Taxes

Ted Cruz Is Right About Taxes

The Internal Revenue Code's headache-inducing complexity is a scandal.

|

If you have not done your taxes yet, do not count on getting help from the Internal Revenue Service in answering any last-minute questions that may arise. The IRS estimates that only half of the anxious and bewildered taxpayers who call the agency this year will get through to a "telephone assistor," and those who do "could easily wait 30 minutes or more for limited service."

Those numbers reflect a deeper problem that Ted Cruz tapped into on Monday, when he announced that he is seeking the Republican presidential nomination. Although the Texas senator's dream of "abolishing the IRS" may be unrealistic, especially given the tax reform plan he favors, he is right to focus on the Internal Revenue Code's excruciating complexity as a scandal crying out for reform.

"Instead of a tax code that crushes innovation [and] imposes burdens on families struggling to make ends meet," Cruz said, "imagine a simple flat tax that lets every American file his or her taxes on a postcard." Flat-tax proponents, including several Republican presidential candidates, have been asking us to imagine a postcard-sized tax return for more than three decades. If it still sounds far-fetched, that is only because we are sadly accustomed to jumping through hoops for the privilege of parting with our money.  

"The most serious problem facing U.S. taxpayers is the declining quality of service provided to them by the IRS when they seek to comply with their federal tax filing and payment obligations," says the Taxpayer Advocate Service ("Your Voice at the IRS") in its latest annual report to Congress. "Even when a taxpayer manages to get through to a telephone assistor with a question, the assistor may not be able to provide an answer."

That's because the IRS decided in 2013 "it would answer only what it terms 'basic' questions, declaring 'more complex' questions that it previously answered 'out of scope.'" In other words, the less likely you are to resolve a tax compliance question on your own, the less likely the IRS is to help you.

You can, of course, consult a "tax professional," who makes a living by helping perplexed citizens figure out how much they owe the government. But the very existence of this occupation is an indictment of our byzantine tax system, which is so complicated that even the IRS is reluctant to answer questions about it yet imposes civil and criminal penalties on people who fail to comply with its numerous picayune requirements.

This complexity is not merely, as Cruz observes, inconvenient and inefficient, diverting resources that otherwise would find more productive uses into tax compliance and avoidance activities. It is fundamentally unjust, undermining the rule of law by requiring obedience to inscrutable commands.

Cruz's solution—a single income tax rate with deductions limited to charitable donations and home mortgage interest—would be a step in the right direction. But retaining any deductions at all is an invitation to escalating exceptions, and keeping the income tax would mean keeping the IRS or something like it, contrary to what Cruz implies.

By contrast, a national sales tax, an approach Cruz also has endorsed, would make "abolishing the IRS" feasible and a return to something resembling the current tax code less likely, with the additional economic advantage of taxing consumption rather than savings and investment. In 2013 Cruz cosponsored the Fair Tax Act, which would have replaced the federal income and payroll taxes with a 23 percent sales tax, collected by a new Treasury Department agency with help from state revenue departments.

Both of these approaches would require exemptions or rebates to avoid large tax increases for people of modest means, which would entail a certain amount of intrusiveness and administrative complexity. But they would still be far superior to the current system, which leaves taxpayers not only on the hook but on the line, vainly waiting for the government's help in filling the government's coffers.

© Copyright 2015 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

183 responses to “Ted Cruz Is Right About Taxes

  1. Why should only people that buy a house or give money to a ‘charity’ get a deduction?Why not a flat tax with the first 20000 or 25000 dollars exempt? No favoring certain choices.

    1. Because then politicians can’t use the tax code to reward certain behaviors and constituencies and punish others. Which is a power they will never give up.

      1. Ding ding, we have a winner.

      2. a power they will never give up.

        A power they will never voluntarily give up.

        -jcr

        1. Is that a whiff of gunpowder I detect?

        2. A power they will never voluntarily give up.

          *continues to cast lead into balls for trusty Brown Bess musket*

          1. *continues to cast lead into balls for trusty Brown Bess musket*

            Which of course is the only thing the second amendment protects. For the National Guard.

            1. Dammit! I knew I shouldn’t have retired!

              *prepares to turn musket in*

              1. “Oh, I thought you said ‘muskrat’!”

                1. Muskrat Love….mmmm, Toni Tennille….

                  /old man

    2. But then how would our betters in Washington practice their social engineering?

    3. Better yet, a national sales tax of 4%. No income, capital gains, import or export duties, nothing else at all. That’s plenty to cover the government’s constitutional duties.

      -jcr

      1. The Free Shit brigade will never allow that to happen.

        1. Neither will the hordes of accountants and attorneys involved in tax compliance.

          1. John recently made the point that “having a job” =/= “being productive”. These hordes merely add to the weight dragging the country down.

            1. WTF are you talking about? If I pay you to dig a ditch and then pay you to fill it in, that’s productivity! Don’t you guys know anything?

              *goes back to writing hipster slam poetry based on Victorian prose*

              1. That’s a good point, Scruffy.

                If I pay you to cash a check, that’s even *more* productive, since we *both* have more money.

          2. Hey, don’t lump us in with the attorneys.

      2. Oh, please God, not a national sales tax! I’ve delt with state sales tax collections, and they are no better than the IRS. If you think for an instant that a national sale tax service would be LESS intrusive than a national income tax service, I want to hear aboit the planet you live on. Are the seas tangarine colored?

        Then there’s the obvious problem that if a Sales tax was instituted, some Congresswine would push through a measure to keep the incme tax “for the transition period” and we’d get stuck with BOTH…….AND a VAT in the end.

        No. No sales tax.

        1. I have ranted exactly that a few times, and always geta knee-jerk response that only consumption taxes don’t discourage productive behavior.

          I prefer a land property tax because it can be paid anonymously and limits its intrusion to area. If it were to be based on actual value, it would be intrusive in snooping into sale values or requiring assessors, but there is another way: leave the value self-assessed and limit all insurance payouts and damage claims to that assessed value. The lowball self-assessed values wouldn’t matter since everyone would do it, and property tax rates (for city, county, state, and federal) would be adjusted accordingly.

          1. If you are saying “Land Property Taxes” then insurance really isn’t good leverage for the process. Virtually no one takes an insurance payout on land. They take payouts on the improvements, sure, but that is rarely the cost of purchasing the property over again, but rather the cost of rebuilding improvements.

            Basically, you don’t insure the value of land property, but the expected cost to make it whole again. The only way you can really judge the value of a property is to see how much people are trading it for.

            Not that a property-tax-only scheme is really a bad idea- just that insurance is not an effective proxy for value.

