Shelby again pushes legislation to establish flat tax

[A18]

http://birmingham.bizjournals.com/birmingham/stories/2005/05/23/daily8.html

U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby once again has introduced legislation to repeal the current Internal Revenue Code and replace it with a flat tax rate that would apply to all taxpayers. The Alabama Republican has introduced flat-tax legislation every Congress since 1984.

"Now more than ever, we have an opportunity to fundamentally reform our tax code," Shelby said in a written statement. "President Bush has acknowledged that tax reform is one of his top priorities."

Shelby said his bill, called the "Tax Simplification Act of 2005," would establish a 17-percent tax rate for all taxpayers when fully implemented. The legislation would eliminate marginal rates, itemized deductions and credits, the alternative minimum tax, and the taxation of Social Security benefits.

In place of itemized deductions, each taxpayer would be given a standard deduction of $12,790, or $25,580 in the case of a couple filing jointly. Taxpayers would receive an additional $5,510 standard deduction for each dependent. Therefore, a family of four would need to make over $36,600 before they would pay federal taxes.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby once again has introduced legislation to repeal the current Internal Revenue Code and replace it with a flat tax rate that would apply to all taxpayers. The Alabama Republican has introduced flat-tax legislation every Congress since 1984.

Why doesn't he do something useful instead of wasting Congress's time with this sh**t?

[WalterMitty]

U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby once again has introduced legislation to repeal the current Internal Revenue Code and replace it with a flat tax rate that would apply to all taxpayers. The Alabama Republican has introduced flat-tax legislation every Congress since 1984.

Why doesn't he do something useful instead of wasting Congress's time with this sh**t?

lol

[A18]

This is the first Congress since the 1800s in which a flat tax has an actual chance of passing.

[AuH2O]

I like Shelby.

[TeePee4Prez]

U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby once again has introduced legislation to repeal the current Internal Revenue Code and replace it with a flat tax rate that would apply to all taxpayers. The Alabama Republican has introduced flat-tax legislation every Congress since 1984.

Why doesn't he do something useful instead of wasting Congress's time with this sh**t?

Good old lobbying will make sure this nonsense never sees the light of day!

[A18]

http://www.ncpa.org/w/w76.html

A Fabrizio-McLaughlin poll taken just after last fall's election found 63.3 percent of Americans in favor of a 17 percent flat tax and only 19.5 percent opposed. This poll did not clearly indicate, however, that many deductions would have to be given-up in return.

Focus groups clearly believed that abolishing all deductions is the best way of making the rich pay their fair share.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/346.html

Conventional wisdom says that the biggest obstacle to fundamental tax reform is Americans’ reluctance to give up their deductions for a simpler tax code. These survey results challenge that belief.

When asked if they are willing to give up deductions to make the tax system simpler, a 54% majority of respondents said they would.

Surprisingly, those most willing to trade deductions away for simplicity are the same ones likely to benefit from deductions: 59 percent of married respondents, 59 percent of those over age 45, and an overwhelming 69 percent of those with incomes over $75,000 say they are willing to abandon some deductions for a simpler tax code.

We then asked people what system they would prefer for collecting federal taxes: the current system with deductions; a flat-rate system with no deductions; or a national sales tax. By nearly a 2 to 1 margin, respondents favored a flat-rate system with no deductions over the current system or a national sales tax.

When they were asked specifically whether they would favor or oppose a flat tax whereby everybody, whatever they earned, would pay income taxes on the same percentage of their income over some minimum level, 54 percent of respondents favored the plan while 21% opposed it. This represents a slight decline from 1999, when 60 percent favored a flat tax, though opposition declined from 35 percent, which indicates fewer Americans are informed enough to choose.

[Lunar]

If you phrased the poll question in a different manner, you'd see vastly different results.  I bet something like "Should the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their income?" would recieve overwhelming support.  Since the wording of the question is everything, and the wording of the question seems to have been chosen by this Tax Foundation group, a lobbyist organization with a definite motivation for skewing results, I doubt it can be trusted.

[A18]

Who cares? Phrasing it this way gets good results, so obviously a flat tax is very possible, and would not at all be politically damaging.

By the way, the rich would pay a higher percentage of their income under this flat tax, so it's a moot point. We all agree with that.

[Lunar]

By the way, the rich would pay a higher percentage of their income under this flat tax, so it's a moot point. We all agree with that.

My point isn't moot at all because:

1) I used the phrase "something like" to indicate that I was just giving a simple example about how the wording of the question was important.   Nitpicking when people are using such phrases is just silly.

2) I knew when I was posting that the rich would pay a higher percentage under Shelby's plan.  Hoewver, It's mostly negligible when you get into the upper levels of income.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I imagine, once 'informed' through the media debate and controversy, most Americans would articulate it in terms of taxing the rich less by getting rid of the bracket system.  The poll, in contrast, places the emphasis on simplification, a concept which is pretty much universally positive.   The TV debate simply won't be over whether simplification is good or bad, it'll be over whether the rich should pay more.  I think the issue of simplification would largely be overshadowed over the question of who's paying what.

[A18]

Obviously the Dems will turn it into that, but hell, they do that all the time, and no one cares. What's relevant is simplification. And if you look at all the deductions eliminated, it's not really a "tax cut for the rich" anyway.

People will like filing their taxes on a single, post card sized form.

Several countries have adopted flat tax systems, even some with substantial socialist leanings. There's no reason we can't.

[2952-0-0]

Hong Kong has 15% flat tax, but flat tax is only realistic in small countries that are either tax havens or city states.

