When you put the two words "The" and "IRS" together
it spells "THEIRS"?
Trent Keffer Blogspot
Well… last night I started reading “They All Can’t Be Right” by Steve Russo… and he makes a great opening point that “is is not unusual to see Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists working together and living next door to one another. Because many of them are citizens who have the same rights as those born in this country, it’s easy to think that the various religions they follow are pretty much the same as well, that they’re only different ways of understanding the same God.” Wow… that’s a big part of what the politically correct culture has falsely led people to believe… but as he points out... just ask those that follow these religions if all religions are the same... they'll tell you no... I'll try to let you know how this book goes...
I know... I've turned back into the "Blog Slug" again ... yeah... someone that has a blog... but then doesn't do anything with it... I assure you though it's for good reasons (ok... in my little mind I've justified it) for not writing lately... most of that comes down to the two courses that just finished up this weekend... the final exam in the Politics course was on Thursday night and I just took the final quiz and essay in History today... so now... it's off for the next 3 weeks... hurray!!
It's only been since this afternoon with the last bit of course work being done... but it's such a relief knowing there's no homework I'm behind in... which seems to be how it works for me... read all day and still find I'm two chapters behind...
The tax system in the United States is a progressive system, meaning that as the amount of income increases, so does the percentage of tax to be paid. Federal gift and estate taxes as well as most state income taxes are also progressive in nature. Sales taxes are considered a regressive form of taxation as everyone pays the same rate. A regressive tax means that as you earn more the percentage of your income that is applied to sales taxes becomes less, conversely that means that for a lower wage earner a higher percentage of their incomes is used to pay sales tax. Social Security is another example of regressive taxation (Ginsberg, Lowi, Weir, p 640).
The current tax rates in the
Tax reform is something most American’s can agree upon as something that needs to happen within the complex system that has evolved in the Department of the Treasury with tax collection duties assigned to their agent, the Internal Revenue System. The question though is how do we proceed with reform? What is the best approach to simplify the tax system and make it fair to all citizens? President Bush commissioned an advisory panel in 2005 for Federal Tax Reform, and neither of the two proposals submitted by the panel recommended the Flat Tax.
According to Mitchell (2005) the flat tax would simplify the way taxes are prepared in America. Instead of a myriad of forms and procedures, the flat tax would simplify the taxation process for individuals and businesses alike with a single form for each group. This alone will result in savings in preparation costs which is now estimated at over $100 billion annually while also reducing preparation time. Other benefits of the flat tax include:
Something that is interesting though is for many of the countries that are using a flat tax system they are still coupling deductions, exemptions, and other exceptions to their code, thus making many of these countries complicated flat tax zones, something that runs counter to the whole idea of flat tax. Another side effect to the states reduction of income by a reduced tax rate is the possibility of reductions in welfare programs that benefit the lower class citizens.
“To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States” (Thomas, 2007). This is the beginning of H.R. 25 and S. 1025, better known as the “Fair Tax Act of 2007”. Tax reform is a hot topic these days as everyone sees the taxes they pay to the government and invariably everyone believes they are paying too much in taxes. This has led to twelve legislative proposals that are working their way through the 110th Congress for consideration and possible action.
Of the twelve tax reform proposals, seven are flat tax oriented with a basis on consumption as opposed to our current progressive tax system. Three plans simply outline for tax reform and the last two deal with the elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) while even the flat tax plans call to eliminate the AMT. Let’s look at the highlights of the flat tax plans according to James Bickley (2008) with the Congressional Research Service:
It is interesting to note that of the seven flat tax proposals, six are submitted by Republican’s with only one by the Democrat’s (S. 1111, which really is a simplification of the current tax system and not a true flat tax). The flat tax appears to be a very partisan issue. When we look at H.R. 25 all 70 Representatives that have signed onto the bill as cosponsors are Republicans with the same holding true for S. 1025, S. 1040, and H.R. 1040.
How fair is the current tax system though? As mentioned before, currently the top income bracket, those earning over $349,700, are paying 35 percent on their income to federal taxes. This is a 4.6 percent reduction from the tax rate that was in effect in 2001, which results in a tax savings of $16,086 for those earning the minimum, while those with earnings in the top one percent of American society are seeing an average savings of over $34,000 a year. During this same tax lowering period, the income for the bottom fifth of society raised a mere 0.3 percent ($18.00). This low figure for the lower wage earner is because most of their income is already not taxable because they’re living below the standard deduction line, meaning they are probably living below the poverty leave and their gains are minimal at best (Ginsberg, Lowi, Weir, p654).
One thing to consider is most people, as much as they dislike paying taxes, when they take their own tax scenarios into consideration tend to approve any reduction to their own tax rate without giving much consideration to the effects of others outside of their own tax bracket. For instance, for a middle class income earner, they received a 2.6 percent decline in their federal tax bill of 2001. Because of this, they were less likely to oppose the 4.6 percent decline in the upper classes tax bill because the current bill still provided them with a favorable outcome. As we’re starting to see, “people are happy to have their own taxes reduced and do not think about how such reductions may be exacerbating inequality by giving even bigger tax breaks to the wealthy” (Ginsberg, Lowi, Weir, p654-5).
Some important questions regarding the flat tax is how will the government compensate for the lost revenue that it currently receives from those in the higher tax brackets? Ginsberg, Lowi, and Weir point out that the government receives approximately 43 percent of its operating funds from the individual taxpayer (p 640-1). If we go to a flat tax, most plans still provided a standard deduction, so lower wage earners still will have a favorable tax situation, but now where will the government recoup the funds the upper level earners put into the “system”?
We have to also consider what our tax money is used for. Consider how are some of our current social policy programs being funded? Funds collected from individuals are providing 37 percent of the funding for welfare programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid while we find that corporate taxes have fallen from 17 percent to a current 2005 rate of 13 percent since 1970 (Ginsberg, Lowi, Weir, p 671). These programs are things we must consider and ask what would happen to them if we convert to a flat tax system and how the tax burden of today’s society would actually become a regressive tax system and be nothing more than a BIG tax break for the wealthy in American society.
There are other issues that we should be concerned with in the flat tax system. Will lower income families be able to afford homes when they’ve counted on the interest deduction they would receive under the current system? And what about contributions to charitable organizations, will they decrease also with the loss of deductions? For those working for the government and nonprofit organizations having to include fringe benefits as wages for tax purposes is disheartening and could cause many benefits that people rely on to vanish. For instance, an employer or employee, depending on which tax plan was implemented, would have to pay tax on the value of a company provided employees health care insurance plan, something that is currently exempt from taxation, so if it cost the company five thousand dollars a year for health care benefits for each employee, they’d have to pay tax on that five thousand dollars for each employee.
As we have seen, there are many ideas for tax reform via the flat tax system and they have many similarities too. Most take aim at the estate, gift, and generation-skipping transfer taxes along with the ever despised alternate minimum tax. The term flat tax though appears to have come to symbolize tax reform though more than a true flat tax that is applied to all citizens across the board. Hopefully if a proposal makes its way out of Committee, American’s will take the time to not just to look at how the proposal effects themselves, but to look at the “big picture”. How will these changes affect others above and below me in the tax system and does it seem fair? We must also remember all the services that we as a nation provide and consider how a proposed change is going to affect those programs in the future.
References withheld so anyone doing their own college work will need to go and find them on their own... plus... a little google work plus the use of "turnitin" by a prof... and opps... so please feel free to get some ideas from this... but just be wise in doing so...