Changing from Mitt to Newt

[keycocker]

Flat tax is the system we have always had in Belize.On paper it looks quite simple, as if no deductions gives you nothing to calculate and maybe for a homeowner that may be partly true.
When I start sorting out my business expenses to determine my taxable profit at the end of each year, I have to assess the deductibility of each business expense. It takes a lot longer than filling out a postcard.Is my golf cart a business expense? Obviously not.Did I mention we don't have golf here? I use it only as a truck to haul building materials.
Flat tax sounds really simple to those who haven't lived it for thirty years.
Kinda like marrying French girls and windsurfing.

[MalibuGuru]

You need a new accountant! Anything related to business use is deductible.

[techno900]

Dismissing a flat tax because business's have a myriad of paper work to calculate their net profits is fine. However, for the majority of us out here, taking 15% off one or two W-2 forms isn't rocket science if deductions are eliminated.

The capital gains crowd is a little more complicated, but the CPA's will need some work anyway.

I think a progressive tax made of three tiers for different income groups with no deductions would be simple enough. And yes, the bottom tier would include everyone receiving a W-2, but the percentage would be small.

As I said before, the above concept could include a consumption tax as well, but it should be small so as not to impact the lower class too much.

If you get assistance from the govenment, you should know where the money is coming from.

[mac]

This is where the disintegration of the GOP into a party of evangelicals and Norquist foot soldiers kills any real progress. Whether you like it or not, the current partisanship in Washington DC prevents any meeting of the minds on tax reform. It seems patently unfair to me, and I believe most of the country, that someone who makes over $40 million a year and holds offshore accounts pays less than 15% in taxes. I think there is a broad consensus in this country that the tax system should be progressive but not confiscatory, and I think Mitt's tax returns will prevent his becoming President, whether his deductions are legal or not. While a sound economic argument can be made for tax rates that encourage long term investments that grow jobs in this country, few would argue that we have it now, or that Mitt is a good example of using the tax system to grow jobs along with wealth. I think he loses the election because of this and the recovering economy.

On the other side, the broad number of people who benefit from owning a home and deducting the interest prevent the political system from abandoning that deduction, at least in any short term scenario. Yet at a trillion a year it is a huge hidden expense of government. I think it would be possible to eliminate this deduction except for a first home, and perhaps temper the benefits which encourage people to buy up and continue to take the deduction. But it would take both parties and a consistent message of fairness to make this reform. (I have paid off my house, but if I wanted to shelter income, I could buy another more expensive house and "go on the dole" again. The interest deduction can readily exceed $2000/month. The average food stamp benefit is $133.84. http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?cat=1&ind=26)

The Democrats hold, and will continue to hold, the balance of power to prevent another attack on the progressive nature of our taxation system. The last attack during the Bush admininstration dramatically increased the concentration of wealth, and most Democrats are convinced to their core that it was bad for the country. The GOP holds the balance of power to create a stalemate, and since they are sworn to Norquist, they won't sit down and discuss common ground. A very sad state of affairs.

[isobars]

>$20,000,000 in research by three of the nation's leading business schools has persuaded me that the solution to damned near all economic problems is the Fair Tax, yet I've not seen one person here ever comment on it. Is it out of ignorance (mine or yours), or do some of you know something Harvard, Stanford, and the other leading university (?) missed?

[coboardhead]

Risking being called ignorant again...

I do not see any way that the fair tax could be a politcal reality.

I see no reason why a national sales tax (in lieu of a portion of the income tax) could not be part of our tax strategy. But, I see no way our representatives will totally give up the income tax.

I have often suggested that a national gas tax to buy down the debt would be a great application for this type of tax.

[isobars]

[DanWeiss]

Yet, as our hero constantly ignores, HC's 9-9-9 plan was a stepping stone to nowhere because, even if implemented, it is premised on illegal trade protection. Tax penalties for building a product that contains a non-USA manufactured component was Caine's own explanation for how to pay for it, apparently suggesting that the jobs created would also fund the tax receipts to make up for the lower tax rate. Implementation would violate international trade agreements and subject the USA to retaliation from Canada, Mexico, Brazil, China, Japan, Germany etc. Why our hero continues to tout the 9-9-9 plan as a positive perplexes me. It shouldn't even enter into a discussion of flat tax theory unless, of course, one get's their info from Drudge and Faux News.

[mrgybe]

Less than 3 million people in the US watch the top rated Fox News shows. Put differently, nearly 305 million, or 99% of the US population DON'T watch. The constant cry from the left that any opinion which does not coincide with their own must be the result of brainwashing by "Faux News" is not only childish and wearisome, it is clearly inaccurate.

[boggsman1]