Flat Tax for Snark
S24RRS
about the use of Flat Tax for specific social objectives. In that thread Snark
wrote (inter alia):
"Why is social engineering funded through taxation a bad idea again? I
would have thought as an example, educating the populace (by raising
money through taxes) would be a good thing. If there was no such
"social engineering" we would probably have the literacy rate of some
African nations - and probably matching GNP as a result."
The immediate response to that is: "Who will be the engineers? The Federal
legislators? Their un-elected staffs and academic advisors? Toward what ends
will the "specs" be written? Who will select the ends and how will they do it?"
That should be followed by "What evidence do we have that any such engineering
will produce anything near the results sought, rather than the usual profusion
of unanticipated consequences?"
But, that aside (despite the views of Karl Popper on "some social engineering")
there is a crucial factor in uses of taxation for that function.
The purpose of the taxation mechanisms is to provide revenue for the operations
of the several governments. To pervert any tax mechanism to other functions
impairs that mechanism and erodes the moral base necessary for its support in
our system of governments (there are several levels). For proper motivations
and direction of conduct should we look to the legislative body that continues
to present us with the Internal Revenue Code, As Amended, and amended, and
amended? If we do look to them we shall find they only want the money - to
spend - not for betterment of human conduct or of social organization.
A recent OpEd piece in the Washington Post from former IRS Commissioner
Mortimer Caplin, as well as "10 Ways to Simplify the Tax Code, a Joint
Initiative of the ABA Tax Section, TEI and AICPA," along with its "Tax
Simplification Recommendations," gives clear examples of the destructive
effects of departing from the basic purpose in uses made of the income tax
mechanism. It is no less destructive to other tax mechanisms.
We are now being treated to rhetoric of "moral" or human conduct issues and
social structure objectives by those who oppose elimination of the Estate Tax.
Implicit and explicit in the public statements of Mr. Gates, Sr. and those of
Soros, Buffet, and others is the concept -
that the mechanism of taxation should be used to influence
and direct human motivations toward "desirable" social objectives,
such as charitable giving, meritorious working and prevention
of an economic aristocracy.
As Bruce Bartlett and others have noted, the economic aristocracy is simply
using other forms of continuation and growth, in foundations, institutes,
trusts, and other "preservative" devices.
The new proponents of keeping Estate Taxes in place for those objectives should
think through again the idea of bettering human conduct or social structure
through taxation. The same applies to all others wanting to use the
instrumentality of taxation for anything other than its basic function..
Returning to the balance of Snark's statement:
" I would have thought as an example, educating the populace (by raising
money through taxes) would be a good thing. If there was no such
"social engineering" we would probably have the literacy rate of some
African nations - and probably matching GNP as a result."
Education, public education, was not "socially engineered." It was not
"designed," but arose in response to desires that were common enough to attract
community or group support. Medicare is social engineering, medical services
and Medicine (Art & Science) are not. Legislators shape (and distort?) public
education, but they did not design it as a function of governments. Federal
intervention in public education is social engineering, and the results show
what that means.
Now, all that was a departure from "Flat Tax," except for dealing with the uses
to be made of a Flat Tax. More will come.
RRS
TCP
: The purpose of the taxation mechanisms is to provide revenue for the operations
: of the several governments. To pervert any tax mechanism to other functions
: impairs that mechanism and erodes the moral base necessary for its support in
: our system of governments (there are several levels). For proper motivations
: and direction of conduct should we look to the legislative body that continues
: to present us with the Internal Revenue Code, As Amended, and amended, and
: amended? If we do look to them we shall find they only want the money - to
: spend - not for betterment of human conduct or of social organization.
Are you saying that it's wrong for government (atits several levels) to
promote homeownership through the tax code?
S24RRS
asked:
>Are you saying that it's wrong for government (atits several levels) to
>promote homeownership through the tax code?