            1. Well, yes, I thought it was obvious I meant everything on the land. Whether that would be buildings only, or whether someone might think it included cars parked there, housing contents, etc, I don’t much care. The point remains the same: cap how much damages can be awarded to keep self-assessments reasonable, all such self-assessments will stabilize, property tax rates will adjust accordingly, and life will continue.

          2. scarecrow- I like this idea with one extra.

            You must be willing to sell for your “self-assessed” value at any time- or pay the last three (five? ten?) yrs of taxes on your new “self-assessed” value.

          3. The Sales tax proposed by the Fair Tax bill is not a VAT and the bill includes the repeal of the income tax and dismantling of the IRS. (see https://fairtax.org/faq )

            Proposing a property tax is about as un-libertarian as can be, IMO. To me, property taxes are the second most egregious type of tax after income taxes. They basically erode property rights. How can you “own” real property if the government can take it away from you for not paying taxes on it?

    4. I make up to usd90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to usd86h Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link……… Try it, you won’t regret it!… http://www.jobs-check.com

    5. I make up to usd90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to usd86h Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link……… Try it, you won’t regret it!… http://www.wixjob.com

  2. Fine, I’ll bite on the “national sales tax”. Just as soon as Washington abolishes the income and payroll tax.

    More likely, those fucking parasites will just say “Oh, sure we are abolishing those in OUR VERY NEXT SESSION!!! We just have to pass this national sales tax (or VAT or whatever) first!”

    And then we are stuck with both. Kind of like how the stimulus became the baseline for all budgets thereafter.

    Fuckers…

    1. Repealing the 16th would be even better. So long as the constitutional authorization exists, it is a certainty that the income tax will eventually exist as well.

      1. That said, incrementalism may be a good way to go in this particular case. If it can be demonstrated that much simpler tax could replace the revenue of the income tax, people would probably be more amenable to doing away with it.

        1. Agree on the incrementalism (it works for the SJWs, so why shouldn’t wer do it?!?!) but I am not gonna put all those taxes in place in preparation for a “repeal” that never comes…

          But yeah, repealing the 16th would be ideal…

          1. Incrementalism tends to only work in the government growth direction.

        2. Yep, and I’ve been saying that for years, but everyone wants an instant solution that ‘fixes everything in the next fiscal year.’
          Morons…

          It took generations to dig the hole that SocSec is in today. Phasing it out over at least one ‘working career’ of, say, 40 years might work. Workers and employers knowing that their benefits would drop 2.5% per year should be able to make incremental adjustments to weather that “storm.”

          Likewise, phase out mortgage interest deductions over the “average term of a mortgage” or even over 20-30 years, if you’d prefer… where everyone knows up front that in 30 years their interest deduction will dwindle to zero but it won’t fall off a cliff next year.

          My theory: any individual or company that can’t adjust to those kinds of incremental changes doesn’t deserve to enjoy them in the first place! Yeah, cruel, eh? Maybe some ‘tough love’ is due.

      2. Correct! Whether the Sixteenth Amendment ever truly was ratified is questionable; nevertheless, operationally and legally it exists enforced by the American version of the Gestapo known as the IRS. To reform taxation, the first step must be repeal of the worst legislation ever inflicted upon this nation … this nation now on fire (www.nationonfire.com).

        1. Quibbling about the ratification of the 16th amendment marks you right off the bat, but to equate the genocidal Gestapo with the merely bureaucratic IRS, and to call income tax legislation worse than slavery or Jim Crow segregation just shows your ignorance.

          You’ve probably been told a million times to stop your exaggeration. It’s good advice.

    2. The Fair Tax Bill of 2015 calls for repeal of the 16th Amendment, thus preventing the concurrent existence of both income and a national sales tax. (see http://fairtax.org/ )

      From the FAQ page on that site:
      “No current supporter of the FairTax would support the FairTax unless the entire income tax is repealed. There is a separate bill, HJR 16, which repeals the 16th Amendment to the Constitution but it must go through a different adoption process than HR 25. HJR 16 has to be passed by a two-thirds vote of members of both the House and the Senate and be approved (or ratified) by three-fourths of state legislatures (38). We are currently laying the organizational groundwork for this push and have already started the educational process at the state level.”

      Also, the Fair Tax is NOT a VAT. (See the FAQ page for that distinction as well)

  3. he is right to focus on the Internal Revenue Code’s excruciating complexity as a scandal crying out for reform.

    FAKE SCANDAL!

    Seriously, do not reelect any incumbent until these clowns *implement* “a postcard-sized tax return”.

    *And* abolish withholdHAHAHAHAHAAA!! Damn, couldn’t quite get it out!

  4. There won’t be any real tax reform. The fuckers will play with the rates a point or two like always – nothing else.

    and Good Morning Peanuts!

    1. Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully with this book, I’m gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

      1. It must give your little life some meaning every day to follow me around posting nonsense.

        1. Were you born a fat, slimy, scumbag puke piece o’ shit, or did you have to work on it?

      2. It is a clever trollbot. It posted a random selection of words related to the topic that it knows will elicit responses, and did so in a seemingly agreeable manner.

        Don’t be fooled.

        1. Artificial intelligence?

          1. artificial derpness…

  5. WASHINGTON (AP) ? Sen. Ted Cruz could soon be buying his family’s health care coverage through the Affordable Care Act, a law the Republican presidential candidate has vowed to repeal should he win the White House.

    http://news.yahoo.com/cruz-buy…..cAVmXQtDMD

    He could just go directly to an insurance company. Strange guy.

    1. Dreams are a great thing, but you know something? They take a lot of energy. But that’s OK. There’s a job waiting for you down the block from your house that doesn’t require a thought in your head or a hope in your heart. So come on down and work for the artificial flower factory. Why fight it? OK? Thank you.

    2. Yeah, I saw that last night. This beady eyed fucker has to be the biggest hypocrite in DC… That’s saying a lot.

      1. He’s the biggest in texas- and we’ve got both bush presidents!

      2. Cruz can suck it, but he has to do so because of a law passed to force Democrats in Congress to use the piece of shit ACA themselves–it says so right in the article.

        So shrike is fucking lying again.

        1. “So shrike is fucking lying again”

          *Shocked look crosses face. Sits down and fans self*

          1. I’m sorry you had to find out this way. [hugs]

          2. playdoh and hot cocoa, STAT! and someone get a damp cloth to put on his gazers.

        2. Bullshit.

          his family could get its coverage directly from an insurance company at what would likely be a far higher rate than is available via an exchange. Doing so would mean Cruz would not get the contribution from his employer to help offset the full cost of his coverage.

          The mandate is shitty but you just need to buy insurance – not necessarily from the exchange.

          1. I needed insurance for a month while I was in between jobs. Buying through the insurance company was cheaper than the exchange.

