WinLoseorDraw’s Commentary on Tax Reform

Tax Reform

WinLoseorDraw’s commentary

  1. I don’t believe that investors should assume a disproportionate amount of our county’s tax burden, and my reasoning will be discussed in more detail below.
  2. I do agree that a flat tax would eliminate the contentious nature of our on-going national debate over taxes.
  3. I do agree that we should go after tax dodgers, and we should stop corporations from establishing sham headquarters in off-shore tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of America’s taxes.
  4. As attractive as sin taxes sound, I am opposed. Let people make their own choices, good or bad, free from coercion.  I am in favor of educational initiatives to inform people of the dangers of addictive products, and I do think that polluters should be regulated. However, our tax structure needs to be as free of partisanship as we can humanly make it.

The British, as we all know, failed in their attempts to tax specific commodities in the New World such as stamps, tea, and whiskey.

The Income Tax was established here in 1913 with the sixteenth amendment. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution assigns Congress the power to impose “Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” but Article I, Section 8 also requires that, “Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” The missing part of the equation is the “uniformity” that the constitution calls for and mandates. As soon as the impact of taxes is felt more on one commodity or sector or group than another, we have a problem.  The problem of unequal and arbitrary taxation has been our biggest problem all throughout the long and contentious history of taxation in America.

Like all other formulations of taxation, the Income Tax, which seemed like such a grand idea in 1913 has also lead to anger and frustration and partisanship of every kind precisely because it impacts certain groups at the expense of others. Many people are rebelling because they are tired of their hard earned money going to subsidize others with less income or no income.

I believe the massively arcane and indecipherable tax code should be reduced to just a few simple lines in a tax code amendment. We should replace the massively unwieldy income tax with a flat tax on spending. “Tax what we buy, not what we earn.” You would no longer spend hours in April calculating your taxes, nor would you have to pay anyone to do that for you. The impact would be roughly the same on all individuals and all corporations, though, admittedly, naturally thrifty people could reduce their individual tax burden by continuing to recycle, refurbish, and reuse.

We could turn the gargantuan Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) into a minor government agency with few responsibilities and no power. All businesses and vendors would collect the appropriate tax at the points of sale and pass the money onto the government.

This proposal has been gaining traction in Congress. The Fair Tax Act (H.R.25/S. 155) would apply a tax, once, at the point of purchase on all new goods and services for personal consumption. This proposal is Progressive, not Regressive, because the proposal also calls for a monthly payment to all family households of lawful U.S. residents as an advance rebate, or “prebate”, of tax on purchases up to the poverty level.

See FairTax.org and consider supporting the Fair Tax. As the name implies, it would be the most “fair,” and there would be a whole lot less to argue about.

WinLoseorDraw

Back