Dramatically wants to increase the IRS police budget. It will help support the Democrat view that all money belongs to the government and if the people are nice, they get to have a little bit of it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressReleasesMolt/idUSTRE5464DP20090507

You didn't seem to have a problem with Bush's wiretaping.

Do you have a problem with tax enforcement, Deane?

Police State. OK.

I'm done with this now.

Jesus.

"Do you have a problem with tax enforcement, Deane?"

No, I think everyone should pay their appropriate amount. But these IRS people can become animals. FYI, I've battled the IRS multiple times and have never lost.

The IRS is there to keep people like you, Deane, in line. There are no bigger tax cheats in America than your average self employed person.

I have no problem with going after those who don't pay their taxes.

I say spend my hard earned money to get every tax cheat there is!

Uh oh...I'm an average self-employed person.

Knck, knock, knock........Mr. Taylor, please come out with your 1040 over your head!!!!

>>your 1040 over your head!!!!
and a bazillion other IRS forms!!!
Yeah for the flat tax...

Flat tax....
Your for that??

Flat tax, indeed. Even better, a straight consumption tax on everything. 12% (or whatever) national sales tax on everything purchased by anyone, anywhere.

No income tax, no property tax, no write-offs, no tax breaks. The "underground economy" would virtually disappear (heck, even drug dealers or illegals have to buy bread & eggs). The best you could do to beat it is straight barter. Sign me up.

http://www.fairtax.org

Flat tax, indeed.


DING!
DING!
DING!

We have a winner!!!!

If you want to pay more, vote for the flat tax!

Do the math.

Or better yet, look at your tax return. My effective tax rate last year was 11.9%. Any flat tax higher than 11.9% would be a tax increase for me. And considering that many people have effective tax rates in the 20's, we would need the flat tax to be much much higher than 11.9% to be revenue neutral.

When the rich pay less, who fills the gap? YOU DO!!

"When the rich pay less, who fills the gap? YOU DO!!"

Do math much? The rich will pay the same rate as everyone else... no more, no less. The tax on that loaf of bread won't be dependent on the income of the buyer... it's the same tax for me, for you or for Bill Gates.

Additionally, there's no write-off for having made the purchase. A simple transaction for everybody involved. And no tax forms at the end of the year! Can't get there fast enough.

Do math much? The rich will pay the same rate as everyone else... no more, no less.

But some people don't see it like that. The rich "can afford it" so they should pay more, Vitalogy has said that in several posts.

Rich people scare the liberal Democrats.

I'm with you 100%

The rich will pay the same rate as everyone else...

The rich should pay more than everybody else. They get to use more of the commons that our taxes pay for. Why do you think Steve Forbes wants a fair tax? Because he wants to be fair? NOT!!!

What I don't get is why anyone would oppose going after people who are knowing committing tax evasion. These people are committing a crime. I guess Deane is just being a good conservative, law and order for everyone EXCEPT the rich. This is what you get when you let them keep more of their money and not the trickle down economics Reagan use to talk about. The people at the top are the biggest crooks. That's how they got there.

Rich people scare the liberal Democrats.

Actually, its the other way around.

I think it's funny how a significant number of us will go to the mat for wealthy people.

Are any of you actually wealthy?

Do you think you might end up wealthy?

When you push for their best interests, you deny yourself your own.

Something to think about.

They get to use more of the commons that our taxes pay for.

How so? Please explain.

What I don't get is why anyone would oppose going after people who are knowing committing tax evasion.

Oh, you mean like most everybody lord Obama appointed? If you or I had done the same thing they had we'd have our wages garnished at the least and be doing jail time at the most.

I have no problem going after the tax cheats. Go get them and put them in jail. And not some cushy jail either.

And by the way, nobody mentioned NOT going after tax cheats.

I want someone to give me GOOD, SOLID, JUSTIFIABLE reasons the people that have worked hard and amassed a large sum of money should pay MORE for the same things that you and I pay for.

And don't give me the same old crap of "Because they can afford it" that's just a huge load of liberal democrat BS.

Missing, I don't go to the mat just for the wealthy. I don't think that ANY of us should have to pay more taxes than we need to.

Taxes should be minimal for EVERYONE. Provide basic government, services and infrastructure and not a bunch of socialist programs.

Mikekolb has a good idea, however it will never fly. Know why? It would cut too deeply into the politicians pockets and pet programs they set up to pay back campaign donors.