  6. I hate shrieking in the morning.

    I understand that trolls support an 8% tax on everything.

    Me – burn the fucker down and start over. It’s too late.

  7. PS I keep mixing up Cruz and Rubio. So I’ve decided that, clearly, I’m teh racist. Therefore, I’ll get some of my cousins who are 1/2 Messican on my team. Think that penance will make up for it.

    Almanian for President – 2016
    “I probably won’t make it any woirse”

    “AND I’ll get some of my SMOKIN’-hot 1/2 Mexican cousins into my administration for the optics.”

    1. ** “Spell checker not included”

      1. I thought you were affecting a Brooklyn accent.

        1. OHHHH! Youse got me!

    2. Sounds like you are all ab out amnesty on a sliding scale of hotness. Finally a platform I can get behind!

      1. If you’re the red-blooded male I KNOW you are, you’ll want to get behind…my cousins.

        /white slaver

      2. “Welcome to America. No Cover Charge for Hotties.”

    3. SMOKIN’-hot 1/2 Mexican cousins

      Pics. Then I’ll consider supporting your campaign.

  8. we are sadly accustomed to jumping through hoops for the privilege of parting with our money.

    *** dons Judge robe ***

    What if everyone submitted their tax return “in good faith” *without* “jumping through hoops”?

    *** doffs Judge robe ***

  9. I hate this guy. I don’t hate him as much as, the current guy, but I hate this guy. He’s an embarrassment to the state of Texas. His rhetoric is silly at best and dangerous if taken seriously. He is, a moron, as evidenced by the fact he thinks he has a chance in hell at being president.

    That being said, I hate the irs too- despite never having a single experience with them beyond doing some paperwork. I hate any progressive tax scheme, and I think I blame them for it.

    1. despite never having a single experience with them beyond doing some paperwork

      My experiences “beyond” are entirely consistent with the prevailing view that they are incompetent and vindictive.

  10. Why in the hell do dolks keep bringing up, “this way of taxing individuals will either bring the same revenue, or even more tax revenue”??

    There are many who don’t like the performance of their “representatives” or the horrible services, and would like less, or even none of their money to go to the state.

    Folks keep carrying on about how some new extortion system would be better cause the right folks in fancy suits will finally get it right this time. Why should folks be rewarded for continual failure?

    1. “Why in the hell do dolks keep bringing up, “this way of taxing individuals will either bring the same revenue, or even more tax revenue”??”

      Because there is a vast parasite constituency that lives off of other people’s money. And that constituency recycles some of that money back to politicans to keep the federal tax money gusher flowing.

      If the federal government’s activities were cut back to what the Constitution actually permits it to do, the federal government could abolish the income tax and go back to funding it’s costs via excise taxes as it had been doing before the income tax was created.

  11. What a fucking crazy wingnut. Probably a Ted Cruz fan:

    On Friday, “Trunews” host Rick Wiles aired a speech that Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty delivered at the Vero Beach Prayer Breakfast earlier that day, in which Robertson offered gruesome details about how an atheist father would react to watching intruders behead his wife and rape and kill his two daughters while they also cut off his penis …. which would supposedly somehow prove a point about following God’s laws.

    “I’ll make a bet with you,” Robertson said. “Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him. And then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot them and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him. And then they can look at him and say, ‘Isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn’t it great that there’s nothing wrong with this? There’s no right or wrong, now is it dude?'”

    Robertson kept going: “Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say, ‘Wouldn’t it be something if this [sic] was something wrong with this? But you’re the one who says there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun. We’re sick in the head, have a nice day.'”

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org

    1. What’s the point PB? I don’t think you’re going to find many people on these boards espousing the views of the cast of DD.

      Shall I share a link to a story about the time Morrissey said people who consume animal meat are just as evil as pedophiles? That would make us all feel better about ourselves, right?

      1. Don’t bother, he won’t quit

      2. A keystone of his delusional complex is he thinks he has found a hidden redoubt of GOP fans and he is valiantly trying to unmask us.

        I understand the impulse to attempt to reason with him, but it is futile. He’s found a rich feeding ground for his madness and he’s not going anywhere as along as he still getting attention.

      3. There is no point to it’s existence.

      4. Moral posturing a progs main activity.

    2. Someone should read him passages from Judges:

      “20 “You are welcome at my house,” the old man said. “Let me supply whatever you need. Only don’t spend the night in the square.” 21 So he took him into his house and fed his donkeys. After they had washed their feet, they had something to eat and drink.

      22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”

      23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don’t do such a disgraceful thing.”

      25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.”

    3. Thanks. I never knew Robertson was THAT psycho.
      When has any atheist said there is no right and wrong?
      Umm, does the criminal justice system now excuse rape, murder and beheading?
      Is it really possible to be so much a bigot?
      When he spoke, was drool dripping from his chin?

      Another fine example of why our founders wisely supported Separation.

      1. They really believe that right and wrong CAN’T exist except as given from an external source (ie, God). Without that, of course people have no morality?

        All the more reason not to turn your back on one who believes this way, Since they have no internal compass, “God” could easily say to murder you horribly (and has; read the book) and he would have no internal compunction against doing so.

        You heard me. People who believe morals come from God are less moral than people who subscribe to things like the Golden Rule, NAP, or simply, “I’d hate it is someone did that to me.” Such are not to be trusted. The “I must obey God, no matter what I might think” type s a ready made jihadist/killer/source of mayhem.

  12. There’s still shrieking. Can a brother get a Trigger Warning? We barely get then 8% of the time.

    Also, fried chicken

    1. ‘tard warning!

      8% chance of EXTREME ‘tardedness!

      That better?

      1. Ok. I’m relatively new here, so I have to ask. What’s with the 8% response to PB all about? I’m assuming it’s a bit of teasing over quoting faulty statistics. Please fill me in.

        1. He said something stupid involving 8% and the ACA. Don’t remember the specifics at this point, but doesn’t really matter.

          1. So engaging PB in any way, shape or form is a complete waste of time. Duly noted.

          2. He quoted weasel statistics trying to prove that more than half the country approved the ACA. 8% was the actual number of people who wanted to keep the ACA with no modifications.

    2. And cake!

  13. A national sales tax?

    Let the liberal screeching about it being “regressive” commence.

    1. The love regressive taxes so I don’t see what the problem is.

      1. Plus, the VAT sticks it to the evil corporations every step of the way!

        1. Ugh, I dread the possibility of a VAT tax.

          1. Cheer up, Scruffy! It’ll be *in addition* to everything else!

    2. Science says, “Taxation is a form of punishment. Punishment is a form of negative control. People dislike negative control.”

      Whatever the system of taxation, somebody will screech. A national sales-tax, however, is the simplest and fairest form of taxation. It punishes consumption not production. Everyone receives basic benefits from the federal government … militarily if nothing else. Everyone should pay something.

