North Carolina is increasingly becoming a service economy which means our tax base is shrinking at an alarming rate. The State of NC has a pretty good looking budget right now, but all signs point to problems again in the near future.

There's only two real options since smaller government is just not gonna happen.


1) Increase tax %

2) Increase the tax base


What are your feelings?

Personally, I support the consumption tax. I think most people if they were properly informed of the differences would as well.

The only people we'd really have to take care of are the older people who wouldn't want to be double taxed on their retirement savings.

1/31/2007 6:20:30 PM

those arent the only two options

from the institute for emerging issues:

Quote :

" Eliminate different rates on sales taxes. For most items, you pay state and local sales taxes of 7 percent. But there are actually eight different rates, depending on what you are buying. The sales tax also has many exemptions. And there is an $80 sales cap on manufacturing and farm machinery and a $1,500 cap on luxury automobiles. If the exemptions were removed and the rates were uniform, the tax rate could be reduced. - Adopt a consumption tax. This tax would apply to services that are not currently taxed. You would pay a consumption tax, for example, when you hire an accountant, a yard service or a plumber. - Flatten the income tax. North Carolina has a progressive income tax, meaning the rates rise as income levels rise. The state has four brackets: 6 percent, 7 percent, 7.75 percent and 8.25 percent. If the state moved to a flat rate, everyone would pay the same percentage, regardless of income. - Reduce highest income tax rate. Legislators temporarily raised the tax rate to 8.25 percent for individuals making $120,000 or joint filers making $200,000. Some say that reducing this top rate would attract wealthy people or encourage them to remain in North Carolina. - Reduce or eliminate the corporate income tax. North Carolina's rate is 6.9 percent, which is 23rd nationally but higher than our neighbors'. Some argue that corporate taxes are double taxation and should be eliminated. - Index income taxes -- both personal and corporate -- tying them to annual inflation rates. The revenue from these taxes depends in part on how well the economy is doing. Tying the tax rates to inflation rates would create a more dependable source of revenue. - Shift Medicaid funding costs from counties to the state. The federally funded health insurance program for the poor requires states to help pay for it. North Carolina is one of the few states that require counties to pay for Medicaid, a burden that falls particularly hard on poor counties with modest tax bases. Counties pay 15 percent of the state's share. - Index property taxes based on the consumer price index. Local governments set and collect local taxes on land and buildings. Tax values often lag behind rising market values -- so when local governments revalue property every few years, many taxpayers are caught by surprise. Tying taxes to the consumer price index would eliminate the sticker shock. "

1/31/2007 6:29:10 PM

Actually those suggestions fall directly under option #1 or option #2. They are just more specific.

1/31/2007 6:33:52 PM

regressive vs progressive
republicans vs democrats
conservatives vs liberals

move on man

1/31/2007 7:13:05 PM

Quote :

"The only people we'd really have to take care of are the older people who wouldn't want to be double taxed on their retirement savings."

How do we propose we do this?

1/31/2007 7:47:12 PM

^^Wow, do you really not understand the difference between tax structure and ideological identities?


To the thread creator, closing loopholes and extending the sales tax across the board wouldn't be a bad change.


Eliminating income tax in favor of a consumption tax would be a bad idea for three reasons, IMO:
1) Kill the economy (by curtailing spending habits and encouraging people to make retail purchases out of state)
2) Very regressive (and every major tax would become regressive)
3) Provided the Federal tax code stays the same, would amount to a large tax increase, since it likely couldn't be written off


NOTE: If tourism was a bigger component of the NC economy compared to the State as a whole, it could alleviate the burden on North Carolinians...but it isn't a big enough component of the overall State economy.

1/31/2007 8:29:35 PM

I could be mistaken, but I don't think he was suggesting we eliminate income tax.

1/31/2007 8:34:00 PM

a consumption is a tax on services, where a sales tax is a tax on goods

right?

1/31/2007 8:49:47 PM

since smaller government isnt really an option, why is it that every "fix" to the funding problems involves reducing tax rates? its absurd.

1/31/2007 9:21:34 PM

^^

Quote :

"A consumption tax—also known as an expenditures tax, consumed-income tax, or cash-flow tax—is a tax on what people spend instead of what they earn."

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/ConsumptionTax.html

1/31/2007 9:29:15 PM

A consumption tax would create a huge black market for even everyday items

that and the rich would find ways to avoid that as well, making consumption taxes even more regressive for the lowest income earners

1/31/2007 9:31:03 PM

alright, ^^ that is what i thought but a couple of the posts had me confused

1/31/2007 9:32:08 PM

RallyDurham:

Are you aware of HR25 The Fair Tax Act? It just might be what you're looking for.