This discussion is typical of the Democrats. They want to tax the rich more than everybody else so they can fund the giveaway programs and say "see how much good the government does"

The Democratic party needs to change their name to the Robin Hood Party.

Ronald Regan said it best; "Republicans think every day is the 4th of July. Democrats think every day is April 15th"

not a bunch of socialist programs.

Yet they complain the loudest about the homeless in the street, the thugs not in jail, women having kids (on welfare instead of abortions) . . . blah blah blah.

The democrats are in power for a reason. Your line of thinking has FAILED.

Mike Kolb: I do math every day. And if you do the math, a flat tax means a tax hike for you. Guaranteed. Trust me, if I knew I'd pay less under a flat tax, I'd be for it.

Now if you want to talk consumption tax, I'm all for it.

Skybill: Clearly a majority of Americans disagree with you, that's why people with your outlook have been removed from power.

Skybill: Clearly a majority of Americans disagree with you, that's why people with your outlook have been removed from power.

If you say so. However, you (or anybody) STILL have not answered my question of why the rich should be taxed more than you or I.

Ant to repeat what I said above; I want someone to give me GOOD, SOLID, JUSTIFIABLE reasons the people that have worked hard and amassed a large sum of money should pay MORE for the same things that you and I pay for.

Because they don't earn that money in a vacuum. They make more use of those things we pay taxes for to earn their riches.

Fact is that if you are so rich that you make your living investing your money the most taxes you will ever pay is 15%. And the GOP wants to make it 0%. The working stiff pays much more that that. Warren Buffet says he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. He also says there is class warfare going on and his side is winning.

You've got the reason right there.

And I'm with Vitalogy. If I thought for a minute that a flat tax would save me dollars, I would support it.

Skybill:Taxes should be minimal for EVERYONE. Provide basic government, services and infrastructure and not a bunch of socialist programs.

And we are currently not doing that now, when you consider the decreases in police, fire, education forcasted for the forseeable fiscal future.

And please don't sing the old "cut the fat first" song. My god, state and local government in Oregon have been eviscerated year by year since Measure 5 passed in 1991. The fat's gone, and now we're cutting meat and bone.

Its likely the rich would have the most to lose with government cut to the bare bones.

There's nothing wrong with being rich. Just keep that trap shut.

Because they don't earn that money in a vacuum. They make more use of those things we pay taxes for to earn their riches.

Like what?

The roads? Nope. They drive on them just like you and me.

If their house is on fire, does it cost more to send the Fire Department there than to yours or my house? Nope.

If they have a heart attack does it cost more to send EMS? Nope.

I want valid, specific examples that they use more public services and deserve to be taxed more, not the same old tired party line.

Edselehr, your right. We're not doing that now. That's why some people went to the "TEA" parties. They are fed up with taxes.

They had a report on KOIN news either last night or Friday night in which they stated that there have been about 2000+ new private sector jobs created in the last month from the "stimulus" and 12,000+ government jobs. That's just stupid. Where is the money going to come from to pay for the new gummint jobs.......Oh, yeah, from you and me.

Skybill said: I want valid, specific examples

Ha! Seriously, why should anyone here give you the time of the day when you have made it clear your mission life is to create chaos with our political system? Hmm?

Time and time again people have posted thoughtful (and obviously time consuming) responses and you just turn around and boast about how you like to just muck things up.

Obviously you have a right to say/do whatever you want, but likewise, I can make the observation that responding to you is like talking with Wayne.

Skybill,

You can give examples where everyody uses both. But I said the rich are more dependent on the commons than the peons do to earn their riches. Your example - roads. We could get by with local roads but the rich depend upon large sophicated transportions systems like the interstate highway system to make their riches. Do you need the SEC and all the infastruction to protect corportations? Maybe some but not as much as they do. The keyword is MORE!

That's why some people went to the "TEA" parties. They are fed up with taxes.

The fact is that income taxes have never been lower than they are today. Now look at the FICA taxes you presumably pay - your hero Ronald Reagan doubled them during his presidency.

And the rich only pay them up to the limit of $100K.

Skep: Ha! Seriously, why should anyone here give you the time of the day when you have made it clear your mission life is to create chaos with our political system? Hmm?

I've never said that. I'm not going to roll over and drink the liberal socialist kool-aid, but other than that, there isn't much I could do to create, as you so eloquently put it, "Chaos".

I did say that I'm not going to give the Census people anything more than I think they need, but that's it.

What I take from you post is that you can't give me any reasons other than Vit's famous line; "Because they can afford it". Ha indeed.