      1. Every national sales tax proposal I have seen somewhat seriously introduced comes with provisions to make sure the poor don’t get hit too hard with it. Which involves setting up an agency as or more complex than the IRS to administer returns. Which is sort of ironic.

        1. The Fair Tax, which is probably the most well known of the national sales tax proposals, gives a pre-bate to every household, equal to the sales taxes on goods spent at the poverty level.

          This abolishes the need for most of the IRS (there would be a smaller agency dedicated to auditing businesses collecting sales taxes- though they trust states to use existing infrastructure).

          So, your analysis is incorrect to say the least.

          1. Overt
            The Fair Tax,

            Your math sucks — because the rich subsidize 40% of the entire core middle class share of taxes ($40-100k AGI). So a flat tax OBVIOUSLY creates a HUGE middle-class tax increase. Or is it paid by Venezuelans? Jr High math,

            The Fair Tax is, ummm, an even BIGGER middle class tax increase because ,… are you not aware that the rich “consume” a MUCH smaller percenrage of their income??

            Libertarians are now as easily suckered as the other two tribes.
            Time, yet, to all learn Chinese?

            1. Your math sucks — because the rich subsidize 40% of the entire core middle class share of taxes ($40-100k AGI). So a flat tax OBVIOUSLY creates a HUGE middle-class tax increase. Or is it paid by Venezuelans? Jr High math,

              Your english comprehension sucks. Where in that post did I do any math? I merely pointed out that Bassjoe was wrong when he insisted that any Sales Tax would require a larger bureaucracy than the existing IRS.

              As for the math, you have made some general conclusions based on a cursory read of the facts. It is the conclusion I came to when I thought studying some bullet points and factoids was enough to become an expert on the subject. I have since done more research, and as I note in a comment below, there is much more to this than just peoples income. Analyses of lifetime tax expenditure show that the Fair Tax is much easier on people who earn mid-to-low income throughout their lives, instead hitting those people who accumulate wealth throughout their earning years and would moderate their income recognition in order to fit into lower income tax brackets.

              1. Where in that post did I do any math?

                You didn’t. Simple math would have waved red flags.

                I merely pointed out that Bassjoe was wrong when he insisted that any Sales Tax would require a larger bureaucracy than the existing IRS.

                I quoted your words. Go back and look.

                As for the math, you have made some general conclusions based on a cursory read of the facts.

                (laughing) I cited actual IRS data. Linked en this page, repeated here

                http://www.census.gov/compendi…..1s0486.pdf
                http://www.census.gov/compendi…..1s0486.xls

                It is the conclusion I came to when I thought studying some bullet points and factoids was enough to become an expert on the subject.

                (lol) IRS data,

                Analyses of lifetime tax expenditure show that the Fair Tax is much easier on people who earn mid-to-low income throughout their lives,

                You “research” sucks too. The middle-class spends the HIGHEST percentage of income on taxable consumption. Do you have anything more than talking points?

                you have made some general conclusions based on a cursory read of the facts

                You people crack me up!

            2. “The Fair Tax is, ummm, an even BIGGER middle class tax increase because ,… are you not aware that the rich “consume” a MUCH smaller percenrage of their income??

              Libertarians are now as easily suckered as the other two tribes.

              how can one post something so wrong? Is it to show everyone how stupid you are? You succeeded.

              1. how can one post something so wrong? Is it to show everyone how stupid you are? You succeeded.

                Umm, I posted the proof on this page. IRS data. Here it us again, just for you. I’ll even give you a choice, PDF file or Excel spreadheet.

                http://www.census.gov/compendi…..1s0486.xls

                http://www.census.gov/compendi…..1s0486.pdf

                Is it to show everyone how stupid you are?

                Ummm, no comment needed.

                1. Your entire point was inaccurate. no link is going to save you from your own stupidity. You think some people should pay a higher tax rate than others. Libertarians do not agree. You are stupid. Libertarians are not. Understand now?

                  1. Your entire point was inaccurate. no link is going to save you from your own stupidity.

                    Now he denies actual income tax data! OMG

                    You think some people should pay a higher tax rate than others.

                    Liar. I cited facts, not my preferences.. It’s IRS, not me, who says YOUR “facts” are bullshit.

                    Libertarians do not agree. You are stupid. Libertarians are not. Understand now?

                    ME stupid???? You even screwed that up … on top of your shameful lie/ This is a link to trhe history of the Libertarian Party (United States) Do a page search for my name “Mike Hihn” … while I keep laughing at you.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)
                    (elminate the blank space

                    I post the link only in self defense from a …

                    1. I hate to come back to a dead thread, but I was working last night and didn’t have a chance to respond. Let me point out a few things:

                      1) It is true that the Middle Class spends more of their income on consumption than the rich. However the Fair Tax actually offsets a greater percentage of the Middle Class consumption taxes. That is, the pre-bate sent to all households covers roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of Middle Class consumption taxes. On the other hand, it only covers 1/5 – 1/4 of the next quintile’s consumption- they end up paying more in consumptive taxes.

                      2) The census data is showing current income rates. It is not showing lifetime income and lifetime taxes and as a result fails to capture mobility or the fact that in the later years there are plenty of rich people (i.e. sitting on a lot of wealth) who recognize little income. So although they live a rich lifestyle with a great house, nice sports car and other luxuries, they recognize so little actual income that they appear- according to the census data- to be merely middle class. And this is why I said you are only making a cursory review of the facts.

                    2. The census data is showing current income rates.

                      Which prove youy wrong.

                      … in the later years there are plenty of rich people (i.e. sitting on a lot of wealth) who recognize little income.

                      (snicker) Replaced by OTHER rich people who subsidize the middle class DUH. Next you go TOTALLY off the rails!

                      according to the census data- to be merely middle class.

                      Shame on you. They show no such thing. Even if true ..
                      1) You need the wealhy to totally diasppear!
                      2) You’ve been snookered by your total ignorance of social securiity income
                      3) Where are social security benefits reported as income?

                      And this is why I said you are only making a cursory review of the facts.

                      Your latest nonsense is even wackier then what was proven here:

                      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_5179789

                      But you WANT TO BELIEVE … so you get conned, bamboozled and manipulated. Even denying and representing official data.

                    3. It is true that the Middle Class spends more of their income on consumption than the rich

                      That was only one of your MANY errors and outright falsehoods.

          2. This abolishes the need for most of the IRS (there would be a smaller agency dedicated to auditing businesses collecting sales taxes- though they trust states to use existing infrastructure

            Umm, who processes the monthly prebates to every single household?.
            How will a 30% sales tax not cause a severe decline in consumption? (do you know NOTHING about marginal tax rates?)
            How will a MASSIVE tax increase on the middle class be avoided?
            Do you also believe Obama is a Kenyan?