Check out FairTax.org

23% Inclusive national sales tax on only new goods and services.

Monthly rebates of sales tax up to the poverty line: The poor still pay no taxes.

Replaces the hated income tax. You get your whole check... no income tax or SS withholding.

1/31/2007 11:43:00 PM

"Taxes? Did somebody say 'taxes?' Well, let me talk you about the Fair Tax!"

-EarthDogg

[Edited on January 31, 2007 at 11:46 PM. Reason : ]

1/31/2007 11:45:36 PM

I'd save every penny and retire outside the country.

2/1/2007 12:07:12 AM

I hate the "Fair Tax" idea. It's stupid and needs to be done away with.

But from an economics perspective, your plan to "save every penny and retire outside the country" would, ultimately, make the rest of us wealthier and make the tax money collected by the government go further. You could only make us better off if you promised to burn the money and never spend it. So, please, go ahead and knock yourself out.

Think about it this way: if you collected a paycheck, cashed it, and burnt the money, then you have worked hard to provide goods and services for the rest of us but managed to consume no goods and services yourself... which leaves more for the rest of us. Thanks.

[Edited on February 1, 2007 at 1:54 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/1/2007 1:50:57 AM

Quote :

"But from an economics perspective, your plan to "save every penny and retire outside the country" would, ultimately, make the rest of us wealthier and make the tax money collected by the government go further."

What tax money collected by the government?

2/1/2007 7:06:43 AM

The tax money collected from everyone else, DuH.

What, you think you'd be the first person to escape paying taxes? Under the income tax system all you have to do to not pay taxes is either lie about legal income (get paid under the table) or only have illegal income (criminal activity is rarely reported on income tax statements).

So, it seems to me, since people like you are more rare than criminals, I suspect the quantity of people being taxed is probably a bit higher. Especially since while living you obviously spent money on food to live, so you paid "some" taxes, an honor most criminals cannot claim.

But, like I said, by you promising not to spend your money until retirement makes every dollar we and our government spend go further.

[Edited on February 1, 2007 at 8:38 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/1/2007 8:36:40 AM

So spending money the gov could collect taxes on would hurt the gov?

2/1/2007 8:45:54 AM

Sorry for the confusion. Obviously we cant just switch to total consumption tax with no income tax as a statewide policy for some of the reasons listed above. Let me clarify.

I dont mean to eliminate the income tax altogether. I just mean instead of raising income taxes we should begin taxing a lot more services. There's a big shift nationally as well, but NC is being hit particularly hard as we transition from manufacturing.

Our state finally got back into good financial status (tuition increases like whoa) but its simply not going to last long and Bonds are only gonna help so much.

[Edited on February 1, 2007 at 11:19 AM. Reason : a]

2/1/2007 11:17:20 AM

Retiring to spend your income elsewhere may help the federal fiscal picture, but is the opposite for state and local. The biggest expense at the state and local level is education, and in fact you would hurt the state and local tax base with that plan (if, like many people you have kids, and have them before you retire).

2/1/2007 11:17:25 AM

I'd rather eliminate all consumption taxes altogether and do everything out of the income tax...

Of course it'd never happen b/c it would make it harder for politicians to raise rates w/o people noticing, but a man can dream

2/1/2007 12:34:03 PM

Quote :

"you have worked hard to provide goods and services for the rest of us but managed to consume no goods and services yourself... which leaves more for the rest of us"

maybe i'm not understanding this, but wouldn't the undercomsumption of goods and services increase supply and lessen pricing power, ultimately perpetuating underproduction? doesn't sound like that's a good thing. help me understand.

2/1/2007 12:41:27 PM

Quote :

"a consumption is a tax on services, where a sales tax is a tax on goods right?"

Well, the terms are used a little loosely but here is the mainstream distinction.

A sales tax is imposed always at the point of sale. When you buy something you pay and extra percentage.

Typically, sales taxes are charged on most goods and only a few services but that is not necessary. A sales tax could apply to services as well in theory.

In general a sales tax does not distinguish between consumption goods and investment goods.


A consumption tax, in theory, hits all consumption and no investment. It can do this by being a sales tax that allows you to deduct inputs to production. This is called a VAT.

It can be a special sales tax that only applies to consumers (like Fair Tax), this is called impossible. No but seriously its quite difficult to do in practice.

