre-occupied with shrinking the
    government rather than expanding it.  good idea, since doing it the
    old way has us heading for bankruptcy.
    
    bill

    Cutting taxes didn't force cuts in expenditures during the 1980s, did
    it?
    
    -Stephen
    

    We didn't have a Republican congress in the 80s...
    
    -b

    Taxes weren't cut; tax _rates_ were. Revenues _increased_ in the 80s.
    The government just happened to spend more money than the increased
    revenues.

    So actually cutting taxes, with a GOP Congress in place, will force
    expenditure cuts?
    
    -Stephen

    If it isn't obvious, I'm skeptical... Cut spending by cutting spending,
    if that's your goal.  
    
    -Stephen

     
    
    	Let's say we pay 17% flat rate, no deductions allowed, but no
    	capital gain tax as well. Would you be more inclined as a result
    	to save and invest the extra take-home, or would you spend it.
    
    	I consider this flat rate change as a change-agent to modify
    	the behaviour of the govt (starve it approach) and the citizens
        (more take-home & with no tax on capital gain would spur 
    	more savings & investment), but I don't think generally that 
    	Americans who have been trained to spend (shop till your drop, 
    	or hit the credit limit, whichever comes first!) can change 
        'quickly' to a save-and-invest society.
    
    	This ought to be a concern for the lawmakers; if we are not capable
    	or afford to invest, especially within our own boundaries, then
    	we'll continue to decay economically.
    
         
    	 
    	
    	
    	
    	  
    	
    	

 > Taxes weren't cut; tax _rates_ were. Revenues _increased_ in the 80s.
 >   The government just happened to spend more money than the increased
 >   revenues.

 Many tax loopholes were closed as well resulting in fewer deductions with the
 net result of many folks having higher tax bills at the lower tax rates.

 It is clear that an expanding economy contributed to the coffers, but that
 wasn't the only reason revenues increased.

 One more thing: While reducing the rates and deductions was supposed to simplify
 the tax code, it actually made it more complicated.

 Doug.

-- [ From: Gene Haag * EMC.Ver #2.2 ] --

lady di,

well i read the notes on the flat tax. early on jack martin hit on one of the
two MAJOR reasons we should be supporting such a tax. why am i not surprised
that no one seems to have picked up on those reasons? anyway, as jack stated:


>Note 386.7 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN 
>
>The current system must be gutted to make Washington DC more accountable.

the primary reason to support such a taxing mechanism is to hold those
congresscritters feet to the fire on how and how much of our money they spend.
secondarily, and equally important, is to make our average citizens understand
just how much they pay into the government. both of these issues are vehemently
opposed by most congresspeoples. 

consider dick armey's position. a flat tax. no deductions or exemptions. you
pay "x" percent EACH month. just like a house or car payment. this would make
it obvious to the taxpayer just how much he/she pays for government. it would
cause the average citizen to regularly ask the question: "am i getting my
monies worth"? a very rational and legitimate question we all ask about our
other expenditures. why not our governmental outlays? 

today's tax laws and codes are so complicated that the average taxpayer hasn't
a clue how it works. i believe this is by design for a couple of reasons. first,
knowledge is power. if the average taxpayer doesn't understand something, then
he/she isn't likely to seriously question the process. we've been conditioned
and threatened (by the waffen IRS) to simply pay what we are told to pay, and
when. doesn't sound like government serving the people in my book. second,
there are vast segments, powerful segments, of our society that live off the
complexity of the tax system. they make their living at it. they've grown
wealthy off of it. they have a very serious vested interest that the taxing
system gets MORE complicated, not less. i call those people leeches. they
provide nothing to the GNP. they simply siphon off a bit from personal and
corporate profits.

the government accountability factor i like the best. if the average taxpayer
writes the government a monthly check, he/she will become immediately aware of
changes (increases) in the tax rates. this also scares the politico's. today
the tax rates are manipulated by vast groups for all kinds of BS reasons. and
joe taxpayer has no clue that next april he'll have to cough up .6% more than
last year. the government, using the strong arm of the IRS, takes a little more
by quietly screwing the average guy out of a little more each year. and like
lemmings to the sea, we pay and pay.

which leads me to a conclusion about the soapbox ramblings on this topic. what
selfishness!! just about all the replies dwelled on "me, myself, and i". sure
its important that each of us determine our contribution. but isn't it better
that we all are treated equally? i would be willing to pay a little more/less
knowing that all were contributing our fair share - rich, poor, everyone!

which leads me to one final observation. the current liberal governing elite
will fight this proposal on the grounds that the rich benefit and the poor
suffer more. what hypocritical nonsense. typical of the liberal agenda. but
nonsense nevertheless. the truly wealthy pay little or no income taxes today.
either do the very poor. its all of us in the middle that get stuck paying year
in and year out. all these flat tax proposals are trying to do, albeit in round
about ways, is to spread the pain around equally. (i assume everyone agrees
paying taxes isn't joyful - contrary to babs striesands statements). from that
standpoint you would think the liberals would support a flat tax system since
they are big on spreading pain around anyway. i think the problem they have
with this proposal is the word "equally".

few things will get people riled up faster than the subject of taxation. hell,
we had a revolutionary war fought primarily over "unjust taxation". we won that
taxation battle, but lost the taxation war. its time we took government back
from the elitist towers they built for themselves. few things will get their
attention faster than the people once again controlling the purse strings. 

this is a fight worth fighting. it's simply time.