            So, your analysis is incorrect to say the least

            (smile)

      2. Since when did theft and extortion become acceptable? Why should comsumption be punishable? The first paragraph was accurate but your mind wondered off into statism to finish the comment. When you say “everone should pay something”, you sound like Obama and his “fair share”.

        1. Cameron is not satisfied by his MASSIVE subsidies paid by the rich!
          Now he wants NO TAXES AT ALL!

    3. In Pennsylvania, we have a 3% income tax with no deductions, which can be filed on a post card. Then there’s a 6% sales tax, which excludes clothes, groceries, medicines and a few other things…what would make up the majority of purchases for lower income folks.

      If there were a national sales tax, I would insist on abolishing the income tax. A sales tax with exemptions could be collected by the states (who do it now) and then forward a portion to the US Treasury.

  14. “You can, of course, consult a ‘tax professional,’ who makes a living by helping perplexed citizens figure out how much they owe the government. ”

    I like this sentence more: You can, of course, consult a “tax professional,” who makes a living by helping perplexed citizens figure out how much their government wants to take from them.

  15. Fat Chance!

    In The USA, the first tax-return in 1914 was one page in length. The highest marginal rate was 7%. In the dollar of today, that highest rate began at a taxable income of $11-million. By 1917, the highest marginal rate had accelerated to 75%; later to more than 90%.

    Who are the villains? Those being taxed, or those taxing?

    Tax-avoidance is not tax-evasion. Tax avoidance is legal and established by the tax-bandits themselves.

    Corporations are not people. Corporate taxation is double-taxation. In the end, people, as consumers, pay anyway.

    The IRS is the American equivalent of the Nazi Gestapo and the Soviet KGB. In fact, today in Russia, Putin’s government uses the laws of taxation to destroy his political enemies. Sound familiar, Mr. Nixon … oops, Mr. Obama?

    The only true way to reform the income-tax is to end it (www.inescapableconsequences.com). The flat tax on income would make life simpler but no safer. The only reasonable solution is a national sales-tax.

    Can we end the income-tax? With 50% of Americans paying no federal income tax? With 60% of those who do pay federal income-tax receiving more back than they pay in? Fat Chance!

    1. Then dig that puppy out of the national archives (assuming it hasn’t been stolen) and slap a 2015 on it! 1914? So we funded our WWI effort off it?

      But as much as I hate to admit it, some WaPo editorialist pointed out that the complicated part of doing taxes is figuring out what the hell constitutes “income.” That’s where your schedules and worksheets and all that whatnot comes in. Calculating your rates is a three-second lookup.

      I want to hear more about the horrors of the VAT, because that’s where I’m leaning.

    2. Corporations are not people.

      Their owners are. Your car is not a person,. but you are

      Corporate taxation is double-taxation. In the end, people, as consumers, pay anyway.

      Only Marxists believe that prices are determned by costs.

      The only true way to reform the income-tax is to end it

      Many idiots believe that’s possible

      (www.inescapableconsequences.com).

      As crazy as the Birther websites

      The only reasonable solution is a national sales-tax.

      Yeah, but will the middle class — and you — support a massive increase in their own taxes?
      Since the rich subsidize 40% of the entire middle-class share of income taxes, a flat tax would mean paying their own way — a minimum 55% tax increase to the middle class.
      A sales tax would be WORSE. since the rich consume so small a share of their income.

      Can we end the income-tax? With 50% of Americans paying no federal income tax? With 60% of those who do pay federal income-tax receiving more back than they pay in? Fat Chance!

      Now you’ve gone off the rails entirely.

  16. The proboem is not the tax system. The problem is the SENDING system, the taxes are a symptom.

  17. Deciding whether to keep our current progressive income tax, or replacing it with a flat tax, is like trying to decide whether you want a pineapple, or a banana shoved up your cornhole.

    You can quote me on that.

    1. I intend to paraphrase it, substituting “tail pipe” for “cornhole”, concluded with an Axel Foley guffaw.

      The ultimate goal being for “I Aint Fallin For No Banana In The Tailpipe” becoming the rallying cry of the American Tax Revolution of 2017.

      1. HAHAHA !!! I love it ! =D

        1. Why would you put anything other than corn in your ‘corn hole’? Talk about Ag subsidies!

    2. Deciding whether to keep our current progressive income tax, or replacing it with a flat tax, is like trying to decide whether you want a pineapple, or a banana shoved up your cornhole.
      You can quote me on that.

      I quoted you. You’re even wackier than the flat taxers and fair taxers.
      Or you defend the current tax system.
      You can quote me on that.

  18. Why does a simple tax imply it must be a flat one? I do my own (fairly complicated) taxes and use a software package to prepare one so calculating my tax rate is done by an algorithm. Before I did them electronically, I looked up my tax rate using a tax table. I could devise a highly progressive tax system that was just as easy to figure out as a flat tax. Perhaps mr. Cruz is pushing another agenda.

    About that 23% rate, that means when you make $100 you pay $23, right? Because I’ve heard that I’m calculating my tax rate incorrectly from its proponents. One more question: under a flat tax who would pay more in taxes and who would pay less? I’ve had trouble getting flat tax supporters to admit someone somewhere is going to pay more in taxes so I wanted to ask you guys. Thanks.

    1. I think you touch on one of the problems with a flat tax. Most of our complexity in the tax law isn’t determining your tax rate, it is in determining your income.

      People think that you get rid of deductions and such and determining income is easy. But it really isn’t. There are still all these off cases like for capital purchases depreciation and the like. So a flat tax in many ways is a red herring for tax reformers.

    2. Many very wealthy people who can use various charitable donations of time, money, and materials, and have tax specialists to maximize their tax avoidance, would be paying more.

      Across the rest of the spectrum it’s hard to say since the current system is so convoluted and there are so many different rates and deductibles. But you knew that. Your question simply reinforces how ridiculous our byzantine tax system has become.

      1. Here is a perfect example- you own a company and that company spends money on things like lodging for executives and transportation. That company deducts that income from its revenues as costs of business, and so it is not taxed.

        But is that lodging income for the rich person whose house is paid off in lieu of salary?

        You are incorrect if you think that rich people will suddenly pay more. They will do everything in their power to not recognize income, and the middle class will see themselves stiffed. In addition, we will do nothing to address the problem of complexity in recognizing income- flat tax against it or not. The IRS will still be required to adjudicate what counts as income, and will still require all sorts of abusive power to ferret out who is recognizing income correctly or incorrectly.

        1. that is why a Flat Tax is stupid. Start with fairtax.org and make a few tweaks. Done. Simple.