It can also be an income tax that allows a deduction for savings. My personal take is that the last option is the most realistic.

2/1/2007 3:47:12 PM

Quote :

"It can be a special sales tax that only applies to consumers (like Fair Tax), this is called impossible."

What would make it impossible?

2/1/2007 7:56:43 PM

^

Monitoring costs are very high. Suppose I were to go and buy a fax machine.

Now if I told the sales rep that this was for my home business, there is a good chance I am telling the truth. How many people have facxmachines for personal consumption? However, unless I have some sort of tax exempt card, there is really no way for him to know for sure.

So suppose the government allows people to get tax exempt cards fairly easily. Now we have the opposite problem that I may claim most of my expenses for the busiess.

I went out to diner, well I was discussing a client with my wife so technically its an input to production.

I bought a new car, well I will occasionally use it to deliver Amway products so its a business expense.

I bought a new house, well I am working out of my basement and I <i>would</i> be charging myself a huge rental rate for that, after all it lowers the value of my home, so I think I should just count the entire house as a business purchase.



What stops people from doing that currently? The threat of being audited. Since, you have to write down all of your supposed business expenses and submit the total to the IRS they can come calling to make sure everything you counted was legitimate.

This is much harder with a sales tax, and I believe would defeat the purpose of not having the IRS on your back.

2/1/2007 8:09:06 PM

Quote :

"What stops people from doing that currently? The threat of being audited. Since, you have to write down all of your supposed business expenses and submit the total to the IRS they can come calling to make sure everything you counted was legitimate. "

Do you think audits will stop after the FairTax passes? The number of people and businesses the IRS will have to keep an eye on will drop from 130 million income tax filers to about 15 million businesses that will collect the FairTax. This will make it easier to catch tax cheats. Plus a sales tax audit is much easier to do than a income tax audit.

With your car. You would deduct the sales tax for the car from the tax reciepts you turn in from all your amway sales. No sales? No credit.

With the working out of your home scam. Might work as long as you can show the IRS that the home is actually being used for a business and not just a primary dwelling. Good luck... and remember those stiff penalties for fraud.

There will be cheats with any tax system. I doubt that the Fairtax cheating will come anywhere close to the current cheating with the income tax.

[Edited on February 1, 2007 at 9:33 PM. Reason : .]

2/1/2007 9:33:20 PM

speaking of drinking the koolaid, earthdogg is a fucking commercial for the stuff

2/1/2007 9:36:11 PM

gulp..gulp...gulp. ahhhhhhhhh

2/1/2007 10:40:04 PM

[Edited on February 2, 2007 at 12:45 AM. Reason : dbl]

2/2/2007 12:44:18 AM

Quote :

"maybe i'm not understanding this, but wouldn't the undercomsumption of goods and services increase supply and lessen pricing power, ultimately perpetuating underproduction? doesn't sound like that's a good thing. help me understand."

Yes, as you destroy cash you are decreasing the money supply and thus decreasing the amount spent everyday (or vice versa). Now, if a bunch of people suddenly transitioned from spending everything to spending none of their salary then you are right, price would not fall fast enough and there would be a overhang induced economic shock, inventories would rise and a recession could result.

But, if instead they transitioned into it gradually, such as over a year or so, then prices would have time to adjust, avoiding inventory buildup and recession. This is because as they gradually reduce their cash spending, inventories will rise a little and prices would fall gradually. As prices fall, everyone else that is still spending their salary will be able to afford more stuff with their salary and will therefore consume more stuff, eliminating the inventory buildup and therefore painful market corrections.

So, over the long run, as long as this situation persists, deflation will be the norm (barring Federal Reserve intervention) with both prices and wages falling, but since "price" is made up of more than just wages, prices will fall faster than wages, boosting consumption. The difference will be made up through reduced producer profits which will cause some marginal businesses to close. But, given enough time, full employment and company profits will be restored, just under perpetual deflation.

Of course, if you ever stopped and decided to start spending your salary (or worse, spend your saved up salary) then inventories will quickly run out and prices will rise quickly, nearly all of which will go towards producer profits, as suddenly there are simply not enough goods being produced to satisfy all the dollars being spent. If the inflation is sudden or becomes severe enough it could cause an economic shock, reducing investor confidence and causing a recession, with high unemployment coupled with high inflation.

2/2/2007 12:44:52 AM

I love it. every time the state has a problem the solution is always "let's legislate us some more revenue."