<--- ya gotta like that man....

    
    Uh oh!  Everybody be careful what you say...Lady Di is forwarding all
    our notes to Haag...and who KNOWS who else!
    
    :^)
    

  .110  occasionally when i talk with Gene, a topic will be mentioned
        that he'd like to see the notes on.  oh, and the swiss geezer
	too.  but that's it.  not to worry.  ;>

    
    Okay...as long as the CIA isn't involved!
    
    :^)
    

    It's good to know Gene hasn't changed, 
    

    
>>    Okay...as long as the CIA isn't involved!
>>    :^)

    It was pointed out to me that it's not a good idea, period.
    Which is, of course, true.  Sorry I didn't think about it more
    carefully and if it bothered anyone.
    I won't send any other notes to Gene or the Swiss geezer.    

    	I don't know if it's so bad, Di.  Just don't tell us about it
    	next time and you won't have to answer for it!   :^)

    
    Oooops...now I started something.  Sorry.
    
    :^(
    

    
>>    Oooops...now I started something.  Sorry.

	no, no, you and another kind soul are possibly
	saving me some grief.  thanks.
 

>consider dick armey's position. a flat tax. no deductions or exemptions. you
>pay "x" percent EACH month. just like a house or car payment. this would make
>it obvious to the taxpayer just how much he/she pays for government. it would
>cause the average citizen to regularly ask the question: "am i getting my
>monies worth"? a very rational and legitimate question we all ask about our
>other expenditures. why not our governmental outlays? 

Although I agree with many of Haag's observations I do not agree with his 
rationale for a flat tax (That doesn't mean there isn't a legitamate rationale
out there somewhere, just that it hasn't been presented yet).

Note that today, we pay out to the government each week and it doesn't spurn the
reaction that he implies a monthly outlay would. The people who ask today
if they're getting their moneis worth will be the folks that ask the question
if we have a flat tax. The relationship between the behaviour and the tax
mechanism is disjoint.

Doug.

    	Clinton in his news conference said that Armey's flat tax doesn't
    	help the poor or middle class enough.
    
    	The "poor" man with 2 kids making $36,500 or less will pay ZERO in
    	federal income tax.  How much more "help" can Clinton expect for him
    	from the income tax system?
    
    	For middle-class me, one income earner, $15000 in deductions (plus
    	the exemptions for all of my family members) my taxes would have
    	dropped from $5500 to $3700, even with the loss of that $15000 in
    	deductions.  For middle class people in my salary range who don't
    	have the benefits of mortgage deductions and the like, their tax
    	savings would be even greater.  How much more "help" does Clinton
    	want to give me?  What has he proposed to "help" he more?

    
    armey is merely opening with 17% and $36,500.  clinton will definitely
    veto a proposal with those numbers, so the percentage will have to go
    up and the number at which middle class families start paying will have
    to come down.  essentially, they need to change enough to garner a two-
    thirds override vote in the senate, or slick's support, whichever seems
    more easily achievable.  20-23% and $20-25,000 are more likely numbers.
    actually, 'boxers could reasonably just play with these numbers until
    the result is roughly equal to what they paid last year, and imo they
    would be in the ballpark.
    
    the monthly payment plan, as appealing as it may be, will be doa.
    millions would fall behind and never catch up; the irs would get
    even uglier.
    
    
    bill

    The flat tax is a bad idea only from the standpoint that it still gives
    the Fed the opportunity to play with rates, exclusions, etc over time. 
    Any tax system that still leaves any control with the Fed is no better
    than what we presently have.
    
    The above is basically why I still support a consumption tax since the
    only thing the government can control is the rate and what does and
    doesn't get taxed.  These items would be very hard to hide and the
    individual can still excercise some control over them by either buying
    or not buying the item.. The Fed will not place taxes on necessities
    and you can control what "luxuries" you might purchase.  You also have
    a bit more control on the specific items.
    

    
    great topic for deabate ... if I were the tax god what would I do ...
    
    1) Eliminate the Corporate Income Tax ... very little revenue is
    generated this way (something like 10%) of all federal tax revenue
    while the marginal rate is something like 50% for a firm.  So we're
    greatly reducing companies ability to invest while not getting any
    meaningful bucks out of it.  It is also a vehicle for the government to
    try to manipulate the free market through deductions and such ... a big
    negative in my opinion.  Comapnies will no longer plan strategies to
    duck taxes as opposed to win in their market.  The US tax rate will be
    lower than other countries there giving one small advantage to the US
    when companies make a location decision.  Etc, etc
    
                                                            
    2) Capital Gains ... tax as ordinary income ... given #1 capital gains
    tax no longer represents double taxation. 
    