          1. No, the Flat Tax is still an income tax. Maybe you should acquaint yourself with the difference between the Fair Tax, a very specific plan for a national sales tax, and a Flat Tax which is a single tax rate to be applied against income.

            Again, the failing of a Flat Tax is that it still taxes income, which is still extremely complex to ascertain and still subject to abuse and cronyism.

          2. Jim Smithy
            Start with fairtax.org and make a few tweaks. Done. Simple.

            Why would middle class voters vote for anyone that supports so massive a tax increase on themselves?

        2. then do a sales tax, rich people spend money

          1. then do a sales tax, rich people spend money

            But a MUCH smaller percentage than the middle class.
            What percentage of your income is spent on taxable consumption? Do you believe Bill Gates spend the same percentage of his own income.

        3. Overt:
          Here is a perfect example- you own a company

          You’ve confused income with expenses. And have no idea what happens to the expenses.

      2. Many very wealthy people who can use various charitable donations of time, money, and materials, and have tax specialists to maximize their tax avoidance, would be paying more.

        They now subsidize 40% of the entire share of personal income taxes by the core middle class ($40-100k AGI) The vast majority of loopholes, exemptions abnd deductions are restricted to the middle class.

  19. C’mon guys. Ye olde income tax is an excise tax on federal privileges. Blackstone identified such a tax in the 18th century. America adopted it in the Civil War. No, you don’t have to repeal the 16th Amendment, because Congress always had the power to tax its own privileges and didn’t need the 16th to do so. The 16th only clarified that taxing privileged rents and dividends was not a direct tax on the property itself.
    The income tax was unconstitutionally expanded in WWII, you know, with Donald Duck encouraging workers to voluntary pay it for VICTORY. Then when we found ourselves numero uno after the war we kept the damn thing so we could fight the commies, and later create a “Great Society”.

    What can we do? We can talk about due process of law. When they government coerces you into tax court, which has a 97% victory rate, they are coercing you out of your 7th Amendment right to a civil jury trial. We need to stop the $5000 “frivolous penalties”. We need politicians who will at least stand for the right to a face to face hearing in tax collection.
    We need to join the Occupy Left by telling them the income tax is a tax on federal privileges, and why not tax the privileged rich? Libertarians have to understand there is nothing wrong with taxing the rich, or corporations, who earn their money through privilege.
    Until CRUZ and RAND and Johnson grow some balls and start telling the truth this is all simply election year bs.

  20. C’mon guys. Ye olde income tax is an excise tax on federal privileges. Blackstone identified such a tax in the 18th century. America adopted it in the Civil War. No, you don’t have to repeal the 16th Amendment, because Congress always had the power to tax its own privileges and didn’t need the 16th to do so. The 16th only clarified that taxing privileged rents and dividends was not a direct tax on the property itself.
    The income tax was unconstitutionally expanded in WWII, you know, with Donald Duck encouraging workers to voluntary pay it for VICTORY. Then when we found ourselves numero uno after the war we kept the damn thing so we could fight the commies, and later create a “Great Society”.

    What can we do? We can talk about due process of law. When they government coerces you into tax court, which has a 97% victory rate, they are coercing you out of your 7th Amendment right to a civil jury trial. We need to stop the $5000 “frivolous penalties”. We need politicians who will at least stand for the right to a face to face hearing in tax collection.
    We need to join the Occupy Left by telling them the income tax is a tax on federal privileges, and why not tax the privileged rich? Libertarians have to understand there is nothing wrong with taxing the rich, or corporations, who earn their money through privilege.
    Until CRUZ and RAND and Johnson grow some balls and start telling the truth this is all simply election year bs.

    1. why not tax the privileged rich?

      Umm, because they already subsidize 40% of the entire middle-class tax burden?
      Scroll down to two links to “census.gov” — to see how badly you’ve been manipulated. Or click this.

      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_5179491

      Until CRUZ and RAND and Johnson grow some balls and start telling the truth this is all simply election year bs

      The truth is at those links, sucker.

    2. Libertarians have to understand there is nothing wrong with taxing the rich, or corporations, who earn their money through privilege.

      Corporations do not pay taxes. They collect taxes from shareholders (as lower dividends) and their customers (as higher prices).

  21. Is Cruz seriously proposing getting rid of the mortgage deduction, children credits, charity deductions, etc., in order to have his “postcard” tax return? I’m not seeing that anywhere. Hm. Then he is spouting nothing more than spineless red-meat rhetoric like the political hack he is.

  22. Cruz’s solution?a single income tax rate with deductions limited to charitable donations and home mortgage interest …

    By contrast, a national sales tax, an approach Cruz also has endorsed, would make “abolishing the IRS” feasible

    They’re both fucking insane … when the rich now subsidize 40% of the entire share of the personal income tax for the “core middle class” ($40-100k AGI) When you flatten all those subsidies paid by the rich, you get a HUGE middle class tax increase!! (duh)

    And a sales at at 23%? Punish consumption instead of investment causes no damage???

    Reported income and taxes paid, by income level IRS data.
    Read. Calculate. Learn. (Your choice of PDF or excel spreadsheet)

    http://www.census.gov/compendi…..1s0486.xls

    http://www.census.gov/compendi…..1s0486.pdf

    Problem? The Libertarian Establishment is just as crazy as liberals on who pays their actual share of taxes. See proof.

    1. There have been plenty of studies of who the Fair Tax targets. And while it would target the “Middle Class” as defined by people with earned income in the middle quintiles, it in fact most disproportionately hits people with high wealth who use earned and unearned income strategically to keep their incomes in the lower brackets while living a rather plush life. In general, it impacts older people who are living off of wealth rather than income.

      1. There have been plenty of studies of who the Fair Tax targets

        I just proved them all wrong. And that you’ve been manipulated, badly. Like here:

        it in fact most disproportionately hits people with high wealth who use earned and unearned income strategically to keep their incomes in the lower brackets while living a rather plush lifestyles

        One more time, the rich subsidize 40% of the entrire middle-class share of the taxes. Any “flat” tax is a tax cut on the highest brackets,

        You’ve also been bamboozled on who pays what tax rates. Same IRS table. Far right columns.
        1) Average in income tax rate on Obama’s famous $50,000 teacher — 8%
        2) Average tax rate at $1,000,000+ = 23% … Ooops!

        See data links just above your response. If others get in the middle, look for two orange links to census.gov who runs the federal staistics archives.

        Here’s a bonus. Roughly 80% of ALL capital gains are earned by the middle class — 100% tax exempt from targeted loophole — so taxed at 0%

        Another: Total pension fund assets are larger than the value of the entire New York Stock Exchange. Do you know how pension funds are taxed?

        Any more questions?