Pete, don't you drive on the interstates? I know I do and I'm not rich by any means. You are right, INCOME taxes are lower, thanks BTW to Bush, not lord Obama, (other than the extra $13 per pay check, which is better than a sharp stick in the eye!), however watch and see all the other taxes we pay go up.

How are they going to fund all their socialist programs like government heath care and all the other things they are spouting off about?

I saw on the news over the weekend that your (I'm assuming you live in Oregon) governor wants to raise the gas tax by 6 cents per gallon.

Depending on what you drive, that $13 per pay check just vanished.

I'm all for EVERYONE paying their FAIR share, but no one group or economic class should bear more burden than anyone else.

Don't even get me started on FICA. That is one of the biggest government farces ever. It is just a cash cow for the politicians.

If it was used EXACTLY the way it was set up, then it might be a better program.

I am ALL for a consumption tax. That is the fairest way.

Don't even get me started on FICA. That is one of the biggest government farces ever. It is just a cash cow for the politicians.

If it was used EXACTLY the way it was set up, then it might be a better program.

Yup, and it was Ronnie Reagan who doubled the taxes and raided the fund. It was the largest tax increase on working folks in history.

Take the ceiling off FICA. I'll go for the flat tax if you can guarantee other taxes won't rise. I'll go for a nation consumption tax, But everything else would have to go.

The problem with the national tax proposals is they don't address the LOCAL REVENUE ISSUES. Local sales tax. Local and STATE income taxes.
Licensing fees, disposal fees, environmental fees, gas taxes, and all the nickel and dime stuff we pay. Look at your phone bill and add the fees and taxes.

FED INCOME TAX has become unwieldy. (what happened to the simplification of years ago?)

I used to fly thru my taxes in half an hour. Now, I need 3 or four different forms, and with an HSA I have to file the long form. Energy credit, this credit that credit. K.I.S.S.

Figure a new plan, and I'm all in! Whatever happens on the national level, you will still have to handle the state.

Want a 13 percent National Sales Tax, 7 percent FICA on ALL INCOME and a 10 percent STATE Sales tax, and do away with EVERYTHING ELSE? no property tax, no licensing fees, no nothing. Price on the shelf is the price you pay TAXES INCLUDED. Won't work at the state level because some places are already at 9 percent plus Income tax, and property taxes...... A place like West Virginia already charges sales tax on EVERYTHING plus their licenses fees are based on value, and quite high and their propery taxes are fairly steep as well. Virginia has a PERSONAL Property tax in addition to all the usual taxes.

Oregon, Texas and Washington are fairly light compared to many other states, but those three have other issues. Florida no income tax, but the other taxes are killers.

A simple Fed tax ought to be a relatively easy fix....

The wallet drainer for most of us is at the state level.

I'm open for any simpler solution.

One important piece of information that is missing from this discussion is a breakout of how much tax revenue the IRS collects from people in different income groups. Lower income people who rent because they can't afford a house likely don't have much that they can write off on their taxes--other than children. Higher income people are more likely to have home mortgages, assets that can depreciate, business expenses, and the like that they can deduct. For the sake of this discussion, we also haven't defined what constitutes "wealthy" individuals.

I also see that the "TEA" parties came up again. My impression of this and most tax protests is that they are very blunt instruments. I believe that by design, the message of these protests was rather vague. People on this board have been inferring that the protests were specifically targeted at federal income taxes, likely because most of the rallies occurred on April 15. In my opinion, the message of the protests was directed at taxes in general and would be applicable to state income taxes and taxes hidden in the cost of products such as fuels and tobacco.

I will be frank and state that another purpose of the TEA parties was to recruit volunteers for future protests and lobbying efforts.

...the message of the protests was directed at taxes in general and would be applicable to state income taxes and taxes hidden in the cost of products such as fuels and tobacco.

That's how I perceived them too.

The solution is reigning in the loopholes. They clearly favor certain constituencies and the lobbyists are in there every day clamoring for more of them.

Vitalogy is right, a flat tax is not a fair solution.

Sure, we need to minimize the cheating, but the larger problem are those that play by the rules that favor them only. Large off shore companies, for example, paying next to no tax when they aren't really "off shore" at all.

If the loopholes were eliminated, at least the ones that are obviously put in place to give tax breaks to those individuals and corporations that are clearly underpaying, revenues would soar and average self employed and middle class employees would have less of a gripe about the government shifting the burden to them and letting the upperclass and corporate bean counters slither through with next to no taxes.

