The President's Gaffe in Virginia

[Wakie]

A gaffe my a@@.

No ... but it is a pretty ridiculous statement.  With our current system the ultra-wealthy are able to cheat the system.  But it appears that although Bush acknowledges that the system is broken, he is unwilling to fix it.

I disagree here. High tax rates and progressive tax systems causes this. The way to fix it is to reduce taxes and simplify the system and close loopholes. The best tax system would be a low flat rate tax and/or a national sales or value added tax.

Although I'm a strong supporter of a flat tax and of reducing the tax rates (I think that Reagan's 1986 reform was great), I do think that the current administration tax policies have been totally flawed. You cannot reduce taxes the way they did and at the same time increase the discretionary spending the way it has been done! it is simply irresponsible to say the least.
Second, you don't reduce taxes during war! if the increase in spending comes from the necessity of strengthening the armed forces, then, you cannot reduce taxes.
Third, if the motivation was to get the economy going again, then those tax breaks made no sense. At the same time that you gave a tax cut, you were cutting funding for the states, who because of that, started raising all the state and local taxes, offseting in that way the potential benefits. That's why you have that feeble recovery.
It is good to lower taxes, it is great to simplify the taxes, but you Ought to know when to do it!

A simplified tax system is a good thing but I am opposed to a flat tax.  A flat tax would result in lower taxes on the rich (which I'm ok with) but also higher taxes on the poor (which I think is totally wrong).

[ThePrezMex]

A gaffe my a@@.

No ... but it is a pretty ridiculous statement.  With our current system the ultra-wealthy are able to cheat the system.  But it appears that although Bush acknowledges that the system is broken, he is unwilling to fix it.

I disagree here. High tax rates and progressive tax systems causes this. The way to fix it is to reduce taxes and simplify the system and close loopholes. The best tax system would be a low flat rate tax and/or a national sales or value added tax.

Although I'm a strong supporter of a flat tax and of reducing the tax rates (I think that Reagan's 1986 reform was great), I do think that the current administration tax policies have been totally flawed. You cannot reduce taxes the way they did and at the same time increase the discretionary spending the way it has been done! it is simply irresponsible to say the least.
Second, you don't reduce taxes during war! if the increase in spending comes from the necessity of strengthening the armed forces, then, you cannot reduce taxes.
Third, if the motivation was to get the economy going again, then those tax breaks made no sense. At the same time that you gave a tax cut, you were cutting funding for the states, who because of that, started raising all the state and local taxes, offseting in that way the potential benefits. That's why you have that feeble recovery.
It is good to lower taxes, it is great to simplify the taxes, but you Ought to know when to do it!

A simplified tax system is a good thing but I am opposed to a flat tax.  A flat tax would result in lower taxes on the rich (which I'm ok with) but also higher taxes on the poor (which I think is totally wrong).

Ok, the usual flat tax proposals are not exactly flat. They start with a rate of zero for the first X amount of dollars, and you start paying the flat rate after that threshold. In that way, the people at the bottom wouldn't be paying more.

[MODU]

Wakie,

In a flat tax system, the tax cut-off line raises (I believe the latest model is $23K), and there is a two-tiered flat tax level on the "middle" and "upper" classes.  Gone are most of your deductions, except for things like child tax credit and so on.

In a VAT tax system, it is based on consumption.  A good idea (since it will eliminate the IRS for the most part), but it ends up taxing the poor.

[??????????]

How about we eliminate the system all together?

How do you propose we pay for little things then like National Defense?

www.fairtax.org. Income tax would still exist on corporations but since your average citizen actually makes NO income. We earn wages we would not fall under any Income tax law.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That statistic however is because those states contain lots of wealthy suburban hells, those places aren't the ones that vote Democratic. Illinois is wealthy because of DuPage county and other such nightmarish hellholes, not paradises like Chicago which are the Democratic area. The only reason Minnesota has a median income higher than the nation's is because of those terrible places like Scott, Carver, outer Hennepin, ect. those AREN'T the Democratic areas.

[Wakie]

How about we eliminate the system all together?

How do you propose we pay for little things then like National Defense?

www.fairtax.org. Income tax would still exist on corporations but since your average citizen actually makes NO income. We earn wages we would not fall under any Income tax law.

Ok, so we tax corporations, S-Corps, Partnerships, LLP's, etc.  But how about Sole Proprietorships?  Why would any of them file as a company if it would mean they'd have to pay taxes?

[sbelleal]

It was my understanding from reading up on the national sales tax proposal that there would be no tax on corporations or manufacturers.  In that way the embedded taxes that are included in the cost of products would be eliminated, thereby reducing the cost of the product to the consumer.  The national sales tax would basically bring the price of the good back up to close to the original price.  Also, included in the plan would be reimbursing families for expenditures that are below the poverty level for their size family.  In other words if the federal poverty level for a family of 4 is 24000 then the family would be reimbursed each month for the cost of tax on that amount.  I for one am a single mother and the thoughts of bringing my entire paycheck home and also getting a check in the mail each month makes my heart skip a beat ... LOL. Plus according to economists,  the national sales tax would be enough to cover all the necessary government spending.  Also, the tax would not apply to used goods. Only to new purchases.  Another foreseeable advantage is that the price of American products without the embedded taxes (that are paid by the consumer when corporations are taxed would become more competitive with that of foreign made products.)

Anyway, I'm new here and have been lurking around this site for a while.  Just thought I would drop in.

[NHPolitico]

It's actually a statement in support of a NRST. The rich can get out of paying income, but not sales taxes. Many Republicans are getting on board with a NRST-- even if their plans aren't exactly the same.

[MODU]

I just came across this article, which mirrors two of our current discussions on this forum: taxation and open discussion with the President while on the campaign trail.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&u=/nm/20040811/pl_nm/campaign_bush_taxes_dc_1&printer=1

----------------------------------------------------------------

NICEVILLE, Fla. (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) said on Tuesday that abolishing the U.S. income tax system and replacing it with a national sales tax was an idea worth considering.

"It's an interesting idea," Bush told an "Ask President Bush" campaign forum here. "You know, I'm not exactly sure how big the national sales tax is going to have to be, but it's the kind of interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously."

Republican economists who speak regularly to the White House have said that the Bush campaign has been mulling the idea of an overhaul of the tax code as part of an agenda for a second term should Bush win reelection.

Some lawmakers have floated ideas of simplifying the tax code by putting in place a "flat" income tax rate or a national sales tax. But those ideas have so far not gained much traction in Congress. Opponents say such a system would not be in the best interests of the poor and the middle class who would pay the same tax rate as the wealthy even though they have less disposable income.