Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush Reiterates Call for a Simpler Tax System (Flat Tax)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 12:46 AM
Original message
Bush Reiterates Call for a Simpler Tax System (Flat Tax)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64387-2004Sep5?language=printer

President Bush reasserted his call Sunday for a simpler tax system, and aides said he is considering pushing for a flat tax, which would set the same income-tax rate for most taxpayers, as a major priority if he were to win a second term.

In arguing for a rewrite of tax laws, Bush said that they are "a complicated mess" and "full of special-interest loopholes."

"Americans spend about 6 billion hours of paperwork and headache every year on the tax code," he said. "In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify and make fair the federal tax code."

A flat tax, which Congress would have to pass, would have fewer -- or no -- deductions and credits. Administration officials, while saying no decision has been made, said the Treasury Department is studying such a system, and White House proponents assert that it would encourage saving and investment.

Sen. John F. Kerry's campaign contends that because many such proposals do not tax investment income like interest, capital gains and dividends, such a move would have the effect of shifting the tax burden from the wealthy to the working class. "This is the ultimate embodiment of what they've done the last four years," said Jason Furman, Kerry's economic policy director.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 12:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. 8760
Edited on Mon Sep-06-04 12:51 AM by liburl
The number of hours in a year. But they spend 6 billion hours on paperwork every year?

That's how they do it. Throw out the most exploitive number you can find for a little shock and awe!

edited for typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I think it's comparable to the amount of time people spend sitting ...
Edited on Mon Sep-06-04 12:56 AM by struggle4progress
... at traffic lights. I figure that I spend about five minutes each day, five days a week, fifty weeks a year, waiting for a traffic light. Add that up over the whole US population: you've got about 6 billion hours. <edit:> I don't think my federal tax filings take me nearly that long to prepare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #3
12. Let's see five minutes a day five days a week fifty two weeks
Comes to about 1300 minutes which is about 21.5 hours. Quite a ways off from six billion don't you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Now multiply by 200+ million (taxpayers/drivers)
4.3 billion hours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #12
35. Per person. Now add up over the entire US population. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 12:52 AM
Response to Original message
2.  few weeks back, * was calling for a national sales tax ...
... to replace the income tax. A study by Citizens for Tax Justice estimates that a national sales tax rate of 50% would be required: http://www.itepnet.org/sale0904.pdf .

I expect that careful analysis of the flat tax proposal will show that this proposal is also ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porkrind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 01:03 AM
Response to Original message
4. like everything * says, it's a lie.
The reason * wants this is not to simplify the tax code, but to give rich people a tax cut by replacing the current progressive (but complicated) system with a flat and simple system which is harder on the poor. Also, it would only "encourage saving and investment" by the wealthy, because they will have even more money, while the poor will have less. This is disgusting, but predicatble. It has been a right-wing wet dream for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. "encourage saving and investment" is the key - tax less of the rich's
investment and capital gains income, while keeping the "dedicated Soc Sec payroll tax with wage cap" as a separate tax as they pretend it is not a tax on income - that it is not a second income tax.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gore1FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 02:19 AM
Response to Original message
5. Simplification is a great way to disguise
The completeion of the Original tax strategy he implemented.

A flat tax is simply the worst parts of the 2001 tax cut taken to extremes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sonicx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 02:24 AM
Response to Original message
6. Kerry better hammer him hard for this. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 03:06 AM
Response to Original message
7. I think it forces the bottom 40% of the population into grinding poverty:
Assume about $ 9500 billion in annual US income and a Bush budget of about 2.5 trillion. Overall, Bush's budget must consume about 26% of income. The bottom quintile of the population receives only 3.4% of income, hence makes about $ 12.3K annually or (after a 26% tax) about $9.1K. The second lowest quintile receives only about 8.7% of US income, hence makes about $ 31.5K or (after a 26% tax) about $23.3 K.
(For the distribution figures, see )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 04:58 AM
Response to Original message
8. pat peale, the "bandaid" lady is ready to go jump in the lake
From a 13 April 2004 article in my local paper......

Pat Peale, Lake Kiowa resident and a vice president of the Cooke County Republican Women, said Forbes' advocacy of the flat tax made many county residents think about alternatives.