Answer - yes if the code is expressly for the purpose "to promote." However, if
it is for the purpose of achieving the least disruption to normal economic
activity (including home ownership) a la Adam Smith admonitions, then it is
correctly conceived.
That point comes clear in Flat (Income) Tax proposals that eliminate all
deductions and exemptions.
But, the point of this thread is not to advocate Flat Tax but to undetstand
what we are talking about and its possible uses.
The original point made, that brought the question was:
>: The purpose of the taxation mechanisms is to provide revenue for the
>operations of the several governments. To pervert any tax mechanism to other
functions impairs that mechanism and erodes the moral base necessary for its
support in our system of governments (there are several levels). For proper
>motivations and direction of conduct should we look to the legislative body
that
>continues to present us with the Internal Revenue Code, As Amended, and
amended, and amended? If we do look to them we shall find they only want the
money - to spend - not for betterment of human conduct or of social
organization.
RRS
S24RRS
>I agree. %^) The "Flat Tax" Seems to suggest further study
especially since some of our tax policies like the social security cap
actually cause regressive tax rates. I'll look for further postings.
T. Snark
Flat Tax Again
"Flat Tax" is a label applied to different cans. As a form of income tax, in
its simplest form it is a "Gross Income Tax" upon all receipts above a fixed
level with no exemptions and deductions. It is usually further simplified by
having a single rate. Thus, the single rate gross income tax, has come to be
*the * Flat Tax.
That was the format proposed by Dick Armey (R-TX). In essence S.S. and MC are
Flat Taxes, with no minimum base level, but a flat rate; and a cap level for
S.S. "Flat" is just an appealing term. A mark of that appeal was Gephardt's
use of "a flatter tax." To label another variation of the mess that is our IRC.
The simplification of Gross Income taxation, with no tax on incomes below a
fixed level, but no deductions, no exemptions, no special classifications,
would disembowel the IRS. It would also disembowel Congress, which would no
longer be able to use the tax code for favors, special considerations, and
"social" objectives. Only the appropriations process and regulation would
remain to direct the allocation of resources. That would be much too
transparent for most politicians.
However, the stones contain no carvings requiring such a tax to be at a single
rate. But, once there is a departure from that rate, there can be all kinds of
"shifting" to change the nature or timing of gross incomes, such as deferred
compensations, etc.
We will return to Snark's other issues as well. Ear Plugs everyone!!
RRS
Snark
>This is a renewal of a previous Snark thread in which Snark raised questions
>about the use of Flat Tax for specific social objectives. In that thread Snark
>wrote (inter alia):
>
>"Why is social engineering funded through taxation a bad idea again? I
>would have thought as an example, educating the populace (by raising
>money through taxes) would be a good thing. If there was no such
>"social engineering" we would probably have the literacy rate of some
>African nations - and probably matching GNP as a result."
>
>The immediate response to that is: "Who will be the engineers? The Federal
>legislators? Their un-elected staffs and academic advisors? Toward what ends
>will the "specs" be written? Who will select the ends and how will they do it?"
>That should be followed by "What evidence do we have that any such engineering
>will produce anything near the results sought, rather than the usual profusion
>of unanticipated consequences?"
>
I've already discussed in previous posts why an educated populace is
better than a non-educated one even if the state has to raise taxes to
accomplish it. I don't usually resort to sound bites, but this issue
just begs me to spit one out. "You can either educate now, or
incarcerate later." Both ways are social engineering.
>But, that aside (despite the views of Karl Popper on "some social engineering")
>there is a crucial factor in uses of taxation for that function.
>
>The purpose of the taxation mechanisms is to provide revenue for the operations
>of the several governments. To pervert any tax mechanism to other functions
>impairs that mechanism and erodes the moral base necessary for its support in
>our system of governments (there are several levels). For proper motivations
>and direction of conduct should we look to the legislative body that continues
>to present us with the Internal Revenue Code, As Amended, and amended, and
>amended? If we do look to them we shall find they only want the money - to
>spend - not for betterment of human conduct or of social organization.