Try doing what normal people do during hard times - spend less. Are economic times tough? Maybe you should hold off on a plasma TV/teacup museum until times get better. Nah, we'll just increase taxes and get it anyway.

2/2/2007 8:31:40 AM

Quote :

"Do you think audits will stop after the FairTax passes? The number of people and businesses the IRS will have to keep an eye on will drop from 130 million income tax filers to about 15 million businesses that will collect the FairTax. This will make it easier to catch tax cheats. Plus a sales tax audit is much easier to do than a income tax audit."

The Fair Tax has been sold as a solution to the IRS. If you keep the IRS, ok but then you have to argue why its worth giving up progessivity just to cut paperwork. Nearly half of all US filiers qualify for 1040EZ anyway, which is about one sheet long and takes ~5 mins with HRblock.com

Quote :

"With your car. You would deduct the sales tax for the car from the tax reciepts you turn in from all your amway sales. No sales? No credit."

One important technical note about the Sales vs VAT.

Technically, you the citizen owe the sales tax, the retailer just assists in collection.

On the other hand the retailers owes the VAT.

This is part of how you simply enforcement. The I didn't know customer X was lying is not an excuse.

This is a VAT.

The purpose of a VAT is to get around this very problem. Unlike a nationwide retail sales tax, a nationwide VAT is a reasonable idea.

Nonetheless, I still prefer using the income tax system and deducting savings. If you want to go into why I can.

[Edited on February 2, 2007 at 8:57 AM. Reason : more]

2/2/2007 8:53:07 AM

Quote :

"The I didn't know customer X was lying is not an excuse."

There is no point in a customer lying to a retailer. The retailer is going to charge the sales tax on all purchases. There are no exemptions.

VATs are bad because you are still hiding the cost of the taxes in each step of production. Sneaky politicians can increase the tax at any level of production without the general population realizing it. With the sales tax, you will notice instantly when the tax is raised.

Quote :

"If you keep the IRS"

You will still retain the IRS, but the individual states will do the grunge work of collecting the monthly sales tax. The IRS would be used as a clearinghouse and investigative branch for federal level situations. The net effect for the average person is that the IRS will never bother them again.

Quote :

"giving up progessivity"

If by this you mean that poorer people pay less than rich people, the FairTax has a provision for this.. the Prebate.
Each month every household will recieve a prebate to reimburse the salestax paid on purchases up to the federal poverty line. So a family of four would get a check (or reusuable debit card) for $506 each month. What this does is remove the poor from the federal tax rolls completely. They pay no income tax, no social security tax, and no medicare.

The rich will still pay more in taxes because they will spend more. The wealthy who are livng off of inheritances and no longer earn income will begin to pay fed tax again each time they buy cavier. So progressivity is still in place.

You want to encourage savings through the income tax? With the FairTax, you get to decide when and how much fed tax you pay by planning and controlling your spending. Employees will now get their whole gross paycheck. You will encourage savings without all the massive paperwork and headaches associated with filling out income tax return.

2/2/2007 10:37:32 AM

Quote :

"maybe i'm not understanding this, but wouldn't the undercomsumption of goods and services increase supply and lessen pricing power, ultimately perpetuating underproduction? doesn't sound like that's a good thing. help me understand"

A decrease in consumption would be accompanied by an increase in savings. This increase in savings would lead to an increase in investment (or net exports).

In the Perfectly Smooth Economy the decrease in demand for consumables would be made up for by the increase in demand for investment and nothing would chage.


In reality, it depends. However, my guess is that inflation would slow and unemployment would rise as consumption demand fell faster than investment demand increased.

This would induce the FED to lower rates. The lower rates would increase investment demand and halt disinflation.

2/2/2007 11:16:51 AM

Quote :

"There is no point in a customer lying to a retailer. The retailer is going to charge the sales tax on all purchases. There are no exemptions. VATs are bad because you are still hiding the cost of the taxes in each step of production. Sneaky politicians can increase the tax at any level of production without the general population realizing it. With the sales tax, you will notice instantly when the tax is raised. "

For a pure consumption tax one of two things must be true

1) Investment and business inputs are exempt

2) This is a VAT


Now I think the distiction you are focusing on is that the VAT is usually included in the price, while the sales tax is tacted on afterwards, so you see it on the receipt.

This is a primarily cosmetic concern. It is pretty straight foward to write

Raw Price: X

VAT Paid: Y

And indeed the UK now does this.