        1. yes, I have questions –

          Is that the effective tax rate after all the deductions? IOW, tax divided by total income?

          1. blcartwrighr, Yes, average is also effective but many people don’t know what “effective” means.

            Tax paid divided by ADJUSTED Gross Income. I’ve been published on this stuff for over 20 years and have never seen an IRS table with gross income (before adjustments) It might be because I only use sourced that anyone can easily confim.

            1. but the whole point is about the govt picking and choosing who gets adjustments. Let’s get rid of that step.

              Taxes distort the economy when the politicians decide to tax some activities and not others. If they tax everything the same then we don’t have to the tax implications before we live our lives or run our businesses.

              1. Fine. Agree. But all we do is babble about it. We need to have a specific plan, then elect a majority to enactr something remotely close.

                We never have policies for ANYTHING … one reason the libertarian label is rejected by even 91% of libertarians (Cato/Zogby Survey 2006)

                (Oh, and not Ron Paul’s wacko idea of repeal the income tax and run the government on Social Security and Medicare taxes)

        2. Do you understand that there is a difference between the Flat Tax and the Fair Tax?

          1. Do you understand that there is a difference between the Flat Tax and the Fair Tax?

            Two different flavors of bullshit — as I’ve proven to you all up and down this page.

            One more time. The rich subsidize 40% of the entire share of personal income taxes for the core middle class ($40-100k) — who would have to opay a 55% tax increase, just to pay their own share.

            Thus — as most 7th graders realize — any flat tax, on income or consumption would create a MASSIVE tax increase on the middle-class,

            A sales tax would be worse, TWO ways. First, agrregate consumptoin us less than taxable income. Fewer taxable dollars require … HIGHER RATES. Still with me?

            Then, because the rich consume MUCH less of their income, the middle class will pay a share of the consumption tax MUCH higher than their share of an income tax.

            Junior high math.

    2. Why use profanity? You debase your own argument as well as offending readers.

  23. OT: Cruz on Climate change

    I think debates on these issues should be driven by the science and the data and the evidence. Global warming alarmists don’t like to confront the actual evidence because it does not support their apocalyptic theories.

    “]Specifically, satellite data demonstrate there has been no warming over the past 17 years. That’s despite the fact that the computer models relied upon for this theory showed there would be significant warming, and yet the actual data don’t back up those flawed computer models. []

    Now you don’t hear them talking about global warming, you hear them talking merely about climate change. The reason for that alteration is because the data demonstrate the Earth is not warming. And I would note whenever anyone makes that point, you immediately get vilified as a quote-unquote ‘denier’ without anyone actually refuting the facts.

    And the language of denial is revealing because one usually hears of deniers in the religious context, dealing with heretics. And much of the global warming hysteria is pushed forth as a religious truth that no facts can dare contravene.

    It is altogether worrisome when you have scientists treating matters ? denouncing those pointing to the actual facts and data as deniers. [].”

    1. Curry runs a good blog. She is a top notch scientist as well.

  24. A flat tax will not eliminate the IRS and without eliminating the IRS we will be in the same boat. Fairfax.org is the only one that eliminates the IRS while making sure those who don’t pay taxes now will have to pay at the point of purchase. Before anyone slams this from what they have “heard,” go to the website, read what it says, then if you disagree at least you’ll be informed as to what the Fair Tax Act is and will not speak out of ignorance.

    1. The website is total bulshit, OBVIOUSLY, Because the rich subsidize such a HUGE share of middle-class income taxes, any flat tax — on income or consumption — will necessarily create a MASSIVE tax increase on the middle-class. Flattening taxes reduces the highest rates. So who pays what Bill Gates pays now? The French?

      1. not just a single rate, but eliminate most of all deductions. How much of the income of the upper class is currently subjected to any taxation? They’re paying a 40% rate on something like 40% of their income (numbers I threw out there, but which give a 16% effective tax rate)

        1. Wrong on all counts

          not just a single rate, but eliminate most of all deductions.

          Deductions too are targeted at the middle class.

          How much of the income of the upper class is currently subjected to any taxation?

          Now you compound the original error.

          They’re paying a 40% rate on something like 40% of their income (numbers I threw out there, but which give a 16% effective tax rate)

          The effective tax rates are
          22% millionaires and billionaires,
          8% Obama’s $50,000 schoool teacher.

          Far right columns in these IRA data,

          http://www.census.gov/compendi…..1s0486.pdf

          So Romney got assaulted on his average tax rate .. which is twice Obama’s example … mostly because fiscal conservatives are totally clueless. As I prove at that link.

          And here’s a detail of the middle-class gravy train. It’s 20 years old, but the only one I can send you to — and it’s even “worse” now.

          http://libertyissues.com/loophole.htm
          “Tax loopholes targeted at the middle class (listed below) total one trillion dollars per year. That’s 1/3 of all personal income, 1300% greater than so-called Corporate Welfare, and 200% greater than corporate profits. Middle-class loopholes are greater than all reported personal income above $90,000 per year.”
          (in 1997 dollars)

  25. There’s something I’ve always wondered about the consumption tax…

    Wouldn’t massive black markets of “tax-free” goods crop up everywhere, thus reducing the ability of the government to obtain revenue for legitimate government purposes?

    Don’t get me wrong: I’m not some proggie shitkicker here to start crap; I’m a libertarian who is pondering other systems of taxation and trying to see the benefits and drawbacks of each.

    1. Akira
      Wouldn’t massive black markets of “tax-free” goods crop up everywhere, thus reducing the ability of the government to obtain revenue for legitimate government purposes?

      Bingo! And a sales tax is a LOT easier to avoid than the income + FICA tax, for the large majority of Americans. And we could count on a 23% consumption tax being THE most avoided tax in world history … even if the math didn’t suck. And it’s actually a 30% sales tax.

      1. You are functionally retarded. You think that the current system with it’s ~25% combined effective rate (you do realize that payroll taxes are actual, um, taxes, don’t you?) is somehow sustainable, but a tax imposed on sales with far fewer collectors and filers is more prone to evasion? Yeah, um, right.

        It’s not a 30% tax if you want to compare it to existing taxes. Using the current income tax rates and structure as your basis means it is equivalent to a 23% tax. If you want to call it a 30% tax, then you get to increase all of the stated rates on the current income tax to make it a correct comparison.

    2. Majority of sales go through a relatively small number of retailers, so enforcement is easier. You also start to capture other black market activities today. If someone is paid cash there’s no income or payroll tax today and obviously illegal activities aren’t taxed. Now those people will have to pay sales tax when they buy something so you’re much more likely to have less evasion (already 100%) on what is already a significant black market (~8% of GDP).

  26. I don’t get this tax thing. Just divide the budget up by 400 million (or whatever we’re up to). Every citizen owes their share. The rest is all bullshit.

    1. Just divide the budget up by 400 million (or whatever we’re up to). Every citizen owes their share.

      You’ll never get elected on that!

      We’re at $2.2 TRILLION for federal income tax revenue alone. That’s nearly $7,000 for every man woman and child in America …. or a $21,000 annual tax for a family of three,

      At the current income tax, on average, that’s the tax at roughly $150,000 per year … or roughly a 300% tax rate for a median income family of three. A 300% tax rate MIGHT by a tough sell.

      The problem is BOTH parties buy middle-class votes with wealth redistribution schemes. And so far — yes — Dubya did a LOT more redistribution than Obama (on taxes). 85% of the Bush tax cuts went to taxpayers UNDER $250,000 per year income, who were paying only 45% of the personal income tax. That’s a MASSIVE middle-class subsidy.

      1. No, $1.8TT.

        http://www.usgovernmentrevenue…..015_US_fed

        And another $1TT in payroll taxes which you conveniently neglect in all of your “analyses.” Somehow you think everyone will avoid a 23% tax and yet don’t avoid a 15.3% payroll-only tax.

  27. How can any taxation be fair??? WTF. Yet if someone taught their kids these actions, and had them break in someone’s house, shove a gun in their mouth, ordered them to pay up or else they would imprison them and take everything they had, this individual wouldn’t like it.

    Anyone here advocating these various schemes of extortion wouldn’t like them or their families to be subjected to such violence either. And some of these folks even have the nerve to say they support freedom, liberty and the NAP……of which taxation is antithetical to these very rights and principle.

    Freedom: the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

    absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.

    the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.

    the state of being physically unrestricted and able to move easily.

    the power of self-determination attributed to the will; the quality of being independent of fate or necessity.

    Liberty:
    freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.

    freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.

    freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

    1. Like you Vampire this is why I tend towards anarchy. At least rational anarchy. Honestly a flat tax, national sales tax, or a negative income tax would be better than what we have now. Still, it’s like like trying to decide whether to stick a pineapple, or a banana up your tail pipe.

      1. Sometimes you can’t even bring up anarchy without people flailing their arms and making weird sounds saying how there would be chaos. Yet they ignore the chaos that surrounds them and is created by the state, along with the violence and coercion that goes along with it.

        Money, healthcare crisis, education crisis, energy crisis, crumbling infrastructure crisis, and on goes the list.

        1. I would say that anarchy is a natural. Government is a merely a reaction in order to protect life, and property from chaos.

    2. How can any taxation be fair??

      You must be new here. Several ways. Various mixes of user fees and voluntary
      But that of course would be the last step in forming a free society — as Ayn Rand so brilliantly explained.

      1. Hinh. Vampire has been here longer than you have. Not being insulting. He just has.

        A free society will never develop when only one organization has a monopoly on force.

        A government should have force.

        The citizens should have force.

        Private organizations should have force.

        There is no utopia.

      2. User fees and voluntarism is not compulsory. If I mow your lawn, you had already agreed for me to do it voluntarily, thereby rewarding me with your media of exchange. These are not taxes.

        If they were, for example :”I’m providing this service whether you like it or not. Even if you use another service you still have to pay me. I get rewarded regardless of my performance. If you don’t pay up then I’ll fine you. If you still don’t pay then violence will be used against you and your property will be confiscated.” That is taxation also known as extortion.

  28. /knocks on mic Are you stil in the room Hihn ?

    1. He may be here, but the lights definitely aren’t on. I think he’s a Bartlett drone or maybe really Bartlett.

      1. Who is Bartlett ? You have my interest.

  29. Bruce Bartlett. He’s always bitching about a strawman version of the Fair Tax that the voices in his head whisper about.

    Kotlikoff has done some good analytical and modeling work on a consumption tax and destroys the BS that Bartlett and ppl like Hihn like to trott out.

    http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/New Kotlikoff Web Page/Revised Kotlikoff on Barlett 1-15-08.pdf

    1. Thanx man. =)

      1. The link ks kinda screwed though.

        1. Reason horked it. Try this.

  30. Yes & No

    “An error lurking in the roots of a system of thought does not become truth simply by being evolved.” -John Frederick Peifer

    “Both of these approaches would require exemptions or rebates to avoid large tax increases for people of modest means, which would entail a certain amount of intrusiveness and administrative complexity.”

    Yes, repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.

    Yes, abolish the IRS.

    Yes, institute a national sales tax.

    No, do not institute a “flat tax” on incomes.

    No, do not allow exemptions else you re-create that which you wish to destroy … governmental tyranny.

    Science says, “Behavior has its consequences.”

    Context and consequences (www.inescapableconsequences.com).

  31. Taxation is theft. Period. There is no such thing as a fair taxation method. Period.

    Only a completely voluntary method of funding is “fair.” Allow us to vote with our wallets. Maybe a Federal Lottery?

  32. No deductions, period, Ted. And, charitable contributions translates to deductions for people who give to churches. I don’t care if they do–if all deductions go away, then donations to churches should be included as going away. Every time someone like Cruz tries to pull the flat tax scheme, I ask them about charitable contributions. And, generally, they say they should be excluded from elimination. What hypocrisy.

    1. No deductions,$25,000 personal exemption or maybe a little more.

  33. The Flat Tax is the way to go-remove all those loopholes for those favored few-who are now very many.

  34. We tried something close to a flat tax under Reagan–only three brackets. The only answer is the Fair Tax.

  35. Amendment Five: “No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…” [unless being compelled to do so by the Benevolent Order of the IRS under a flat or any other form of income tax.]

  36. “Both of these approaches would require exemptions or rebates to avoid large tax increases for people of modest means, which would entail a certain amount of intrusiveness and administrative complexity. ”

    Not true of the Fair Tax. Every American (adult, I assume) gets a “prebate” that covers taxes on spending at the poverty level. By giving that prebate to everyone, it eliminates the need for any “intrusiveness” whatsoever.

  37. To All Who Wish For Morally Responsible Governance…

    All forms of taxation must be abolished. No government can ever be good enough to choose how much money it wants.

    However, people can be pretty good about funding for good causes. Like National Security. Like Streets and Highways. And maybe a couple more. But the choice NOT TO PAY THE GOVERNMENT must be an option.

    For those who wish to donate: Local and National Lotteries are the only answer. (If you win, you can turn it down, but it would be better to leave it in the private sector.) With the entire country engaged in voluntary giving to a much smaller government we would probably be prone to giving to much!

  38. A Flat tax will require a constitutional amendment to make direct taxes legal. This is an incredibly foolish idea. The politicians are not looking past the ends of their very long noses.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.