    
    3) consumption tax ... don't like it ... the rich will pay a lower % of
    their income.
    
    
    4) flat tax ... the way to go IMO ... the biggest item is wiping out
    all the deductions and setting a reasonable lower thresh hold of when
    the tax kicks in.  Tax all income earned and unearned.  Get the
    government out the business of trying to manipulate the free market. 
    Most(?) families get an automatic "tax break" because they no longer
    fork over $50-$100 to H&R Block.  Still shrinks the IRS immensely.
    
    
    Greg
    
                                                            

    GOP named Jack Kemp to head a commission to study tax system overhaul 
    in depth.  That commission will report in the fall.  Until then, I
    don't think we'll see many concrete proposals worth discussing.
    
    DougO

    Re: 122
    
    Your comment unfortunately identifies what's wrong with any discussion
    on taxes in this country.  Everybody feels that taxes are too high and
    misspent, but all of the feel-good folks feel the rich don't pay
    enough.  See your comment below.
    
    3) consumption tax ... don't like it ... the rich will pay a lower % of   
    their income.
    
    Maybe I don't follow, but a flat tax of 10% would hit the rich equally. 
    If you feel that because they work hard and make more that they should
    be penalized further, well...  BTW, if you use the flat 10% on, say,
    clothes, you would have a guy paying $10 for a pair of pants paying $1
    in tax.  If Joe Rich Guy buys a $700 suit them he pays $70.  that sure
    seems like a pretty hefty amount of tax.  Or do you just dislike the
    fact that some guy can spend $700 on a suit.  It sure seems that what a
    lot of people wnat is to tax until no one can buy the $700 suit and
    then everything will be just fine.
    
    Sorry, I don't buy it.
    

I thought .122's point was that if the rich only buy the $70 suit instead
of the $700 suit, they will, overall, pay a lower percentage of their
income. Seemed pretty clear to me. Surely if they buy Armanis you are
correct, but with a consumption tax, the rich can choose frugality as
well as can anyone else, and thus pay a lower percentage of their income.

That's not a bad thing (to me, at least), but I think that was the point
being made in .122 (who apparently did dislike the idea).

    
    Relative to rich people paying a higher percentage - 
    
    It seems axiomatic to some that the rich should pay a higher percentage.
    
    Wouldn't it actually be more fair to be taxed based upon services 
    recieved?  (Ie does a rich person use mor eof the defense budget than
    a person of lesser means, does a rich person use more highway funds?)
    
    True fairness would seem to require rich folks paying a lower
    percentage.  Somehwere along the way we seem to have lost our sense
    of fairness.   There's nothing meanspirited about fairness. If 
    anything, those that skew the the system against any class, including
    the rich class, are the meanspirited ones.
    
    
    
    
    
    
     
    
    
        

>    Wouldn't it actually be more fair to be taxed based upon services 
>    recieved?

Asking for this is asking for a nightmare worse than we have now, specifically
since by definition it requires a government beaurocracy to evaluate how
much "service" anyone receives. (You don't think _you_ get to decide that,
do you? :^)

Al is right. A consumption tax is the best way to go. It eliminates
more of the "class conflict" than any other taxation system, and it is
eminently fair

                       <<< Note 386.126 by PATE::CLAPP >>>

>    Wouldn't it actually be more fair to be taxed based upon services 
>    recieved?  (Ie does a rich person use mor eof the defense budget than
>    a person of lesser means, does a rich person use more highway funds?)
    
    	Under a consumption tax, services are taxed too.  Now, I realize
    	that you were referring to GOVERNMENTAL services, like national
    	defense, but it would seem to me that a person's "use" of those
    	government services might very well be a function of (or indicated
    	by) his "use" of goods and services within society.
    
    	Perhaps a rich person *does* "use" (or benefit from) national
    	defense, for example, more than a poor person.  He has more to
    	lose if the country collapses.

    
>>    3) consumption tax ... don't like it ... the rich will pay a lower % of   
>>    their income.
>    
>    Maybe I don't follow, but a flat tax of 10% would hit the rich equally. 
>    If you feel that because they work hard and make more that they should
>    be penalized further, well...  
    
    I don't understand your point ... in my note I said I was for a flat
    tax ... so it looks like we agree why are you saying we disagree?  
    (BTW, the term flat tax is usually used to mean a flat-rate *income*
    tax)
    
    
>     BTW, if you use the flat 10% on, say,
>    clothes, you would have a guy paying $10 for a pair of pants paying $1
>    in tax.  If Joe Rich Guy buys a $700 suit them he pays $70.  that sure
>    seems like a pretty hefty amount of tax.  Or do you just dislike the
>    fact that some guy can spend $700 on a suit.  It sure seems that what a
>    lot of people wnat is to tax until no one can buy the $700 suit and
>    then everything will be just fine.
>    
>    Sorry, I don't buy it.
    