"There's got to be an alternative. Having just gone through doing my taxes for the first time for myself -- I was ready to go jump in the lake!" Peale said.

http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/articles/2004/04/13/news/news3.txt

This article was months ago, guess she and chimpy have been talking about it.

As you might remember, Pat received a purple heart at the rnc for "swimming a river".



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 05:17 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Rich people don't pay taxes...
according to W because they got accountants that help them avoid that.
So why did he bother given them a huge tax break?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2Design Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 07:16 AM
Response to Original message
10. very rich don't have income...they have dividends and capital gains
and other types of cash flow but they do not earn their living so there would be NO tax on earned income....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FloridaPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #10
26. There is no social security tax on unearned income. They still
pay taxes, but at a different rate. It's all still income.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shockingelk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #10
27. Exactly
I support flat taxes, which means every income tax being treated the same.

Do away with the absurd notion that and capital gains are not "ordinary income" and you have the über rich paying their fair instead of the the 15% they currently pay on capital gains.

A married working couple each making $35K a year pays over 16% on their income.

People who make millions a year sitting on their asses collecting dividends are taxed at a lower rate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lpricanprynces Donating Member (83 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
13. What's so bad about a flat tax?
What is bad about a flat tax? I wouldn't mind a flat tax, no deductions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. Read ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lpricanprynces Donating Member (83 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Thanks
Thanks for the info, I will read it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #13
31. It ignores the fact that the ease of making another dollar is a function
of how many dollars you already have.

If it's so much easier for a millionaire to make another 10,000 bucks relative to a gas station attendant, why is it OK for them to both pay the same marginal rate on additional dollar?

It isn't fair at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 08:02 AM
Response to Original message
15. Same 'flat tax' rate on corporate revenues?
After all, if corporations get to subtract expenses from income (i.e. revenues) why not let people do the same?

Why do oil compnaies get an "oil depletion allowance" and workers don't get a "life depletion allowance"?

Why do corporations get to subtract their "housing expenses" but people don't?


If the same 'flat tax' rate (including all deductibility rules) were imposed on both people and corporations, the 'payroll tax' was credited against the income tax, and all kinds of income (including deferred capital gains) were taxed at the same rate ... I might be interested.

Oh... and a 'flat tax' means that only capital gains are taxed, without any allowance for subtracting capital losses. After all, that'd be a 'deduction' and those aren't allowed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. I said the same below-what about Charitable giving and home sales
Are we going to have lines for that? under a flat tax if I sell a home (lived in 2 out of the last 5 years) am I going to have to pay say 15% on the sale amount? on the gain? I have to DOWNGRADE my housing because of this?

As someone who has done taxes for many "rich" people I can tell you (my wife agrees) that the number of checks written to charities during April is amazing. Gee must be a timing coincidence right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 08:17 AM
Response to Original message
18. beware of Trojans bearing gifts
I agree with the sentences quoted from fratboy, but when has he
ever been honest. Given his history, it is just another front he's
planning to open to screw the country's middle classes and poor in
to the ground whilst benefitting his campaign donors.

I am for a comprehensive rethink of the tax code, in favour of a
progressive flat tax, that is embedded in to the computers of the
nation's corporations to do the entire job without paper and without
the pre-computerized view on ameican finance. However, so much
this looks like a big wooden horse.

And i wonder if the republicans call it bi partisan so they can
get zell and people like him on board to slosh out their lobbiests.