>
Hey, I'm not saying the tax code is perfect and I'm also not saying we
don't have corruption at some levels. But I also don't think we
should throw the baby out with the bath water. Variable taxation is
good and it can work.
As an example - taxing polluters. So what if you want a plastic to
produce a heart valve even though it's made with some nasty chemicals?
With a tax against polluters (instead of inflexible laws) the producer
can pay the fines and still produce it. Yet such a tax would also
cause people to seek out more benign materials that would be
comparatively "cheaper" to use. So, who decides what is harmful for
society and what isn't? Private research companies monitored by the
government could be one way to establish such incentives.
However, there is a catch to using economic incentives like this to
assist governing. Such a system doesn't work as well if there are
large class differences in the society. That's why a somewhat
progressive tax system is needed. If there are large class
differences and we attempt to discourage behaviors only by adjusting
the tax code, then we would only build a society where the rich can
still do anything under the sun - except run out of money.
>A recent OpEd piece in the Washington Post from former IRS Commissioner
>Mortimer Caplin, as well as "10 Ways to Simplify the Tax Code, a Joint
>Initiative of the ABA Tax Section, TEI and AICPA," along with its "Tax
>Simplification Recommendations," gives clear examples of the destructive
>effects of departing from the basic purpose in uses made of the income tax
>mechanism. It is no less destructive to other tax mechanisms.
Ah, but turning the whole tax code into a flat tax is but one way to
simplify the tax code. One can also keep the tax table idea and
simply review the deductions. Eliminating some of the silly
deductions corporations have would be a good start. The tax code of
possible deductions for corporations is huge compared to the personal
income tax.
I also think we can review the deductions to see that they are truly
worthy rather than that they were given only as political favors. I
would imagine campaign finance limits and mandatory renewal of all IRS
deductions would eliminate many "special deductions" that were given
out for such political paybacks in the past. (Such laws and
enforcement may never come to be, but I can dream can't I?)
>We are now being treated to rhetoric of "moral" or human conduct issues and
>social structure objectives by those who oppose elimination of the Estate Tax.
>Implicit and explicit in the public statements of Mr. Gates, Sr. and those of
>Soros, Buffet, and others is the concept -
>
> that the mechanism of taxation should be used to influence
> and direct human motivations toward "desirable" social objectives,
> such as charitable giving, meritorious working and prevention
> of an economic aristocracy.
>
>As Bruce Bartlett and others have noted, the economic aristocracy is simply
>using other forms of continuation and growth, in foundations, institutes,
>trusts, and other "preservative" devices.
I believe you refer to charitable gift giving - usually a response to
the famous "death tax". We have such a tax mostly to prevent a few
inbread dynasties from growing so big they control our country - not
because the government needs the money. With a non-ramped tax,
compounding of money and assets would become easier. Such is the case
now, when you reach the top tax bracket. So, we already essentially
have a flat tax for the rich - it's just higher now than under a flat
tax. All a "flat tax" would do is lower that tax rate more! Soon, we
will again have 1% of the population controlling more than 50% of the
wealth - and all the problems with that situation. (or do we forget
our turn of the century history?)
The inheratince tax was the most important tax comprimise in the early
1900's. As of today, rich tax payers still have control of where much
of their money goes instead of leaving it to some "unqualified"
bureaucrat to decide. However the money is destined to to do
something useful for society instead of being locked up generation
after generation as "old money". Most folks don't have enough to be
hurt by such a tax anyway, so it's a mystery why most of the populace
would want to eliminate this law.
(Of course they could be buying into the popular myth that "all them
super rich folks create the jobs round here so we should give em every
tax break we can")
>The new proponents of keeping Estate Taxes in place for those objectives should
>think through again the idea of bettering human conduct or social structure
>through taxation. The same applies to all others wanting to use the
>instrumentality of taxation for anything other than its basic function..
>
>Returning to the balance of Snark's statement:
>
>" I would have thought as an example, educating the populace (by raising
>money through taxes) would be a good thing. If there was no such
>"social engineering" we would probably have the literacy rate of some
>African nations - and probably matching GNP as a result."
>
>Education, public education, was not "socially engineered." It was not
>"designed," but arose in response to desires that were common enough to attract
>community or group support. Medicare is social engineering, medical services
>and Medicine (Art & Science) are not. Legislators shape (and distort?) public
>education, but they did not design it as a function of governments. Federal
>intervention in public education is social engineering, and the results show
>what that means.
I've already discussed schooling. So now I'll discuss the other
"social engineering" programs that might be eliminated in the name of
reforming government. I'll admit Medicaid is social engineering and
so is Medicare provided by Social Security. One is for poor people,
the other is for old people. They both provide medical coverage for
people instead of letting them die in the streets because they are too
poor or afraid of the financial burden of going to the hospital. I
would guess many would think this type of social engineering was a
good thing or at least a moral thing. Perhaps that's why these
programs have had enormous staying power that even the space agency
doesn't enjoy.
Another reason might be that those not in "some government program"
participate in the medical lottery we call the private insurance
system. I really don't see the difference between someone with a
broken arm getting coverage from the state or having the fee paid by
some insurance company. Except that private insurance is much more
expensive for what you actually use - and they don't offer coverage to
all nor do they always pay. So I can see why the populace wanted the
government to step in. What's amazing is that the public sees
Medicare covering all the expensive patients over 65 for a paltry 1.5%
payroll tax and they elect officials that refuse to expand the program
to cover the cheap patients under 65 too! (The savings due to reduced
paperwork, marketing, commissions and claim disputes might even keep
the payroll tax about the same). Instead, taxpayers are convinced to
routinely pay twice to slimy private insurance companies that only
offer insurance to those who don't need it.
>Now, all that was a departure from "Flat Tax," except for dealing with the uses
>to be made of a Flat Tax. More will come.
>
I agree that tax reform is needed but not at the expense of such
"social engineering" as mentioned above. I also think the Gordian
knot approach of a flat tax is rather extreme if not a reckless answer
to the problem of tax reform.
T. Snark
S24RRS
wrote
In the renewal of a previous thread
>>about the use of Flat Tax for specific social objectives.
>>"Why is social engineering funded through taxation a bad idea again?
To which the the following was asked:
>The immediate response to that is: "Who will be the engineers? The Federal
>>legislators? Their un-elected staffs and academic advisors? Toward what ends
>>will the "specs" be written? Who will select the ends and how will they do
>it?"
>>That should be followed by "What
>evidence do we have that any such engineering
>>will produce anything near the results sought, rather than the usual
>profusion
>>of unanticipated consequences?"
That went unanswered by Snark. It is much the same query that has to be
addressed to all forms of collective actions (and group decisions). The famous
"from each according to ability; to each according to need," left out the
components of how and by whom what is taken and who sets needs etc.
Answers please!
RRS
S24RRS
Continuing the thread, in response to:
>For proper motivations
>>and direction of conduct should we look to the legislative body that
>continues
>>to present us with the Internal Revenue Code, As Amended, and amended, and
>>amended? If we do look to them we shall find they only want the money to
>>spend - not for betterment of human conduct or of social organization.
Snark wrote
>Hey, I'm not saying the tax code is perfect and I'm also not saying we
>don't have corruption at some levels. But I also don't think we
>should throw the baby out with the bath water. Variable taxation is
>good and it can work.
Where the original post in closing had pointed out that there is no reason that
a Flat Tax has to be at a "single rate."
Suer, "Variable Taxation" "can work" to generate revenues - and does. But what
is done with the revenues is not done for the objectives of any kind of "social
engineering" (though claims to the contrary are always made).
So far, what we have been examining supposedly is the use (or uses) that may be
made of "Flat Tax" (no deductions, no exemptions). Nothing has been said in
favor of its adoption - yet.