     10% on cloths is not usually called "a flat tax" ... it's usually
    called a sales or consumption tax.  
    
    Sorry you don't buy it but there is tons of evidence around the world
    to support my statement.  There are tax systems of every variety around
    the world. In sales/consumption tax systems lower income folks end up
    paying a higher percentage of their income to the tax than higher
    income folks in virtually all cases.  There is tons of documentation
    of this (go to any B-School or Public Policy-School library).  Richer
    folks pay more dollars but a lower percentage of their income.  Do you 
    agree richer folks invest a higher percentage of their income?  If so
    it follows they spend a lower percentage of their income on stuff that
    might be hit with a consumption tax.  Hence the
    problem unless the consumption tax is to be applied to purchase of
    investments also.  
    
    The tax burden would only be equal if people who made
    twice as much money spend twice as much on everything and that just is
    not reality.
    
    BTW - A flat income tax would be my first choice but I would jump at a
    consumption tax with exemptions for necessities over the system we have
    today!
    
    Greg
    
    

    Re: 129
    
    It seems like we're getting closer, but I'm still not sure what you
    mean about rich folks paying a lower percentagfe of their income in
    taxes, even though they pay more absolute dollars.  Quite frankly, a
    citizen in this country, regardless of income, should pay the same
    amount, not percentage but $.  If you want to look at a fair tax
    system.
    
    This eliminates the class warfare that liberals like to promote, since
    everyone receives the same benefits, overall, and should pay the same
    amount.  Different rates are wrong.
    
    If i chose to save and invest and not spend on consumption today, I
    should not be penalized for that.  At the same time, if someone does
    not take advantage of the opportunities to get ahead, then society does
    not subsidize that decision by telling those who have achieved that
    they should pay more.
    
    To me it's just basically unfair.
    

    
    Imagine taking the total budget and dividing by the number of
    citizens in the country, then send out a bill to everyone.
    (parents pay for kids - might pay for schooling)...
    
    after you pay the bill, you pay NOTHING more.  Zero, nada, zilch.
    
    just contemplating it is difficult. 
    Sort of like envisioning infinity.
    
    al
    

    
    
>    It seems like we're getting closer
    
    I agree ...
    
>     but I'm still not sure what you
>    mean about rich folks paying a lower percentagfe of their income in
>    taxes, even though they pay more absolute dollars.  Quite frankly, a
>    citizen in this country, regardless of income, should pay the same
>    amount, not percentage but $.  If you want to look at a fair tax
>    system.
>    
>    This eliminates the class warfare that liberals like to promote, since
>    everyone receives the same benefits, overall, and should pay the same
>    amount.  Different rates are wrong.
 
    What constitutes fair is at the heart of the matter.  
    
    Do you really believe that my sister who works in community health care
    should pay the same federal taxes in absolute dollars as Bob Palmer who
    makes something like 40 times as much income?  That implies that anyone
    who pursues low income professions (nurse, teacher, jobs working with
    kids, etc) is destined to a life of poverty because their salary would
    be creamed by the tax burden.  I could never go for that ... those
    making more need to pay more in absolute terms for the system to have
    any hope of being fair IMO.  How much more for the "rich" is the question 
    for me.
    
    In the seventies we had a situation where those making more paid more
    in absolute terms and also paid more in percentage terms.  I believe
    the system had gone too far at that point.  How much less for the
    "rich" was the question.
    
    Right now we have a system at least on the income tax level where the
    rich pay more in absolute terms but pay less in percentage terms.  I
    don't have any big problem with that as long as three things are
    accounted for ... 1) Payroll Taxes hit those making less much more
    severly than those making a lot and discussions of income taxes usually
    ingnore this (I would roll this collection into the income tax or
    consumption tax collection) ... 2) Elimination of huge loopholes that
    currently lets some high income folks pay virtually no income taxes ...
    3) the treatment of unearned income must be explicitly treated.
    
    Personally I believe the "rich" should pay a lower percentage than the
    "poor" which will yield more in absolute dollars however setting what
    the correct ratio is is at the heart of the class warfare.  One of the
    major draws to the flat tax is that argument is removed from the
    equation.      
    
Greg
    
    If i chose to save and invest and not spend on consumption today, I
    should not be penalized for that.  At the same time, if someone does
    not take advantage of the opportunities to get ahead, then society does
    not subsidize that decision by telling those who have achieved that
    they should pay more.
    
    To me it's just basically unfair.
    

    

    
    General questions -
    
    Why should someone who makes more pay more total dollars? 
    Why do I as a single male, seem to pay the most, yet use the least
    services? (Single female would be in the same situation.)
    Why have deductions for children? or mortgages? or anything for that
    matter.
    
