[geeks] Taxes

[hike]

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Sridhar Ayengar <ploopster at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Phil Stracchino wrote:
>
>> yeah, but shifting that burden from folks who can't afford to pay to
>>> folks who just don't want to is not unfair.
>>>
>>
>> Personally, assuming retaining an income tax, I'd like to see something
>> like this:
>>
>> The government annually publishes a surveyed state-by-state basic cost of
>> living for a family of a given size.  Income below that basic cost of living
>> is tax-free, regardless of how much money you make in total.  All savings
>> interest is also tax-free, no matter how much of it you have. Personal
>> inheritance would not be considered income, any more than insurance
>> settlements are.  All other income, including investment income, above basic
>> cost of living is taxed at a flat 10%.  No deductions, no allowances, no
>> deferments, no shelters, no loopholes. Corporations get taxed at the same
>> flat 10% across the board - and that's 10% of gross revenues, not declared
>> net profit after cooking the books.
>>
>> Tax accountants and tax lawyers would scream bloody murder, of course, as
>> would the IRS, since they'd practically become obsolete overnight. But tax
>> returns - personal and corporate both - would become one side of one sheet
>> of paper, that'd take five minutes to fill out.  All the parasitic cost of
>> complying with the current bloated system would just go away, and as a
>> bonus, it would become much easier to detect tax evasion, and most tax fraud
>> cases would be open-and-shut.
>>
>
> To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't mind paying a giant federal VAT if there
> were no income tax.  That would be a powerful incentive for people to save
> their money.  Might not be good for the tax revenue totals, and might not be
> good for the economy (by discouraging spending), but it would be good for
> *me*.
>
> Peace...  Sridhar
>
> _______________________________________________
> GEEKS:  http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks
>


Many have proposed a national sales tax in the USA.  (Is the "fair tax"
movement this concept?)

The amount of national sales tax when Congressman Dick Armey was in office
(1990s) would have been 17%.  This is addition to state and local sales
tax.  In my county that would be 17% plus 9.25% or 26.25% total.  (There are
also extra taxes for hotels, and some entertainment in my state.)

I would much prefer to pay that exorbinant (sp?) rate.  I can control a
portion of my spending.  The MAJOR problem in doing this is that the vast
majority of IRS workers/employees would be laid off of their jobs.  This
would be a major disaster for the political party that could do this.  The
Democrats will not do this because government workers are one of their major
voter groups.  (The Democrats always call a national sale tax insanity,
stupidity, etc when the idea is brought up.)  The Republicans don't have
enought votes if, when they were the jaority, they had acted on this.
Sridhar has mentioned the second major reason: the temporary effect on the
economy.  The downturn would permit the economy to readjust to more
realistic levels AND cause the electorate to vote the scoundrels out of
office.