However, in the last post from Snark it seems pretty clear there is a confirmed
belief that one of the functions of governments should be "social engineering"
- basically attempting to design the future and the lives of others through the
coercive powers of goverments, including taxation. To which these posts have
been opposed.
Another post (maybe a different thread?) will return to other issues of "social
engineering" (reduction of classes?) (the Federal Medicare Monopoly) etc.
Probably as "Social Engineering per Snark"
RRS
Snark
>>snar...@bigfoot.com (Snark)
>
>wrote
>In the renewal of a previous thread
>>>about the use of Flat Tax for specific social objectives.
>
>>>"Why is social engineering funded through taxation a bad idea again?
>
>To which the the following was asked:
>>The immediate response to that is: "Who will be the engineers? The Federal
>>>legislators? Their un-elected staffs and academic advisors? Toward what ends
>>>will the "specs" be written? Who will select the ends and how will they do
>>it?"
>>>That should be followed by "What
>>evidence do we have that any such engineering
>>>will produce anything near the results sought, rather than the usual
>>profusion
>>>of unanticipated consequences?"
I would have thought education by the state would have been a positive
example of how the state "engineers" social norms by spending taxes
(by whatever tax system is used). Of course you may ask ""Who will be
the engineers? " My reply is the aggregate of existing teachers in
the existing education system. If you don't like how such social
"engineering" policies work then get out and vote - or run for office.
If there are that many problems with such "social engineering" you can
abolish the programs. Contrary to popular belief, it's not impossible
to kill unneeded government programs if there is little benefit. (As
an example: How many people today duck and cover when an air raid
siren sounds?)
As for "... Who will select the ends and how will they do it?", that
would be whomever was in office at the time. Fortunately, education
is not an exact science. Students can learn concepts with varying
success with a mix of good teachers and bad, with computers or books.
For this reason, it's more of a series of judgement calls by whom is
in office as to what level of education the public is willing to be
taxed for. If the officials are too inept or corrupt to sense how to
run even this somewhat forgiving system, then these representatives
will eventually be voted out.
>
>That went unanswered by Snark. It is much the same query that has to be
>addressed to all forms of collective actions (and group decisions). The famous
>"from each according to ability; to each according to need," left out the
>components of how and by whom what is taken and who sets needs etc.
>
>Answers please!
>
As for "...Toward what ends will the "specs" be written?...and how and
by whom what is taken..." I will pose the following question(s):
Should we permit a dam to be built to produce energy, or prohibit it
to save an endangered fish? Do we want to take care of grandma's
medical bills or fight a war, or both? Do we want cheap plastics or
clean rivers? Depends on who you listen to as to what's the best way
to achieve such goals over others.
The candidates pick "experts" who will likely know how to advance
whatever goals they stand for. The "experts" may include ecologists,
economists, advisors, and in the case of Nancy Reagan, astrologers.
Whomever gets in office defines the biased package of "experts" that
get to advise at any given time. For candidates such as Forbes , there
are even "experts" who can emphasize the benefits of a flat tax
policy.
I have my "experts" and I'm sure they probably aren't the same ones
you would pick. So put in this context, I just don't happen to agree
on the tradeoffs of a flat versus progressive tax based in the
advisors I have. However my leading advisor said that had the
juxtaposition of Jupiter to Mars been more favorable last April, it
would have made the flat tax a much better idea.
T. Snark
I heard it from them. 'They' talk a lot.
Snark
>Snark wrote
>
>>I agree. %^) The "Flat Tax" Seems to suggest further study
>especially since some of our tax policies like the social security cap
>actually cause regressive tax rates. I'll look for further postings.
>
>T. Snark
>
>Flat Tax Again
>
>"Flat Tax" is a label applied to different cans. As a form of income tax, in
>its simplest form it is a "Gross Income Tax" upon all receipts above a fixed
>level with no exemptions and deductions. It is usually further simplified by
>having a single rate. Thus, the single rate gross income tax, has come to be
>*the * Flat Tax.
>That was the format proposed by Dick Armey (R-TX). In essence S.S. and MC are
>Flat Taxes, with no minimum base level, but a flat rate; and a cap level for
>S.S. "Flat" is just an appealing term. A mark of that appeal was Gephardt's
>use of "a flatter tax." To label another variation of the mess that is our IRC.
>
If a Teaxan politician said the sky was blue, I would always look. By
claiming a "cap" was a flat tax, they either don't understand the
concept - or they are aware they are lying. A "cap" actually
decreases tax rates as income passes the cap threshold! (pay only cap
amount even if income gets larger and larger and larger....) I also
notice they don't propose such a system for corporations either. No,
that would eliminate what could potentially be turned into a tax
shelter for those who want to shift the tax burden to the middle and
lower classes. Helmsley said it best when she insisted that "only
little people pay taxes". How right she would be...
>The simplification of Gross Income taxation, with no tax on incomes below a
>fixed level, but no deductions, no exemptions, no special classifications,
>would disembowel the IRS. It would also disembowel Congress, which would no
>longer be able to use the tax code for favors, special considerations, and
>"social" objectives. Only the appropriations process and regulation would
>remain to direct the allocation of resources. That would be much too
>transparent for most politicians.
>
Oh, I don't know if THAT system would be any better. Heck, have you
SEEN some of the stuff in laws that get approved even today? I think
Carter was probably the last president who may have actually read
everything he signed! I'm sure the public doesn't!
>However, the stones contain no carvings requiring such a tax to be at a single
>rate. But, once there is a departure from that rate, there can be all kinds of
>"shifting" to change the nature or timing of gross incomes, such as deferred
>compensations, etc.
Ah, that progressive slope seems a slippery one indeed! For once you
introduce the concept of tax "brackets", what is to stop someone from
demanding variable tax rates on other criteria too? (let's use the
word deduction) The basic problem is you are trying to eat an
elephant with the flat tax idea. Yet you CAN eat an elephant if one
divides it up into smaller pieces and takes their time. Perhaps this
elephant of a tax problem would be better solved by reviewing each
deduction by merit rather than eliminating them all at once!
T. Snark
As P.T. Barnum knew, there is a sucker born every minute. Too bad
they also tend to listen to AM talk radio and vote accordingly!
cladatps
"Snark" <snar...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3aa6f47...@news.dreamscape.com...
> On 03 Mar 2001 21:08:37 GMT, s24...@aol.com (S24RRS) wrote:
>
> >Snark wrote
> >
> >>I agree. %^) The "Flat Tax" Seems to suggest further study
> >especially since some of our tax policies like the social security cap
> >actually cause regressive tax rates.
Eliminate every tax abatement, tax incentive, tax deduction, tax credit, tax
exemption, tax refund, and etc.
Eliminate Social Security, Medicaid, Personal Property, Real Estate, Excise,
Sales Tax, Road Tax, and etc. (EVERY TAX WE NOW HAVE) and fund the total
cost of America existing in THE REAL WORLD with the same percentage of every
American citizens income.
This percentage would be ajusted to fund whatever businesses and
organazations are willing to comply with Natural Law's demand they market
the cost of taxpayer's paying for in the wholesale and retail cost of their
product or service.
This would demand every American citizen fund the cost of America existing
in THE REAL WORLD and enable every citizen, community, state, and nation to
engage in free, fair, and affordable commerce.
Snark
wrote:
Why not have a flat tax and get rid of all deductions for corporations
too! These entities aren't even citizens so why do they get the
special treatment? As an example, being able to get a tax break for
interest payments or for bad debt isn't needed for companies. Such a
rule change would practically eliminate the need for bankruptcy reform
too. Suddenly corporations (especially sleazy credit card operators,
useless mall builders and people who invest in 3rd world countries)
would be motivated to actually check out the ability for loans and
investments to be paid back before issuing them at all!
