[Rhodes22-list] Taxes - Timely Article

[Philip]

Your response is inane.  All I said was the income tax has to be repealed if
a flat tax is to work, otherwise, we will solve nothing, but add another
tax.

Philip


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
[mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org]  On Behalf Of Bill Effros
Sent:	Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:22 AM
To:	The Rhodes 22 mail list
Subject:	Re: [Rhodes22-list] Taxes - Timely Article

Oh, Philip, Count me in!

But why stop with the income tax?  Why not ban every other type of tax
as well?  Banning the income tax would also ban the "flat tax" -- it is
just supposed to be an income tax with a single rate.  But why not see
if we can also ban sales taxes, excise taxes, luxury taxes, sin taxes,
real estate taxes...then let's see how the suckers will raise money to
pay its military...

Whoa, whoa...you're in the military...how's this going to work?  If it's
truly a "volunteer" military where no one gets paid you won't have to
worry about income taxes anyhow...

Bill Effros

3drecon at comcast.net wrote:
> I have deliberately stayed out of all the political discussions lately,
but I am compelled to comment.  If this has been addressed, then I apologize
(I refuse to read all the previous tax e-mails).  The Flat Tax, Fair Tax,
National Sales Tax, or any other tax that will replace the current system
can work and can work well under a number of circumstances however; the one
event that must occur is the repeal of the 13th Amendment authorizing the
Income Tax.  No matter what Congress passes, a future Congress could
otherwise reinstate the income tax on top of any other tax solution (and
they will).
>
> Philip
>
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "Brad Haslett" <flybrad at gmail.com>
>
>
>> Here's an article from today's WaPo that dovetails neatly with our recent
>> discussion. Care to make a bet about the home interest deduction? No one
>> in the Congress has the guts to take on that sacred cow!
>>
>> Brad
>>
>> -----------
>>
>> *The $800 Billion Tax Loophole
>> *
>>
>> By Maya MacGuineas
>> Special to washingtonpost.com's Think Tank Town
>> Thursday, January 18, 2007; 12:00 AM
>>
>> Democrats are in a bind when it comes to their domestic economic agenda.
>> They have promised a number of new and costly initiatives such as fixing
the
>> Alternative Minimum Tax, providing middle-class tax relief, and
increasing
>> spending on homeland security and education. But they have also made a
>> commitment to fiscal responsibility. So how can they deliver on their
>> promises without opening themselves up to the old "tax and spend" label?
>> Reforming tax entitlements -- a large, mostly under-the-radar part of the
>> federal budget -- might just give them a way out of their predicament.
>>
>> As a result of the 1986 bipartisan tax reforms, the tax base was
broadened
>> and the tax code was greatly simplified. But these reforms have been
>> gradually undone as Congress has created scores of new tax breaks and
>> loopholes. Want to preserve historic buildings, encourage alternative
energy
>> sources, help working families, or give certain industries a boost
without
>> appearing to increase spending? Voil? -- a new targeted tax break is
born.
>>
>> Most tax expenditures are really spending programs designed to look like
tax
>> cuts. Picture them as vouchers for healthcare, mortgage payments,
daycare,
>> transportation -- name the tax break. Dressing these programs up as tax
cuts
>> makes them a much easier sell for politicians who fear the "big spender"
>> label. But call them what you will, they drain the money from the
Treasury
>> and extend the scope of government. All told, this portion of the budget
>> represents $800 billion in lost government revenues annually.
>>
>> Not only do these tax breaks mask the true size of the government, they
are
>> a terrible way to make policy. They regularly pay people and businesses
to
>> do what they would do anyway, making them both poorly targeted and
>> unnecessarily expensive. They are also extremely regressive. A particular
>> tax exemption might be worth 35 cents on the dollar to a wealthy
individual
>> and only 10 cents to someone on the other end of the income scale who
faces
>> a lower tax rate. It would be hard to justify a housing policy that does
>> more to subsidize the rich than the poor, yet that is exactly what the
$80
>> billion a year home mortgage interest deduction does.
>>
>> Moreover, tax expenditures do not get nearly the level of scrutiny they
>> should. (If they did, would we really have a government program that
>> subsidizes millionaires who buy vacation homes?) New government programs
>> should only be created following vigorous debate over whether a proposed
>> policy is important enough to warrant government intervention, and if it
is,
>> whether it will be effective. Discussions about new tax programs however,
>> tend to focus almost exclusively on the cost. Billions of dollars of
>> targeted tax cuts have been passed in the past few years with little or
no
>> discussion about the worthiness of their goals. And unlike spending
>> programs, which are subject to congressional review, tax expenditure
>> programs are pretty much on automatic pilot.
>>
>> Reforming this area of the budget would not only be a critical step in
>> improving the tax code (and probably the closest thing we will see to
>> fundamental tax reform in the next two years) it could also generate
tens --
>> if not hundreds -- of billions of dollars in savings.
>>
>> The first step should be capping a number of existing tax breaks. Capping
>> two of the largest breaks -- the home mortgage interest deduction and the
>> exclusion for employer-provided healthcare, would easily provide over $50
>> billion a year in savings. Both of these changes would reduce the large
>> subsidies that go to the highest earners while freeing up resources.
Getting
>> rid of a host of other tax breaks that subsidize certain businesses or
>> industries could easily generate another $25 billion. A thorough review
of
>> the over 150 existing tax expenditures to determine which ones have
outlived
>> their usefulness would yield still more in savings. As Democrats search
for
>> ways to offset the costs of their new agenda, reducing the $800 billion
tax
>> loophole would be an excellent place to start.
>>
>> *Maya MacGuineas is the Director of the Fiscal Policy Program at the New
>> America Foundation.*
>> __________________________________________________
>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>
__________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list