[A18]

Russia has a 13% flat tax. There's really nothing unrealistic about a flat tax.

[Cowboy]

Russia has a 13% flat tax. There's really nothing unrealistic about a flat tax.

I didnt know you republicans were so hot on european economics

[TeePee4Prez]

http://www.ncpa.org/w/w76.html

A Fabrizio-McLaughlin poll taken just after last fall's election found 63.3 percent of Americans in favor of a 17 percent flat tax and only 19.5 percent opposed. This poll did not clearly indicate, however, that many deductions would have to be given-up in return.

Focus groups clearly believed that abolishing all deductions is the best way of making the rich pay their fair share.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/346.html

Conventional wisdom says that the biggest obstacle to fundamental tax reform is Americans’ reluctance to give up their deductions for a simpler tax code. These survey results challenge that belief.

When asked if they are willing to give up deductions to make the tax system simpler, a 54% majority of respondents said they would.

Surprisingly, those most willing to trade deductions away for simplicity are the same ones likely to benefit from deductions: 59 percent of married respondents, 59 percent of those over age 45, and an overwhelming 69 percent of those with incomes over $75,000 say they are willing to abandon some deductions for a simpler tax code.

We then asked people what system they would prefer for collecting federal taxes: the current system with deductions; a flat-rate system with no deductions; or a national sales tax. By nearly a 2 to 1 margin, respondents favored a flat-rate system with no deductions over the current system or a national sales tax.

When they were asked specifically whether they would favor or oppose a flat tax whereby everybody, whatever they earned, would pay income taxes on the same percentage of their income over some minimum level, 54 percent of respondents favored the plan while 21% opposed it. This represents a slight decline from 1999, when 60 percent favored a flat tax, though opposition declined from 35 percent, which indicates fewer Americans are informed enough to choose.

Most of these people have no idea they'll be paying more.  This is another classic example of BS GOP "Populism."  As an accounting major, I STRONGLY oppose this!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Russia has a 13% flat tax. There's really nothing unrealistic about a flat tax.

Okay. Russia isn't a place I'd live in though.

No, kidding, Russia seems to be a model of what not to do.

[TeePee4Prez]

Russia has a 13% flat tax. There's really nothing unrealistic about a flat tax.

Okay. Russia isn't a place I'd live in though.

No, kidding, Russia seems to be a model of what not to do.

They seem to go from one extreme to the other.  First the czars, then Communism, now mob rule with many Club for Growth-like policies actually implemented AND FAILING!  It's quite interesting to note that Eastern European Jews in my neighborhood that emigrated near the turn of last century are some of the biggest lefties in NE Philly whereas the more recent Jewish arrivals from Russia are quite right wing, even moreso than Keystone (not kidding).  Fortunately, the older Eastern European Jews will keep the NE tilting pro-choice and Dem.

[A18]

They won't pay more. They'll pay about the same.

[Richard]

Russia has a 13% flat tax. There's really nothing unrealistic about a flat tax.

Okay. Russia isn't a place I'd live in though.

No, kidding, Russia seems to be a model of what not to do.

You mean rampant socialism?

[TeePee4Prez]

They won't pay more. They'll pay about the same.

Hey genius, my effective rate last year was about 11%, marginal 15%.  A 17% flat tax means I'd be paying more.  You really have no clue about this stuff.  You are a Club for Growth dunce or some spoiled rich kid who echoes what his rich parents are saying.  I hope when you graduate college someone has a sweet job lined up for you.

[A18]

Hey prick, f**ck off. The 17% flat tax has a $13,000 exemption for an individual. That means even if you make $50,000, you'll only pay 13%.

[TeePee4Prez]

Hey prick, f**ck off. The 17% flat tax has a $20,000 exemption. That means even if you make $50,000, you'll only pay 10.2%.

Well he's another stipulation- How much money does the federal government hope to collect with this new tax?  We already have a severe budget problem.  Hey, low taxes great.. NOT!  This will soon mean we have to borrow more money from foriegn banks essentially raising interest rates and further devaluing our currency.  This is also coupled with the fact the accouting industy employs a lot of people which will soon lose their jobs if this piece of horsesh**t were ever enacted.

[A18]

I edited it to fit your situation. It's $20,000 for a couple - actually more like $26,000.

Because of all the deductions that would be repealed, it comes out to roughly the same amount of money. We all worked this out on another thread before.

And yes, those accountants are essentially on government welfare as it is. You don't start fires so fire fighters have work.

[TeePee4Prez]

I edited it to fit your situation. It's $20,000 for a couple - actually more like $26,000.

Because of all the deductions that would be repealed, it comes out to roughly the same amount of money. We all worked this out on another thread before.

And yes, those accountants are essentially on government welfare as it is. You don't start fires so fire fighters have work.

One of the founding principles of a democracy is a progressive tax system.  Granted a lot of poorer taxpayers will benefit from this, but middle class taxpayers with high property, state, and lcoal taxes along with high mortgage interests will suffer tremendously.  You also didn't address my point about revenues brought into the government/foreign debt.

[Lunar]

I edited it to fit your situation. It's $20,000 for a couple - actually more like $26,000.

Because of all the deductions that would be repealed, it comes out to roughly the same amount of money. We all worked this out on another thread before.

And yes, those accountants are essentially on government welfare as it is. You don't start fires so fire fighters have work.

One of the founding principles of a democracy is a progressive tax system.

I'm in favor of progressive tax brackets, but this statement is simply not true.  This tends to be the tax system favored by the masses, so it often comes as a result of giving the masses power, but has little to do inherently with democracy.  Hell, we didn't even have an income tax until much later in our democracy.