So, i'm taking advise from Nancy Reagan: "Just say no."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
19. Okay-2% flat tax on corporations and WE won't have to pay any taxes
Do the math it would work. 2/3 of corporations paid NO taxes from 96-02. Think of all that expendable cash if Joe Schmoe paid NO taxes and all the products that would be sold/produced thus negating the "then they won't hare anyone" BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
54anickel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
21. Sort of like he fixed Medicare? No thanks. Bush's fairness doctrine
Edited on Mon Sep-06-04 08:42 AM by 54anickel
states "we will spread the burden of costs equally among those who can least afford it. We will leave no member of the lower and middle class unscrewed! All will contribute equally to the financial support of the corporate welfare system."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeoConsSuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
22. I will lead a bipartisan effort...
Zell Miller and 90% of the repukes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
23. W's wants a flat tax to help us all, not to make the tax system more
regressive which it will egregiously be unless the flat tax scheme includes a payroll tax on all earned income?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
24. Flat tax on interest, capital gains and dividends would be great!
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. I'd also like to see an excise tax on stock sales.
Edited on Mon Sep-06-04 10:07 AM by TahitiNut
The insanity of the 'greater fool' market does absolutely nothing to "invest" in enterprise. A low excise tax (and possibly an equivalent royalty) would go a long way toward taking the speculation out and leaving investment in the equity markets. (A fractional percentage would be enough, imho.) It'd be even more helpful when applied to derivatives (puts, options, etc.).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #24
32. We do have a flat tax on cap gains and div's and it's not great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbperrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
28. Simplicity is not a virtue.
Envision this scene: "Walk out that door and get on the boat." Nothing could be simpler. Thus begins your voyage to another continent and a lifetime of slavery.

This is the same. You might guess who the masters will be, and who the slaves, except not in any rhetorical sense.

Funny how the prosperity of the 50s and 60s occurred with a 70% top rate, ain't it? Just history, no analysis needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hong Kong Cavalier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
29. I'm amazed that anyone here
would seriously believe that after FOUR years of this crap Bush* would do something to benefit the middle and lower classes over the super-rich.

His track record on taxes should be enough, no matter what he says. (Why anyone here believes something he says is beyond me.)
A flat tax would do exactly as Kerry's campaign says: shift the burden even more to the lower classes, becuase the vast majority of the income that the upper classes make would not be taxed anymore. Combine this with his "ownership society" and Bush*s goal of a 21st century feudal society would be complete.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressivebydesign Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
30. Who was the candidate last time who was jeered for this??
Edited on Mon Sep-06-04 10:41 AM by Caliphoto
Another rich guy... damn.. who was that? He was ridiculed last election.. oh yeah, Forbes. Now Bush is adopting this? What a flip-flopper, didn't he recently say he was for a national sales tax? What happened to his constitutional amdendment for his tax cuts? What a flip flopper.. can't make up his mind. Where's Mommy Karen? How can she let him be so undisciplined? Bad George!

Please.. let's find footage of Bush ridiculing Forbes during the last primary season when he ran... I know we can find it. I'm sure it was Forbes, and I KNOW Bush must have ridiculed him for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yavin4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
33. It Won't Happen
Because you'd have to allow for mortgage deductions, and if you do allow that deduction, then everyone else's deduction would also have to be allowed. Thus, no flat tax.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressivebydesign Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
34. Forbes proposed it... Bush was against it in 2000
Please help me.. I've tried for a while to nail down some juicy Bush quotes against Forbe's tax plan.. perhaps from the debates???? Bush is flip flopper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
36. Income and Wealth Inequality

<snip>

Tax progressivity was highest in the decades after World War II, when the rich were taxed a stratospheric 88 percent for nearly two decades. This was also an era in which the U.S. economy was a juggernaut, and the American Dream was indisputably alive and well. Because of this, most economists do not believe that high tax rates on the rich are bad for the economy.

Personal income tax rate for top bracket

Years Percent
1945 91%
1946-63 88
1964-81 70
1981-86 50
1988 28
1991 31

The following chart shows the effectiveness of a progressive tax system. When the top rates were truly high from 1950 to 1978, American income at all levels grew at about the same pace. But when progressivity was lost in the 80s, the income of the poor began falling, while that of the rich continued growing.

Income Growth by Quintile2

Quintile 1950-1978 1979-1993
Lowest 20% 138% -15%
2nd 20% 98 -7
3rd 20% 106 -3
4th 20% 111 5
Highest 20% 99 18

<snip>

Executive Compensation as a Share of Corporate Profits

1953 22%
1987 61

<snip>

http://mirrors.korpios.org/resurgent/4Inequality.htm

Mostly focussed on the effect of the Reagan era, but I'd bet it will also give you a reasonable idea what to think about King George II and his circle of plutocrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
37. * is vulnerable on this. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC