Republican party-line is tax manipulation not tax reform

[johnwk]

When it comes to tax reform you can bet your bottom dollar our Washington Swamp Creatures [Republican and Democrats alike] want nothing to do with tax reform which would actually alter the manner in which federal revenue is raised. What our Republican Swamp Creatures falsely claim is “tax reform”, is nothing more than a plan to manipulate the existing method of laying and collecting taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries, wages tips and other “incomes”, and it would create a whole new set of winners and losers using this type of tax.


Keep in mind, under Kevin Brady’s so called “tax reform”, we still wind up with a direct unequal tax upon individuals and businesses which is calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes” ___ a tax system allowing our federal government to create privileged classes exempt from taxation; a tax which can, and has been used as a weapon by notoriously evil politicians to harass and punish political foes; a tax system allowing corrupt politicians to require taxpayers to divulge the most personal aspects of their private lives; a tax which has allowed our federal government from one Congress to another to micro manage our lives and businesses and place the heel of an oppressive government on the necks of America's most productive citizens and business owners, which in fact has resulted in our current repressive state of affairs.


President Trump may very well have his heart in the right place when it comes to “tax reform”, but he is being conned by slithering snakes like Kevin Brady, Paul Ryan and Mitchell McConnell who have no intention to end the authoritarian system of federal taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes” ___ a system of taxation which has proven to be a tool of corrupt politicians and is destructive to our nation’s general welfare and prosperity.


Unlike our Founders who wanted America’s market place to be used to fill our national treasury using specific taxes laid upon articles of consumption ___ a kind of tax which is limited by the purchase of such articles, making it a “self-regulating” tax ___ and across-the-board imposts and duties at our water’s edge such as tonnage taxes, and if necessary a direct apportioned tax to extinguish deficits should Congress find impost, duties and excise taxes insufficient during the course of a fiscal year, Brady, Ryan and McConnell have joined forces with the Democrat Party Leadership to keep alive the notoriously evil system of income taxation, which is a primary source of power used by Washington sewer rats to reward donors, punish enemies, redistribute wealth which America’s labor, businesses and investors have worked to produce, and keeps the heel of a corrupt federal government on the necks of the American People.


Real tax reform is not found in keeping alive “income taxation” and manipulating its application. It is found by ending the socialist income tax experiment and returning to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as it was intended to operate by our Founders. Unfortunately, not one member of Congress, nor any media personality to the best of my knowledge, including those at FoxNews, has, in recent times, discussed the merits and wisdom of the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which would return us to our Constitution’s original tax plan. In fact, there really isn’t any “tax reform” being discussed. Instead, all that is talked about is income tax manipulation and creating a whole new set of winners and losers, while keeping this notorious evil tax alive with all its miseries, shortfalls and never ending class warfare which is destroying America from within.


JWK

“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

[shakey1]

Tax reform... no such animal.

[euphemia]

Actually, Washington uses tax policy to engineer behavior. They have convinced Americans that certain behaviors mean you pay less tax, and other behaviors mean you pay no tax.

[dean.engelhardt]

As long as Congress is allow keep the money rolling in from special interest groups, the working class isn't going to get a break in tax reform.

[Zippyjuan]

As long as Congress is allow keep the money rolling in from special interest groups, the working class isn't going to get a break in tax reform.

But Trump promised we would! (though his actual plan gives 90% of the benefits to the top). Family of four would end up paying more under his plan. But they have to pass a budget first before they can try to vote on tax reform.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetno.../#2f7ec3511099

Trump Plan Delivers Massive Tax Cuts To The 1% And Sharp Kick To The Upper Middle Class

Corporations, business owners and the 1% are the big winners. Highly paid employees and the nation’s fiscal health are the big losers. Those are the most striking conclusions that can be drawn from a new analysis of the “Unified Framework for Fixing Our Broken Tax Code” (a.ka. the Big 6 plan) which the Trump Administration and key Republican Congressional leaders released earlier this week.

The analysis, issued today by the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Urban Institute & Brookings Institution) projects that over the next decade the Trump/GOP plan would actually increase taxes on non-business individual income by $470 billion, while reducing taxes on business income by $2.6 trillion, and federal receipts from estate and gift taxes by $200 billion.

While some details remain to be filled in, the Trump/GOP framework would reduce the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% and the top rate on “pass through” business income reported and taxed on individual returns from 39.6% to 25%. Meanwhile, the top rate on non-business individual income (such as wages and interest) would drop to 35%; the standard deduction would be increased to $12,000 for individual filers and $24,000 for married couples; personal exemptions and many itemized deductions would be eliminated; and the $1,000 child tax credit would be increased by an as yet unspecified amount. (The TPC assumed it would be $500.) At the same time, the estate tax, which now only applies to estates of more than $5.5 million per decedent (or $11 million per couple) would be entirely repealed.

President Donald Trump has promoted the Big 6 plan as a middle class tax cut and has even insisted that the wealthy won’t benefit. “It’s not good for me. Believe me,’’ the billionaire President said as he pitched the framework in Indiana on Wednesday. But TPC’s analysis shows the absurdity of such claims.

In 2018, all income groups (although not all families) would get at least a small tax cut, with the bottom 95% seeing an average 1.2% increase in their after tax income, compared to a hefty 8.5% increase for the top 1% (defined by TPC as those with expanded cash income of $732,800 or more).

In dollar terms, 53% of the cut would go to the top 1% and 30% to the top 0.1% (those with expanded cash income of $3.4 million or more). Put another way, the top 1% would see an average $129,030 tax cut and the top 0.1% would save an average of $722,510, while those in the middle quintile would save an average of $660 per family.

Meanwhile, 12% of taxpayers—and more than a third of those making between $150,000 and $300,000 ---would pay more in 2018, in large part because certain itemized deductions, including for state and local taxes, would be eliminated. (That deduction is a big deal for residents of highly taxed Democratic leaning states like California, New York and New Jersey. But eliminating it could face resistance from some GOP House members too; according to TPC co-founder Len Burman, nearly half of the 20 House districts where the highest percentage of residents claim this deduction have Republican representatives in Congress.)

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

But Trump promised we would!

All presidents I've ever heard also promise that.

[oyarde]

All tax plans raise taxes that I have seen . Probably time to be grateful for that worthless senate . Nothing should get through there .

[oyarde]

What if they just concentrated on cutting spending ?

[johnwk]

What if they just concentrated on cutting spending ?

What if each State's Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill to extinguish an annual deficit which would be paid out of their own State's Treasury, and each State's share would be apportioned as its representation in Congress is apportioned? Would this not encourage each State's Congressional Delegation to avoid deficit spending?


JWK

[Zippyjuan]

What if they just concentrated on cutting spending ?

It is more popular to say you will cut somebody's taxes than to promise to cut their government befits. Safer in terms of votes in the next election too.

"You can have this- and you won't have to pay a thing for it!" Kinda like saying Mexico will pay for the wall.

[euphemia]

Hey, Zippy, your side is what gave us the fatherless welfare homes. Maybe it's time to stop the spin.

[johnwk]

Hey, Zippy, your side is what gave us the fatherless welfare homes. Maybe it's time to stop the spin.

Maybe it's time to consider raising a federal revenue in a manner which allows the market place to determine the amount of revenue Congress can raise, and also makes each State's Congressional delegation accountable when imposts, duties and miscellaneous internal excise taxes on consumption are found insufficient to meet Congresses' expenditures. Keep in mind the beloved and socialist inspired adoption of an "income tax" opened the door to revenue redistribution programs which in turn has created countless federal government cheese-eating factions and a constant swelling of our national debt.


JWK

[euphemia]

This is why we need a flat tax for every man, woman, and child in America. The quickest way to downsizing the government is to send the bill.

[Zippyjuan]

This is why we need a flat tax for every man, woman, and child in America. The quickest way to downsizing the government is to send the bill.

A flat tax rate or a flat amount of money? A "head tax" or "poll tax"? (A head tax is regressive- the poor pay a higher portion of their money than the rich). If you had a head tax at current levels of spending, it would be about $12,000 a person. Family of four- $48,000 a year.

[Swordsmyth]

This is why we need a flat tax for every man, woman, and child in America. The quickest way to downsizing the government is to send the bill.

No kind of income or property tax is acceptable, Tariffs and a Sales Tax/VAT are what we need.

A Flat Tax might be an improvement if we could get that and not Tariffs and a Sales Tax/VAT.

[Zippyjuan]

No kind of income or property tax is acceptable, Tariffs and a Sales Tax/VAT are what we need.

A Flat Tax might be an improvement if we could get that and not Tariffs and a Sales Tax/VAT.

At current spending, you would need a 30% sales tax (on top of state and local sales tax) or a 200% tariff. If you exclude things like food or energy, you need even higher rates.

[Swordsmyth]

At current spending, you would need a 30% sales tax (on top of state and local sales tax) or a 200% tariff. If you exclude things like food or energy, you need even higher rates.

You wouldn't need any more money than you do now, the economic impact would be no larger.

And as always: WE MUST CUT SPENDING

[Zippyjuan]

You wouldn't need any more money than you do now, the economic impact would be no larger.

And as always: WE MUST CUT SPENDING

Actually it would shrink the economy- the higher VAT or tariffs would make goods more expensive for everybody so sales would decline. Half of all income tax filers owed no net taxes. Under tariffs or VAT, their tax expenses would rise considerably- reducing money to spend. Fewer sales means fewer jobs- more unemployment. The rich would keep a higher percent of their income- but the would not increase their purchases of goods and services with the money- they already have most of what they want/ need. It would not offset the spending cuts by those at middle/ lower incomes.

