Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > No more federal income tax. No mroe IRS. Good? Bad? ...Possible?

No more federal income tax. No mroe IRS. Good? Bad? ...Possible? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2005, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
On that 23% sales tax: I found a link to a nonpartisan congressional analysis of a national sales tax, and it says that in order to collect the same amount of revenue as we collect today, the sales tax would have to be around 60%.
No one would ever have any incentive to skirt that!
     
medicineman
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2005, 11:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium
I'm not sure I understand how this disagrees with what I've said. Could you elaborate?

This is the point of the exercise: a system which taxes corporations (and other businesses), not "natural persons" (as opposed to factive persons). At this point it's more of a mental exercise than anything else, but could such a system work out if brought into reality? What sorts of effects might it have?

My idea was not to add, but to replace.
A C Corp can be looked at as a group of people conducting business under an umbrella name of <some> corporation. That corportation does not exist as an individual entity (in the realm of taxes). That members of that group cannot point to one another, or one they appoint as spokesperson, and say, 'you pay those taxes'. They are equally responsible. In that sense, real people, individuals, are paying the tax, not some anonymous corporate entity. The point of this is by saying, let corporations shoulder the tax burden, as though they were some unwordly thing, is that, afterall, they are comprised of individual persons. In essencce, you are not shifting the burden from persons to companies.
Were I king, I would allow all companies to exist free of taxes. Yes, individual shareholders would be taxed. I would use them as a mechanism of employment. To create working taxpayers. A great example of that is Lucent Technoligies. They're about to be taxed out of existance. They produce no product, per se, but excel in research and applied research. Taxing them at the same rate as Johnson & Johnson, or Bristol-Meyers-Squibb is foolish. Yet, they are still liable for the AMT (alterntaive minimum tax), which is really a maxium tax. (Since you didn't make enough to satisfy our tax requirements, you must pay this anyway).
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2005, 03:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
No one would ever have any incentive to skirt that!
Yeah, it's too bad that there can't be some basic honesty about this. It's a really important issue. My sense is that Bush is about to turn towards this tax reform issue as we approach the 2006 elections. I believe his commission was supposed to release their recommendations on July 31 2005. I sincerely hope that they and he have some sound and honest proposals.
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2005, 04:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
Good post Krusty. One other thing that jumped to mind is that, although they say they're going to abolish the IRS, there has to be some enforcement method for collecting the taxes and making sure that people don't sell under the table. I'm sure the temptation to evade the sales taxes would be huge. The IRS itself might go away, but something else would have to take its place.
But it won't be the IRS! Just like we got rid of the INS. We're getting new and improved acronyms!!

It's an UPGRADE!

Seriously, though, is this the same plan that has been proposed for years by Steve Forbes? It seems as though if someone who had a personality was pushing his plan, it would have gotten more attention.

I really don't know how I feel about this. I don't care for the system as it is now - it's too easy for some people to get around taxes, it's complex and hardly understandable without a CPA. I mean, if my accountant tells me I owe <insert number>, is there really any way I'd know better? And I went to business school (albeit in marketing.)
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2005, 04:11 PM
 
Oops...
( Last edited by davesimondotcom; Aug 9, 2005 at 04:12 PM. Reason: Double Post)
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2005, 04:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
On that 23% sales tax: I found a link to a nonpartisan congressional analysis of a national sales tax, and it says that in order to collect the same amount of revenue as we collect today, the sales tax would have to be around 60%.
Is that replacing just the income tax or all taxes?
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2005, 04:16 PM
 
Answered my own question - that's to replace income, gift, estate and FICA taxes.
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2005, 06:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by davesimondotcom
But it won't be the IRS! Just like we got rid of the INS. We're getting new and improved acronyms!!

It's an UPGRADE!

Seriously, though, is this the same plan that has been proposed for years by Steve Forbes? It seems as though if someone who had a personality was pushing his plan, it would have gotten more attention.

I really don't know how I feel about this. I don't care for the system as it is now - it's too easy for some people to get around taxes, it's complex and hardly understandable without a CPA. I mean, if my accountant tells me I owe <insert number>, is there really any way I'd know better? And I went to business school (albeit in marketing.)
The Forbes plan, which he's still pushing, is still an income tax. This one that started the thread is a national sales tax. On the cover of the current issue of the New Republic, they also advocate a national sales tax to replace income taxes. It all just sounds too risky to me. It's a "risky scheme."

I'd seriously just like to see them reduce deductions and shelters. Not ideological, not trying to boost the economy or any of that nonsense. Just practical - it would be simpler for everyone and there would be less political favors built into the tax code.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:16 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,