Obamacare Replacement by GOP
https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...35/m/9000026024/p/47
This is a great thread full of lots of good thought and articles on health care and how policy can be improved.

But now that the GOP has failed to repeal and/or replace Obamacare and has largely given up... Mitch McConnell and the GOP are moving on to reform the tax code?

What are your thoughts on how this should be accomplished?
If you could start with a blank sheet of paper and no existing system, would it be different?

Tax Reform by GOP

The Fair Tax, no question about it.

Leave the republicans alone, they screw this one up too.
Btw Mitch McConnell has pumped 8.5 mil in supporting the rino in Alabama to defeat a real conservative mo brooks, this is the swamp and they will not deliver a single thing to trump.

quote:

The Fair Tax, no question about it.

A consumption based system makes sense to me too, rather than an income based system.
Repeal the 16th Amendment would be a great start!

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
The Fair Tax, no question about it.

Agreed!

Unfortunately, there are too many insiders, lobbyists, major donors, etc, who do not really want much change made to the current system.

Maybe my memory is getting over loaded, but does not the current tax code run to something like 80,000 pages?

Just think of all the IRS employees who would be out of a job? not to mention all the tools lost to politicraPs who could no longer use the tax code to punish their opponents/enemies and reward friends.

August 2, 2017
Top GOP Strategist Wants to 'Tax the Rich'
By Jon N. Hall

One reason one might suspect that the good ol’ U.S.A. has devolved into something a little different than what the Founders had in mind is taxation. Since the advent of the current federal income tax in 1913, more and more of our money is being taken away from us by taxes. Our governmental overlords feel they have the right to tax every transaction, every piece of property, every event, every idea, and every little thing in our short little lives. And make no mistake, what our overlords allow us to keep of our earnings and savings and assets is strictly due to the goodness in their hearts, so shut your trap and get back to work.

Our overlords, however, tell us that we’re overtaxed, and that reducing the tax burden will unleash a torrent of new economic activity and all will be blue skies and lollipops if we’ll just cut tax rates. But when they talk about income tax cuts for the middle class, they’re being dishonest. I recently did the math and discovered that the bottom 80 percent of federal personal income tax filers in 2013 had an average effective tax rate of less than 1 percent. Sounds unbelievable, but click and check it out. I used CBO data and merely averaged the effective rates of the four lowest quintiles. The bottom 60 percent of federal income taxpayers in 2013 had an average effective tax rate that was negative: -1.93.

Perhaps the reason they’re insulting us with talk about middle-class tax cuts is because they want to cut taxes for those at the top. But I’m sympathetic to that. Most of the personal income taxes are paid by an itty-bitty minority, the folks at the top. The 98+ percent of us who were not hit by the “fiscal cliff” tax hikes are still covered by the rates introduced more than 15 years ago by President Bush. The middle and working classes once actually paid income taxes, but no more, not to any extent. Of course, there are certain “anomalies” in the bottom 80 percent who do indeed pay significant taxes, but they’re the exception.

On July 26, The Intercept ran “Steve Bannon Pushing for 44 Percent Marginal Tax Rate on the Very Rich” by Ryan Grim. This 44 percent rate would hit those with incomes of more than $5 million, with the revenue going to pay for rate cuts for everyone else.

According to IRS data, just over 43,000 people filed tax returns for the year 2014 claiming income of at least $5 million, accounting for $600 billion in taxes, or 8.8 percent of the total taxes paid.

So the “alt-right” wants to raise tax rates on those already paying most of the personal income tax? (And here I thought I liked Steve Bannon.)

Mr. Grim didn’t provide any links for his IRS data, but some of the stats he cites can’t be right; for instance, the “$600 billion in taxes, or 8.8 percent of the total taxes.” Total Receipts in 2014 were $3.021T (see Table 1.1, page 26), so $600 billion would be closer to 20 percent. But we’re talking personal income taxes, not total federal taxation, and individual income taxes provided revenue of $1.394T in 2014 (Table 2.1, page 34). So, if $600B figure is correct, then the group that Mr. Bannon wants to target would have provided more than 43 percent of personal income tax revenue in 2014.

Frankly, I don’t trust any of the stats in the above quote. In fact, I have a hard time believing Bannon really wants a tax that touches so few Americans. You see, there were 148,606,578 returns filed in 2014, and the 43,000 of them that would have been hit by Bannon’s tax hike would have been less than 0.029 percent of all income taxpayers, and less than 2.9 percent of all the Evil One Percenters.