[Swordsmyth]

Actually it would shrink the economy- the higher VAT or tariffs would make goods more expensive for everybody so sales would decline. Half of all income tax filers owed no net taxes. Under tariffs or VAT, their tax expenses would rise considerably- reducing money to spend. Fewer sales means fewer jobs- more unemployment. The rich would keep a higher percent of their income- but the would not increase their purchases of goods and services with the money- they already have most of what they want/ need. It would not offset the spending cuts by those at middle/ lower incomes.

Businesses would hire more people, more people would be able to start businesses and the economic impact would be smaller because compliance costs and misallocated resources caused by deductions etc. would go away.

And as always: WE MUST CUT SPENDING

[Zippyjuan]

Businesses would hire more people, more people would be able to start businesses and the economic impact would be smaller because compliance costs and misallocated resources caused by deductions etc. would go away.

And as always: WE MUST CUT SPENDING

Business hire if their sales demand it. If sales are down due to the taxes, they aren't going to be hiring. And falling sales would require even higher rates of taxation to raise the same amount of revenues.

[Swordsmyth]

Business hire if their sales demand it. If sales are down due to the taxes, they aren't going to be hiring. And falling sales would require even higher rates of taxation to raise the same amount of revenues.

Rich people buy things, they would buy more.

You just can't give up one of the planks of your manifesto can you?

[Zippyjuan]

Rich people buy things, they would buy more.

You just can't give up one of the planks of your manifesto can you?

Give Bill Gates $1000 and what will he buy with it he would not otherwise buy today without that $1000?

[euphemia]

Give Bill Gates $1000 and what will he buy with it he would not otherwise buy today without that $1000?

Gates takes an awful lot of deduction on his indoctrination and poison charity programs.

[Swordsmyth]

Give Bill Gates $1000 and what will he buy with it he would not otherwise buy today without that $1000?

The greatest effect would be seen in the mid to lower rich.

The super rich also already find ways to pay little to no taxes.

[Zippyjuan]

The greatest effect would be seen in the mid to lower rich.

The super rich also already find ways to pay little to no taxes.

So their spending would not offset the loss of purchasing by those at middle/ lower income levels so the economy would be smaller under a VAT or Tariff tax system.

[Swordsmyth]

So their spending would not offset the loss of purchasing by those at middle/ lower income levels so the economy would be smaller under a VAT or Tariff tax system.

Why? Because you say so?

[Zippyjuan]

Why? Because you say so?

Do you think consumers paying higher prices will stimulate more growth? If that is true, we should strive for high price inflation.

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index...cle/view/55926

The Effect of Value Add Tax on Economic Growth and Its Sources in Developing Countries


Abstract

Today the role of economic growth for its effect on social welfare is undeniable. For this reason, the factors influencing the economic growth are taken into account by policy makers and researchers. On the other hand, the VAT has been considered by most of the countries due to its numerous advantages and benefits. Hence, investigating how this type of tax affects the economic growth seems to be indispensable, particularly in developing countries. In this study, the effect of value added tax on economic growth was examined especially on the developing countries. In details, the effects of VAT on the economic growth of 19 developing countries for duration of 1995 to 2010 were investigated. For analysing the data, the GMM panel was employed because of the structure of the model. Afterwards, the effect of VAT through the channel of saving on the capital accumulation and productivity and ultimately the economic growth was examined. The results revealed that VAT has a negative effect on capital accumulation growth in the level; the positive effect of VAT on the level of economic growth seems to have been imposed through channels other than the increase of saving and its effect on capital accumulation.

[Swordsmyth]

Do you think consumers paying higher prices will stimulate more growth? If that is true, we should strive for high price inflation.

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index...cle/view/55926

The mid to lower rich would increase their spending and economic growth would improve from the reform of the tax system.

Go burn some incense to Keynes and stop trying to fool people who know better.

[Zippyjuan]

This study (paid for by retailers) examined the impact of a 10% VAT:

https://www.bakerinstitute.org/media...Tax-100710.pdf

The three principal findings of the report are:

1. An add-on VAT would reduce retail spending by $2.5 trillion over the next decade. Retail
spending would decline by almost $260 billion or 5.0 percent in the first year after enactment
of the VAT.

2. An add-on VAT would cause GDP to fall for several years. The economy would lose
850,000 jobs in the first year, and there would be 700,000 fewer jobs ten years later. By
comparison, a comparable reduction in the deficit through reduced government spending
would have less adverse effects on the economy, and could have positive effects for
economic growth.

3. Although lower deficits and debt would have positive long-run effects for the economy, most
Americans over 21 years of age when the VAT is enacted would be worse off due to
enactment of an add-on VAT. A VAT would have significant redistributional effects across
generations, reducing real incomes and employment for current workers.

[Swordsmyth]

This study (paid for by retailers) examined the impact of a 10% VAT:

https://www.bakerinstitute.org/media...Tax-100710.pdf

We are all doomed to economic collapse one way or another if we don't CUT SPENDING.