    I'm not necessarily against these things, but they should be 
    open to discussion, and not taken as axiomatic. 
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    
>    Why should someone who makes more pay more total dollars? 
    
    I do not know the exact number but you'd end up with a situation with
    folks with low paying jobs owing taxing after giving all their salary to
    taxes I bet.  Ross Perot paying millions in taxes (on hundreds of
    millions of income) while paying a lower percentage of his income means
    lots of folks making 20k-30k actually have some money to pay for stuff
    like rent and food.
    
    
    
>    Why do I as a single male, seem to pay the most, yet use the least
>    services? (Single female would be in the same situation.)
>    Why have deductions for children? or mortgages? or anything for that
>    matter.
    
    Different question and I don't believe there any particularily good
    reasons hence my support of a flat tax with zippo deductions with the
    singular exception of allowing the first "x" dollars to be exempt (an
    exception that is the same for married, single, kids, no kids, house,
    no house, etc)
    
    Greg
    

    re .133
    
    Bingo! That's why I support the flat rate tax too. I don't
    have those "family" allowances either. and I don't use as
    much services as well, yet I am paying a higher share.
    
    However from all these discussion, VAT sounds reasonable too. 
    I totally disagree with the assertions that with
    consumption tax, the rich pay less % in taxes; quite the contrary
    I think (unless the rich collude to only barter between themselves
    for goods and services :-) ).  
    

    
>    I totally disagree with the assertions that with
>    consumption tax, the rich pay less % in taxes; quite the contrary
>    I think (unless the rich collude to only barter between themselves
>    for goods and services :-) ).  
 
    I'll make you a deal I'll explain why I believe the rich pay a lower %
    if you'll explain how you believe they pay more.
    
    First I'm looking at all federal taxes ... I'll use Perot as the
    ultimate rich guy ... so
    
    FICA and Medicare taxes ... most folks (80%?) are under the limit so
    they pay 7.65% explicity (and their company pays another 7.65%).  The
    uppoer limit is about $5000/yr.  So a guy making 7000 pays about
    $500/yr for these taxes while a guy who malkes 70,000 pays about
    $5000/yr for these taxes (they are both paying 7.65%).  Now Perot also
    only pays $5000/yr on scads of dough ... his percentage is tiny ...
    federal situation #1 where the rich pay a lower percentage than the
    poor.
    
    Consumption/Income taxes.  Do you believe Perot or yourself invests a higher
    percntage of their income?  Tons of evidence shows that richer folks
    invest a larger percentage of their income than poorer folks ... so it
    is certainly true that in general poorer folks spend a higher
    percentage of their income.  So if consumption taxes were applied to
    all spending on goods poorer folks would definately pay a higher
    percentage of their income.  Now the idea of excluding necessities
    makes it possible this could be corrceted.  However I've read lots of
    studies of consumption/sales taxes, including those with necessity
    exceptions, saying they are regressive in that the poor pay a higher
    percentage of their income in taxes than the rich.  
    
    To turn that around ... has anyone seen a report or a reference to a
    report from an advocate of consumption/sales tax that describes an
    existing tax structure or a proposed tax structure that does not result
    in the poor paying a higher percentage of their income to the tax (not
    just a declaration but a description of the actual or expected payments).
    I have never seen or heard of such an animal. 
    
    Greg
    

    
    greg -
    
    your example (if I understand it all) actually supports the flat
    tax rate argument in that Mr. Perot, the sake of augument, will also
    pay 17% of taxes on what he EARNS, that is he will pay 17% on his
    income of $2B!!! That's a lot more than he's paying now (I bet you)
    because when you're in his bracket, you can afford the best tax
    consultant money can buy to exploit every darn loophole in the current
    system. Now assuming that the new flat rate closes ALL loopholes (I
    know, it's a dream!) he cannot escape, except of course he somehow
    deflates his reported earnings/income, which is of course, possible.
    
    On VAT:
    I don't know about you, but from my observations and that rare association
    with a few (not Perot's caliber though), richer people tend to have richer 
    tastes, shall we say? Do you think Mrs Perot and Perot Jrs would shop 
    at K-Mart or Neimann-Marcus? Even if Mr. Perot is a tight-wad, would he 
    spend $199.99 on a suit or $1000.00 on a tailored one? Would he drive or
    be driven in a Chevy Saturn or a Caddy Seville (don't think he's a 
    Porsche type!)? The 80/20 rule, as customary, would apply even in 
    spending patterns: 80% of the wealthy would spend the way they have 
    always spend! At least the probability that they will be taxed 
    equitably is higher than now.
    
    
    
    I DO assume that basic food for example is exempt from VAT, OK.

    
>    your example (if I understand it all) actually supports the flat
>    tax rate argument
    
    I agree I support a flat income tax!
    