I'm normally a progressive tax kinda guy, but I can compromise on this
issue a bit. All we need to do is institute the same tax rates for
individuals as corporations. Then, make the tax booklet for
corporations the same number of pages, same typeset, and same
dimensions as an individual's tax booklet. Once we use that blunt
tool approach to cut out the complexity of the deductions, we would
then be able to discuss each deduction's merit.
I had to specify the dimensions of the tax booklet otherwise
corporations would insist each page of deductions in their tax booklet
would be the size of a football field! I envision this kind of tax
reform would either lead to less complexity for corporate deductions
or a mass deforestation of our country in an attempt to give everyone
a tax booklet that resembled several hefty English dictionaries.
T. Snark
(Save the trees!)
cladatps
I said every citizen. Meaning citizens with income from stockholders paying
CEOs six and eight digit wages to market more money quarterly in the
wholesale and retail cost of everything humankind uses to live in THE REAL
WORLD (stock dividends). Income citizens inherit. Income from lottery
winnings. Income from tax deductable donations. ALL INCOME!!!!!!!!!
These entities aren't even citizens so why do they get the
> special treatment? As an example, being able to get a tax break for
> interest payments or for bad debt isn't needed for companies.
Anyone collecting interest should pay this same percentage on this income.
No one should be compensated for demanding their creditor (companies,
financial institutions, businesses) forgive their debt (debtors) by
bankrupcy court.
Such a
> rule change would practically eliminate the need for bankruptcy reform
> too. Suddenly corporations (especially sleazy credit card operators,
> useless mall builders and people who invest in 3rd world countries)
that use slaves in sweat shops and labor camps to produce what stockholders
market more money quarterly in the wholesale and retail cost to American
citizens denied the opportunity to produce these products for wages or
profit from and independent business that would enable them to use money
derived from wages or profit from an independent business, to pay for these
products in a free, competative, market. This would enable everyone in THE
REAL WORLD to engage in free, fair, and affordable commerce.
> would be motivated to actually check out the ability for loans and
> investments to be paid back before issuing them at all!
All financial institutions used to demand coladeral to cover the loan.
> I'm normally a progressive tax kinda guy, but I can compromise on this
> issue a bit. All we need to do is institute the same tax rates for
> individuals as corporations.
Progressive tax rates are loaded with segregation, discrimination,
extorsion, and fraud.
Then, make the tax booklet for
> corporations the same number of pages, same typeset, and same
> dimensions as an individual's tax booklet.
Demand everyone show how they exist on the income they declared. The only
tax in America would be the same percentage of every citizens income. This
would eliminate the need for the IRS to collect tax to fund tax abatements,
tax incentives, tax refunds, tax exemptions, tax credits, and etc. It would
eliminate the need to appraise Real Estate. It would eliminate the need to
collect Personal Property tax from businesses to fund schools. It would
eliminate the need to collect Personal Property tax from bussineses that
don't qualify for Tax abatement in enterprise zones to pay the tax tax
abatement don't fund. This some of the cost of funding America existing in
THE REAL WORLD this change would eliminate.
Once we use that blunt
> tool approach to cut out the complexity of the deductions, we would
> then be able to discuss each deduction's merit.
What I suggested was eliminate all deductions, exemptions, abatements,
refunds, and etc.
> I had to specify the dimensions of the tax booklet otherwise
> corporations would insist each page of deductions in their tax booklet
> would be the size of a football field! I envision this kind of tax
> reform would either lead to less complexity for corporate deductions
> or a mass deforestation of our country in an attempt to give everyone
> a tax booklet that resembled several hefty English dictionaries.
The only thing corporations need report is their income. The cost of
producing their product or service has nothing to do with their income.
Their income is only the more money their stockholders pay CEOs to market
quarterly (to measure and maintain the strenth and growth of this
unaffordable, booming, economy) and the profit they market in the wholesale
and retail cost of their product or service.