But here’s what’s really wrong with Bannon’s tax hike: it goes from incomes of $5M to infinity. That means that some pissant making a measly five megabucks a year is lumped in with, and is paying at the same marginal rate as, the Masters of the Universe, like hedge fund managers, who can make a billion bucks a year. A factor of 200 is what separates the $5M guy from the $1B guy. Exceedingly few earners make a billion dollars in a year. So it seems a little much to expect anyone to be happy with having the same tax rate as someone making 200 times what they make. Mr. Bannon’s 44 percent rate proposal may be a shiny object meant to divert attention; he’s much too smart to really want such a rate.

From the Left it’s always the same message: Tax the Rich. And now we’re getting it from the political “right.” But I have sympathy for the rich. You see, I suffer from this atavistic, perhaps Neanderthal, notion that The State should not be able to take more than half of an American’s income. That is, all levels of government, the feds, the states, and local governments, through all types of taxation, including income, payroll, sales, property, etc. should leave an American with at least half of her earnings. Take anything more than half, and we live in a fascist state. And if the feds actually did take 44 percent of an earner’s income in income taxes, they’d be leaving the states and cities with only 6 percent before getting into the taxpayer’s half of the taxpayer’s earnings.

It’s not federal personal income taxes that burden the vast majority of the bottom 80 percent of us; it’s all the other taxes, like payroll, property, real estate, sales, ObamaCare taxes, and tariffs and corporate income taxes passed along as higher prices. And there’s the proposed VAT and BAT (border adjustment tax). If Congress wants to ease the tax burden for the middle and working classes, look at that list. (POINTER: "The Next Revolution" is a terrific new program on Fox News. On July 23 in “Why elites don't understand the working class” (video), host Steve Hilton interviewed Joan Williams about what’s been bugging American workers.)

Here’s an idea for Steve Bannon and Congress: How about cutting spending? Cutting spending is hard. Eliminating federal jobs, finding fraud in income tax returns and federal programs, making the government more efficient, that’s all difficult. Cutting income tax rates, however, is simple; anyone can do it, and it’s not real reform. We’re not going to usher in a new age of economic dynamism merely by tweaking federal personal income tax rates.

Imagine a tax system where Americans actually wanted to pay their taxes; where they might even be proud to pay their taxes. Seems impossible, right? Such a happy situation could not exist unless Congress was meeting certain conditions. For instance, folks would need to think they’re getting the biggest bang for the buck, so there couldn’t be much waste, fraud, and abuse in the public sector. And Congress couldn’t spend more than what they take in, so they’d need to balance the budget. But since such conditions don’t exist, taxes are going to continue to irritate those who actually do pay them. Thanks for paying, rich Americans!

http://www.americanthinker.com...to_tax_the_rich.html

From the Left it’s always the same message: Tax the Rich.
How about cutting spending?

quote:

Our governmental overlords feel they have the right to tax every transaction, every piece of property, every event, every idea, and every little thing in our short little lives.

And who choses the "governmental overlords?"

Those pathetic sissies who demand the government be there to protect them from all strife and woe, fill their tanks, pay their cell phone, provide cable tv and medical care, educate their children, care for them when they act with appalling disregard for their own safety and common sense.

Rich people can pay for all that, which are only the basic necessities of civilization.

quote:

Rich people can pay for all that, which are only the basic necessities of civilization.

I'd be happy if the federal government stuck to defending the shores of the United States (including land borders), maintained a stable currency, and an interstate highway system.
Maybe.... just maybe... maintain a postal system, though I'd be OK with selling that off to private industry.

Anything else? Leave it to the several States.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Rich people can pay for all that, which are only the basic necessities of civilization.

I'd be happy if the federal government stuck to defending the shores of the United States (including land borders), maintained a stable currency, and an interstate highway system.
Maybe.... just maybe... maintain a postal system, though I'd be OK with selling that off to private industry.

Anything else? Leave it to the several States.

Well, if everyone felt that way, all our problems would be over right?

Alas, they don't, and they vote, sometimes several times, sometimes even after death, sometimes not even citizens!

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

What are your thoughts on how this should be accomplished?

With someone other than Mitch McConnell in charge of it.

Short of that, an across the board 10% flat tax that EVERYONE pays. No deductions, no excuses, EVERYONE pays 10%. And, a constitutional amendment that locks it at 10%.

A couple of questions about consumption-based tax systems: is there an argument that they might stifle spending? Are exemptions built in for investing in businesses/things that grow businesses? Do we have examples of such tax systems in operation?

I'm not arguing against such systems, I'm just thinking about the notion of "you get less of most any activity you tax."

quote:

Originally posted by rusbro:
A couple of questions about consumption-based tax systems: is there an argument that they might stifle spending? Are exemptions built in for investing in businesses/things that grow businesses? Do we have examples of such tax systems in operation?

I'm not arguing against such systems, I'm just thinking about the notion of "you get less of most any activity you tax."

I've posted detailed explanations of the Fair Tax in the past. Basically there is a tax on new goods sold at retail and services, and all other taxes are done away with.