    

>    I don't know about you, but from my observations and that rare association
>    with a few (not Perot's caliber though), richer people tend to have richer 
>    tastes, shall we say? Do you think Mrs Perot and Perot Jrs would shop 
>    at K-Mart or Neimann-Marcus? Even if Mr. Perot is a tight-wad, would he 
>    spend $199.99 on a suit or $1000.00 on a tailored one? Would he drive or
>    be driven in a Chevy Saturn or a Caddy Seville (don't think he's a 
>    Porsche type!)? The 80/20 rule, as customary, would apply even in 
>    spending patterns: 80% of the wealthy would spend the way they have 
>    always spend! At least the probability that they will be taxed 
>    equitably is higher than now.
 
    Good examples.  Does Bob Palmer ($700k/yr) spend about 15 times as much
    on a car as the average Digial employee (assuming something like 45k is
    average)?  If not he pays a lower percentage of his income on on
    consumption tax for cars than the average Digital employee.  Do his
    designer suits costs 15 times as much as one of my suits?  Etc, etc and
    in general he spends a lot more but not in the same ratio as his income
    is higher than ours.    
    
    Greg
    
    

                    <<< Note 386.138 by ASABET::YANNEKIS >>>

>    Good examples.  Does Bob Palmer ($700k/yr) spend about 15 times as much
>    on a car as the average Digial employee (assuming something like 45k is
>    average)?  If not he pays a lower percentage of his income on on
>    consumption tax for cars than the average Digital employee.  Do his
>    designer suits costs 15 times as much as one of my suits?  Etc, etc and
>    in general he spends a lot more but not in the same ratio as his income
>    is higher than ours.    
    
    	Palmer may not buy a car that's 15 times as much as I would (though
    	when you consider that I would buy a used $4000 car and he might
    	buy a new $60K Mercedes I may not even have to make the point I am 
    	about to...) but he may buy several cars when I make do with just
    	one.  And he may have a dozen tailored suits, and buy a new one
    	(or more) each year, where I have been content to make do with
    	the single one off-the-rack suit I have had for the past 7 years.  
    	He most likely spends more than I do on entertainment, dining out, 
    	vacations, etc.   He would probably buy a better-quality carpeting 
    	for his home -- and more of it assuming his home is bigger than mine.
    	I'd venture to guess that his hobbies -- whatever they are -- will 
    	cost him more than mine will cost me.  I'd venture to guess that
    	he has a much nicer and more extensive electronic entertainment
    	system than I do -- and I'd even be willing to put money on a bet
    	that he spent at least 100 times more than I have in the last 5
    	years on electronic entertainment.  (This is not to put either Bob 
    	Palmer or myself down in any way.  It is just to point out differences 
    	in our incomes and our lifestyles, and how those differences might 
    	affect our respective tax burdens under a consumption tax.)
    
	I understand your point (and perhaps even agree with it, though
    	not to the degree that you do) that the rich might not pay a
    	greater PROPORTION of their income to a sales tax than lower-
    	income people.  But you have to realize that some people will 
    	be way less likely to be in a position to spend their income
    	on non-essential items than a Bob Palmer or Ross Perot.  Regardless
    	of my current or future income, I would like to have the choice
    	of arranging my life to affect my tax burden.  In some respects
    	I have that under the current system.  I will have less control
    	under a flat tax (short of earning less income), but will gain
    	the most control under a consumption tax.  So will the poor, and
    	so will Bob Palmer and Ross Perot.

    
    re. 139
    
    Agreed
    

    
    RE .136 - (and others)
    
    I believe it is the case that the proposals for the flat tax and
    for a VAT/sales tax are only to replace the current *income* tax.
    SS and Medicare taxes will remain as they are. So these should not
    be considered when comparing the current vs new system.
    
    						Ed
    
    

    
>    I believe it is the case that the proposals for the flat tax and
>    for a VAT/sales tax are only to replace the current *income* tax.
>    SS and Medicare taxes will remain as they are. So these should not
>    be considered when comparing the current vs new system.
 
    Then again maybe discussing alternatives will influence folks to lobby
    their reps for the tax system they think is most appropriate ... even
    if it is not one of the current alternatives.
    
    For me a consumption/sales tax while leaving social security taxes as
    they are is a no vote but a yes vote if the consumption/sales tax also
    funds social security stuff.
    
    Greg
    
    
       
    

    re: .142
    
    At least this would be an honest label for SS...TAX.
    
    I'm all for dropping SS altogether and letting folks fund their own
    retirement.  I'm willing to give up all I've paid in to date, and so
    are many other people I've talked to.
    
    -steve

    
    I can think of at least two good reasons why a consumption tax
    will not replace SS and Medicare.
    
    1] It will require a very high rate. They're talking around 18-20% 
    sales tax rate to replace the income tax. To also replace SS and
    Medicare would require a rate over 30%.
    
    2] This would mean that senior citizens, who currently don't pay
    SS or Medicare would have to pay it. We all know how much this
    group loves to pay more.
    