The material distiction between VAT and Sales is the credit that the seller gets for tax paid. Therefore, effectively the tax is only on the diffence between sales and materials or the Value Added by the firm.


Moreover, I think the effect is backwards. Many people focus on the list price and think less about the sales tax that is added. I know this because most people do not know what the sales tax is on items in general and very few people know which items are currently exempt from NC sales tax.

However, an increase in the VAt would

A) Make all of the news casts

B) Be reflected in an increase on most list prices, which people will notice

Quote :

" If by this you mean that poorer people pay less than rich people, the FairTax has a provision for this.. the Prebate. Each month every household will recieve a prebate to reimburse the salestax paid on purchases up to the federal poverty line. So a family of four would get a check (or reusuable debit card) for $506 each month. What this does is remove the poor from the federal tax rolls completely. They pay no income tax, no social security tax, and no medicare. "

There can be progressivity with a rebate but the level of progressivity is diminished and we can't tailor it.

I am a big believer in labor subsidies for the working poor. Its very hard to do this effectively without knowing the income and composition of each family.

2/2/2007 11:28:45 AM

I think the fairest tax is a straight sales tax on everything, and do away with all the other taxes and IRS. The govt would collect taxes year round, not just on income redistribution day.

Do not tax basic foods and clothes under 40 bucks. But charge a standard 20% on everything, houses, cars, etc.. That way you can control how much taxes you spend and its the fairest as everyone pays. I think it would cause an economic boom as people get more money to spend and it would eliminate the need for tax shelters and oversea accounts for the wealthy. More money pumping into our economy.

Just my opinion.

2/3/2007 9:24:04 AM

Quote :

"would eliminate the need for tax shelters and oversea accounts for the wealthy. More money pumping into our economy."

That's exactly what the FairTax would do. The U.S. would instantly become the world's largest tax haven, attracting capital from all over. Off-sea corporations would return home.

The 23% rate has been determined by economists to be the rate needed to make the FairTax revenue neutral..meaning it will generate the same amount of money that the current income tax generates.

But in order to keep the rate this low, you have to charge the tax on everything. No exemptions. Once you start doing that, the lobbysists will come out of the woodwork trying to get their products also exempted.

2/3/2007 10:38:33 AM

because all the other tax havens in the world are models for economic equality.

2/3/2007 1:16:04 PM

^

We can increase equality without taxing savings.

It is true that the rich save more than the poor. However, to the extent they invest their money rather than spending it on yatchs and servants, they are increasing the productivity of our workers.

Whatever you think about capitalists or their intention, in practice productivity an wages track each other over the long run. They may diverge for 5 even 10 years, but over a 25 years period they always track.

Furthermore, capital vs labor is to some extent a red herring.

The CEO of Exxon is a laborer, not a capitalist. He makes his money by selling his labor to Exxon shareholders. Yet, he is probably wealthier than 90% of them.

What I think most people care about in their hearts is the concentration of wealth, not corporate profits or the return to capital. In our new economy much of the gains are not going to the lower class, but they are not going to capitalists either. The dow has been all but flat over the last 6 years.

The gains are going to the elite workers of the society. The CEOs, the Investment Bankers, the Doctors, the Consultants.

Lowering the tax on savings and raising the tax on high end consumption allows redistribution from those who live wealthy, whereever their wealth comes from, to those who live poorly.

2/3/2007 2:45:30 PM

Quote :

"Lowering the tax on savings and raising the tax on high end consumption allows redistribution from those who live wealthy, whereever their wealth comes from, to those who live poorly."

You'll have to differenciate between goods, and it's impossible to draw the line anywhere, not to mention the lobbying problems. Earthdogg will probably be willing to tell you the problems with that. When you start to trying to draw on this grey line, you begin to get loopholes, which is really a similar problem with the fairtax plan. It all hinges on the difference between business expenses and personal expenses, and that will open a lot of loopholes. You also won't hear that corporations get charged at an income rate of about 40%, and someone is going to have to pick up that burden, which I'm sure earthdogg would try to start explainin embedded taxes, which are simply make believe.

Quote :

"The 23% rate has been determined by economists to be the rate needed to make the FairTax revenue neutral..meaning it will generate the same amount of money that the current income tax generates."

These sound like the same economists that have still yet to address the problems I questioned them about.

2/3/2007 4:45:58 PM

^

Well no, we could just have a progressive consumption tax, for example

0% on the first 10K
10% on 10K - 30K
20% on 30K -50K
40% on 50K+

Quote :

"which I'm sure earthdogg would try to start explainin embedded taxes, which are simply make believe."