No more income tax or withholding. No more corporate income tax. Buy a new car, the dealer pays the tax. Buy a used car, no tax. Buy groceries, clothes, etc, the retailer pays the tax. Buy a new home? Tax is paid. Buy a resale? No tax.

If you are employed and paid $5,000 a month, you will be paid $5,000. When a manufacturer buys raw materials, no taxes due, nor does the price include the income taxes no longer being paid by the supplier, all the way up the chain.

This means prices will change to reflect where the tax/no tax hits. New cars/used cars for example. Payrolls and prices will as well.

Taxes are collected by the seller of new products at retail. Tax is due on a product only once. No more keeping records and filling out tax returns. Let Walmart, Amazon, et al, take care of it.

There is a provision to pay back a sum representing the tax on necessities, called a prebate.

There are two books, maybe more, detailing all this. There are lots of ramifications.

My only problem with the "Fair Tax" is that, undoubtedly, it would be imposed on top of all the other taxes we pay, instead of replacing them. Just as a temporary expedient of course. I am leery of any tax reform as I doubt our "leaders" can refrain from increasing the net collected.

Here are some of the changes I would like to see regarding taxation:

1) taxes must be paid separately in cash and cannot be combined with other financial transactions (if you buy something that has taxes associated with it, you will have to pay multiple times).

2) "withholding" and other pre-receipt payment techiniques would be disallowed. Tax-owing entities have to pay out of pocket from funds already in their possession. So after you get your paycheck, you have to drive over to the IRS, and give them their half.

3) Taxes must be paid in person, in cash, by the owing entity at specific location(s) maintained by the collecting agency.

Yes, these requirements would make it very inconvenient to pay taxes, and also make one painfully aware of how much one is paying. That's the point.
Perhaps once this extortionistic scheme is fully exposed, our democracy would reject it.

quote:

Originally posted by architect:
My only problem with the "Fair Tax" is that, undoubtedly, it would be imposed on top of all the other taxes we pay, instead of replacing them. Just as a temporary expedient of course. I am leery of any tax reform as I doubt our "leaders" can refrain from increasing the net collected.

I doubt it would be "undoubtedly." The essence of what makes this work is repealing all other taxes.

We're talking about a tax cut right now, so taxes can be reduced as well as raised.

quote:

Yes, these requirements would make it very inconvenient to pay taxes, and also make one painfully aware of how much one is paying. That's the point.

Eliminating "withholding" would be a terrific idea. I think that if people had to write a check to the government monthly or quarterly we would demand less of government, and we would insist on more efficiency.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Yes, these requirements would make it very inconvenient to pay taxes, and also make one painfully aware of how much one is paying. That's the point.

Eliminating "withholding" would be a terrific idea. I think that if people had to write a check to the government monthly or quarterly we would demand less of government, and we would insist on more efficiency.

Be serious. We can't force people to send $40 every month or so to school to pay for school lunches for their kids.

The cost of collecting would exceed the amount collected. Pressure would be put on representatives and Senators to ease up, "rules don't apply," "my mother in law needs medicine," etc.

Nothing could be more disastrous.

quote:

Nothing could be more disastrous.

Nothing could be more wonderful than the drastic reduction in the size and scope of government that would result.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Nothing could be more disastrous.

Nothing could be more wonderful than the drastic reduction in the size and scope of government that would result.

I agree. My idea is that the only legitimate functions of government are building libraries and roads to get to them. Well, suppressing violence, waging war and debauching the currency, of course.

But that ship has sailed, left the harbor and no hope of return, unfortunately.

The Fair Tax:




Link to original video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JWRfaBS_qCA

Conceptually, I think that everyone needs to have some skin in the game, except the very bottom tier (i.e. those truly living in poverty). As long as we are going to have an income tax system, if you earn income, you should pay income tax. It is simply outrageous how much of the population does not contribute anything to the federal coffers. The idea that one half of the country subsidizes the other half is wrong.

And I am not a big fan of a progressive system. I think everyone should pay the same rate. This whole notion of "fair share" as it is currently used is BS. Why is one man's fair share different than any others? The fact that one's labor and talents are more richly rewarded than another's doesn't mean that the former has some greater obligation to pay the costs of society. By simply paying the same rate as everyone else, that person will pay far more in taxes than someone who doesn't earn as much money.

The whole notion of the rich building their companies on raods we all built and similar nonsense drives me crazy. DO they have some special access to those roads that others don't? There is freedom of opportunity to use the infrastructure that society provides. The fact that one is more successful in those endeavors doesn't mean he should have an obligation to shoulder a larger proportion of the expenses of such infrastructure as anyone else.

There are a lot of smaller points to make, but these are the main ones.

Of the realistic options, the fair tax is a pretty good start, although I don't really know if you could call it realistic.