    I agree that it would be better to replace SS tax with a consumption
    tax. I just don't think it will happen.
    
    						Ed
    
    
    

    
    the ss tax will be replaced with a much higher ss tax (this while
    the retirement age is raised gradually until approaches the average
    life-span, at which time it will level off).  right now, there are
    roughly 4 workers supporting each retiree.  by the year 2020, or so,
    it will drop to a ratio of @ 2:1.  the more people who die before they
    are eligible, the better the program will work.
    
    bill

    	Can't fund SS with a sales tax (at least not under the current
    	payout plan.)  Current SS benefits are based on what you've
    	paid into the system in the past.  How would that be measured
    	under a sales tax?
    
    	I fully support self-directed "social security" programs like
    	Steve just mentioned.

    Re .145 - Bill,

>    the ss tax will be replaced with a much higher ss tax

    I doubt it. I do not think that the public will stand for this.
    Currently two out of three Americans pay more is SS/Medicare taxes
    than they do in federal income taxes. I don't think they'll go for
    a 30% tax.

    No, what I suspect will happen is that benefits will be cut as well
    as the retirement age being raised.

    						
    					Ed

    
    Yesterday Sens Nunn and Dominici introduced their tax plan. It goes
    something like this:
    
    	.Income tax is based upon income minus (deductions + investments)
    	 The deductions are similar to today's (home mortgage, charitable
    	 contributions and a few others), but are more limited. Investments
    	 are any money that was put into savings during the year.
    	 I believe that income includes any moneys taken out of savings.
    	.Graduated tax rate with a top rate of 40%
    	.What sounds like an 11% VAT.
    
    The idea is that this tax would encourage savings while still keeping
    rates higher on those with higher incomes. 
    
    SS is not changed.
    
    					Sounds interesting,
    
    					Ed
    
    
    

    	Too complicated.  I thought these proposals were supposed to
    	simplify the current plan.  I see little simplification in this
    	one.

    >Sounds interesting,
    
     Sounds devastating to our buying power.

Is this going to be called the Dominique-Nun Bill?

       Soeur sous rear?

    I am sure that as more tax plans get presented you will see some really
    interesting spins.  If indeed the Nunn bill is accurate, then it is a
    joke.
    
    The idea behind the flat tax or sales tax is to reduce rules and
    revenues.  The idea behind this was to get spending in line with
    reality.  the Fed has taken the position that they need to do
    everything in everyone's life and if they don't then someone may
    actually benefit from their efforts.
    
    Personally, I hope that the consumption tax gets approved and all
    income taxes are dropped.  I also hope to see SS eliminated.  this is
    another example of the Fed overreaching and taking a reasonable program
    and turning it into another welfare program.
    

    Re last few:

    The purpose of the Nunn - Dominici plan is not so much tax simplification
    as it is to make the U.S. tax system more competitive with our trading
    partners.

    The current U.S. tax system punishes savings and rewards consumption.
    Most economists believe this puts the U.S. at a big disadvantage.
    The Nunn - Dominici plan clearly rewards savings. 

    Also, raising money through a VAT instead of an income tax will help
    the U.S. economy relative to our trading partners because it will
    make our goods more competitive. 

    This is not a flat tax plan. Maybe I should have posted it in a new
    topic, but I felt this one talks about various tax plans....


    RE .153    
    
>I also hope to see SS eliminated.

    Dream on (although I wish it were eliminated too!). Even now there are 
    reports of the Republicans backing off on Medicare changes because 
    they're receiving all sorts of threats from the AARP if they touch Medicare.


    					Ed

                       <<< Note 386.154 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

>    This is not a flat tax plan. Maybe I should have posted it in a new
>    topic, but I felt this one talks about various tax plans....

    	I think that this topic would be more appropriately-named
    	if it were something like, "Tax reform"

    
    While I truely hope I am wrong, I suspect we are only going to get 
    changes around the edges in our tax system.
    
    The factor which may block true reform is that if a simple system
    were ever instituted, people might actually realize just how much 
    we pay in taxes, and then the politicans would be thrown out of office.
    For example - if we ever eliminated fed/state income taxes and FICA
    and replaced them with a VAT, I'd guess we'd be paying about 50%.
    That makes it pretty obvious how much we're getting taxed, which
    wouldn't last long.  It's the same reason we pay weekly into FIA and
    income taxes, if we ever had to pay in a sinlge lump sum, how many
    years would people put up with it.
    
    
    
    
    

    
    re. 156
    
    I agree ... it would be great if it was obvious what we were actually
    paying ... which is exactly why it will never happen ... IMO.
    
    Greg
    

    It seems as if the majority of the noters here favor some sort of major
    changes to the income tax system, and whether it be a VAT tax or flat
    rate, everyone wants to see change.
    
    The only way to make this a reality is to take on the liberals and AARP
    that do not want to see the status quo changed.  Most politicians,
    particularly in the conservative camps, need to know that the majority
    of Americans side with them in a basic overhaul of government and it
    starts with taxes and entitlements.
    