I am not sure if this is the point Earthdogg makes or not but ultimately corporations do not pay income tax.

All of corporations revenues are redistributed to somewhere else. They go for materials, salary or dividends.

If a tax is charged on a corporation one of four things must happen

1) It must raise prices to pay the tax

2) It must cut back on materials

3) It must cut back on salary

4) It must cut back on dividends


There is no way to know which of these four will happen. In practice the least likely is (4). Even though GM is losing billions of dollars a year it still paying out dividends to shareholders. There was talk of a cut but I am not sure it went anywhere. There were, however, extensive layoffs.

If you really want to tax the owners of the corporation then you should tax the owners of the corporation.

I believe that most people, however, want to tax rich people, not owners. Remeber that the CEO of GM is a member of the proletariat with nothing to sell but his labor power. He is rich, but his wealth comes from selling labor not owning capital.

However, there are pension plans and endowments that are heavily invested in GM

A progressive tax system based on consumption gets what you really want to get, people who live lavishly.

[Edited on February 3, 2007 at 7:44 PM. Reason : more]

2/3/2007 7:36:47 PM

I havent studied enough on the "fair tax" to argue with anyone on it. It just seems to me the fairest tax is a straight sales tax. No property or income taxes, just a flat sales on everything.

Everyone does thier part on a sales tax

2/3/2007 8:22:43 PM

^aww

2/3/2007 8:56:34 PM

Quote :

"is a straight sales tax."

You are pretty much describing teh FairTax legislation. It would put a 23% inclusive sales tax on all new goods and services. A monthly prebate will ensure progressivity. Business inputs would not be taxed.

Quote :

"I'm sure earthdogg would try to start explainin embedded taxes, which are simply make believe."

Not as make believe as a communist Nirvana.

Simply put, Whenever you purchase something part of the cost of the item goes to the gov't in the form of taxes such as payroll taxes and income taxes. Dr. Dale Jorgenson, then Chairman of the Harvard Economics Dept, concluded that about 22% of the price paid for consumer products consists of embedded taxes.

The FairTax would eliminate these embedded taxes and replace them with the sales tax. Without these embedded taxes, proces would fall through competition. So the end effect is that we would be paying about the same for products and be able to get free from the grip of the federal income tax.

2/3/2007 11:42:00 PM

We do not know how it will work itself out. But if the Government keeps consuming as much stuff as it did before the change over then there is going to be little movement in the consumption of the citizenry.

Prices might fall, so might wages, everything might increase. If you are right and the new tax is more efficient and inflicts less hinderance upon economic actors then society might become more productive than it otherwise would be. But until then, everything consumed by the government is one less thing consumed by the citizenry and there is only so much to go around.

2/4/2007 7:48:57 AM

given how much charity is shown by the biggest supporters of the "fair" tax i am doubtful that any plan by them would actually lower taxes on anyone other than the richest in this country.
neil boortz and steve forbes dont really inspire any trust within me.

2/4/2007 11:58:25 AM

revolt, do you think the current income taxes are fair? I keep hearing that any tax cuts favor the rich. Well duh, they are the ones paying the most. Remember when there was a tax refund, and the demos pitched a fit that it only helped the wealthy, surprise, so they gave a tax REFUND to those who never even paid any taxes. I think they called it a child credit. Unbelievable.

In my book, the sales tax is the fairest tax. Get rid of the rest. There would be an economic boom in this country.

You get a property tax on your PET in charlotte. On your PET. However, i bet there is some income level that allows you to get out of paying for that too.

2/4/2007 6:11:53 PM

the problem with those tax cuts for the rich is not that the rich pay more, its that those tax cuts lead to a reduction in social services that impacts far more people. its all well and good to cut government receipts until you have to cut a check for new classrooms and roads and tanks that you wear out fighting a war but you cant

2/4/2007 10:24:11 PM

Revolt, the way I see it that the average american will have more money to spend or save. It will be THEIR money. The govt will be able to lose the IRS, and the uber rich will no longer have to 'hide" thier money. Instead now when they buy thier yaht they pay 200,000 tax on it. THe govt will have a steady stream of money, just not from the rich but from a larger tax base who now has more money available to them, money they earned.

Ive always thought, if you really wanted tax reform have every employer give each person their full check, then make the employee physically write a check each pay period for the amount of taxes. We would have reform within a year.

2/4/2007 11:03:35 PM