BTW: This is not a partisan issue. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, especially the Senate, are notorious for putting these loopholes in place, and incumbent administrations are reluctant to alienate those that give huge sums to their re-election campaign.

On a side note: Isn't Dick Cheney an asshole?

If politics were poker, Dick Cheney would be described as "all in" with an "anger bet". Logic never prevails in an anger bet unless you get lucky.

Dick Cheney got lucky in 2000 and 2004. I'd say he's pushing his luck this time.

"On a side note: Isn't Dick Cheney an asshole?"

Or, some of the liberals on this forum. Let's see now, who would I pick of the two choices?

Adam Smith felt that taxes should be baased upon the ability to pay them:

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation. Every tax, it must be observed once for all, which falls finally upon one only of the three sorts of revenue above mentioned, is necessarily unequal in so far as it does not affect the other two. In the following examination of different taxes I shall seldom take much further notice of this sort of inequality, but shall, in most cases, confine my observations to that inequality which is occasioned by a particular tax falling unequally even upon that particular sort of private revenue which is affected by it.

"On a side note: Isn't Dick Cheney an asshole?"

Or, some of the liberals on this forum. Let's see now, who would I pick of the two choices?

Sorry, I couldn't possibly hold a candle to Dick Cheney in the a-hole category.

Vit said - " Now if you want to talk consumption tax, I'm all for it."

Good. Because that's what I thought we were talking about. Sorry. I'll just admit that and move on.

What's the difference? I know there is one...NOW...apparently. How would that work vs. a flat tax?

A consumption tax is a sales tax, a percentage tax of a good or service you purchase applied at at the point of sale. A flat tax is a single tax rate for everyone, applied to the income you earn.

OK.

What are the drawbacks for a consumption tax?

1. Consumption taxes are regressive and that means they hurt the less fortunate among us.

2. The Sixteenth Amendment.

Be careful what you wish for.

"On a side note: Isn't Dick Cheney an asshole?"


Or, some of the neo-CONers on this forum. Let's see now, who would I pick of the two choices?

Well, here's an interesting twist on it.

How about, if they insist on not paying a share proportional to their income from the system, then we must, or the system scales back to a much smaller deal for all involved.

In the case of we must pick up the burden, they will make less. If the dollars are going to support the society, then they ARE NOT going to pay for their wares.

In the case of the system scaling back, then we end up with more risk on people. Where that is true, productivity is less because stability is less.

Without a strong middle class, the idea that we are a consumer economy falls right on it's head. We simply won't consume as much, if the risk in our lives is too high, nor will we consume as much, if our liquid dollars are needed mostly for basics.

Up to them really.

Help us make the investments needed to keep the nation strong, healthy, innovative and productive

,or

don't, and have less to exploit over time.

It's really that simple.

I asked " What are the drawbacks for a consumption tax? "

Pete replied

" 1. Consumption taxes are regressive and that means they hurt the less fortunate among us.

2. The Sixteenth Amendment.

Be careful what you wish for."

Then I was all like -

Obviously you were just answering my question. I'm unclear if you feel that your #1 reason ( You just listed it first. Not that you feel it is your TOP reason - but maybe you do feel that way ) is a deal killer for you. What is less obvious is if you are saying that as just stating a plain fact. Or if you are citing that reason as an example of a reason why you'd be against it. Do you see the difference in this case? So I guess I'm just asking you Pete, would that be a good enough reason to not do it? What if we found a way around that? Would you then be in favor of it? ( Assuming you were ever against it ). Is it that anyone would be taxed higher? I mean, is that a deal killer for any economic class to pay higher - ever?

Your #2. I have read The 16th Amendment. What if we found a way around THAT? Is it the letter of the law that you stand by in this case? ( I'm calling it a " law " as shorthand to address it ). Or do you subscribe to the principle of it as well? I'm unclear about how this would manifest itself.

" Be careful what you wish for." I am. This is why I am having this conversation.

CJ,

I hate sales / consumption taxes or whatever you call time. When we moved to Oregon from NY in 1972, I was presently surprised to find that there is no sales taxes here in Oregon. I was gainfully employed back then, now that I am retired they would hurt even more.

As you may or may not know, Adam Smith is considered the father of modern capitalism and in 1776 wrote the Wealth of Nations. As I pointed out in a post above that taxes should fall on the people who are most able to pay them.

I mentioned the Sixteenth only to show that it is a high hurtle to get over. The are those that say the it was not properly ratified, however. Lots of luck with that.