    I wonder what would happen if we got very active on the Internet and
    really let the Republican leadership know what we think, as well as
    some of the suggestions for the changes that have been presented here. 
    I would like to see the responses.
    

    
    Re: 386.158
    
    Be prepared to be called 'angry', 'meanspirited' or 'full of hate' 
    
    

    Excuse me?
    
    this liberal scum supports a consumption tax, as long as it exempts
    food, pharmacuticals, and used clothing.  Liberal scum .nes. pro irs 
    and income tax.  
    
    meg, your friendly earth worhipping, goddes  loving
    counter-materialist.

    
    re: 386.160
    
    If that's what you want and make it known, then you should be prepared 
    to get labled as 'angry' etc...  I agree liberal scum .nes. pro irs
    etc.  Although I'm not sure what liberal means anymore.  
    
    What I'm referring to the words being used to describe people who
    favor change in the tax system.
    
    
    
    
    

    >> Be prepared to be called 'angry', 'meanspirited' or 'full of hate' 
    
    Also be prepared to be called "anti-government", which is the
    latest tag that the Orwell Memorial crowd running the show slaps
    on anyone who doesn't agree with their actions.
    
    Chris

    
>    It seems as if the majority of the noters here favor some sort of major
>    changes to the income tax system, and whether it be a VAT tax or flat
>    rate, everyone wants to see change.
>    
>    The only way to make this a reality is to take on the liberals and AARP
>    that do not want to see the status quo changed.  Most politicians,
>    particularly in the conservative camps, need to know that the majority
>    of Americans side with them in a basic overhaul of government and it
>    starts with taxes and entitlements.
    
    I agree we should all let our reps know how we feel.
    
    However there is one big catch.  While it may be true that the majority
    of americans want a change the true question is what do the majority of
    campaign contributions want (IMO)?  That is a much tougher hurdle to
    overcome for at least two reasons ... 1) a lot of money can represent a
    few people and 2) group money and statements of position (like the AARP) 
    can make a group appear much more homogenous than it really is.
    
    Greg
    

    It may be long uphill battle, but if we don't clearly let the folks in
    DC know what the majority of people want, then we will get whatever the
    admin wants.  Those that try to make changes and loosen the grip of the
    Fed do get the label of mean-spirited, etc.  That needs to change and
    voicing your opinion factually will go a long way towards accomplishing
    that.
    

    >Also be prepared to be called "anti-government", which is the
    >latest tag that the Orwell Memorial crowd running the show slaps
    >on anyone who doesn't agree with their actions.
    
    I'll wear the tag proudly!
    
    ...Tom

    
    >>Also be prepared to be called "anti-government", which is the
    >>latest tag that the Orwell Memorial crowd running the show slaps
    >>on anyone who doesn't agree with their actions.
    
    >I'll wear the tag proudly!
    
    Where can we get the T-Shirts made up?
    
    al
        

    >Where can we get the T-Shirts made up?
    
    It probably wouldn't belong before we would be selling them in jail.
    After all if you don't agree, your a criminal right?
    
    ...Tom

    
    Re: 386.167
    
    Probably on charges of inciting terrorism.
    
    al
     

    13^2 flat tax snarf

    Now that there seems to be some slight chance of this actually going
    forward a question:
    
    Does anyone know of a place where one can get some real comparison data
    by candidate on tax proposals?
    
    The sort of thing I'd like to see is:
    
    Candidate X:
    
    Personal situation/ Under his proposal	Currently pays
  	     income		will pay
    
    $25k, no deductions		0		$4k
    
    $25k, $50k mortage, 
    married, 2 kids		0		0
    
    $50k
    
    etc, etc.
    
    $500k			$100k		$..
    
    and repeat that for each proposal.
    
    It just seems to me that the whole flat tax discussion is heading the
    way of all previous tax talk - massive complexity.  The guys with the
    best lawyers and accountants pay the least effective tax under any
    scheme.
    
    

    
    
    Try a big vuilding called a library.  Most states have them these days.
    
    
    hth,

Flat tax, it won't happen, no matter what the campaign promise.

    What does Flatman think?

    Flatman has always had a problem with the name flat tax.

    .171 - thanks, that's just what I needed, now how do I find a vuilding?
    
    Looking into the stuff on the web (will that do instead of a library?)
    no-one seems willing or able to draw up a reliable comparison and to
    define some basic terms, like what is "income".
    
    I agree that it's not likely to come - just a thought; does anyone know
    of any stable country that's made a major tax change.  Even if a flat
    tax is introduced the detail devil will quickly come to the fore. 
    e.g. Company income, depreciation on machinery (director's BMWs),
    deferred losses on overseas holdings..
    
    Given the incredible knowledge and wisdom in this box and the
    willingness to post information on a myriad subjects I had hoped that
    this would all be answered in a concise note saving me the trouble..