Debate topic:Federal Tax Policy

[southsider2k5]

Tax policy

 

What sort of taxation methodology do you favor? A national income tax, (if so do you favor progressive, regressive, or flat) A value added tax, or a national sales tax? Tell us why your preferred method is better than what we have, or how you would seek to improve our current federal taxation system, if you do indeed agree with it?

 

 

 

 

 

*********************************************************************************************

 

--Each candidate can make one initial position post in each thread, of NO MORE THAN 500 words.

--Each candidate also gets to respond to ONE other candidate's post IN EACH of those threads, with the same 500 word limit.

--The candidate who was responded to then gets ONE MORE POST to retort (to each response/question, so that may be more than once in the same thread), again, limit 500 words.

--The threads will remain open until Sunday night late, at which time I will close them (the election is Tuesday). This should give people 5 or 6 days, which should be plenty of time.

--ONLY CANDIDATES SHOULD POST IN THE ACTUAL DEBATE THREADS.

[sox4lifeinPA]

The tax issue is a nightmare to so many consumers. Tax “do-it-yourself-ers” lie awake at night anticipating the IRS agents breaking down their doors because of one omission on their tax return. Individuals have to save every last receipt in order to fully justify receiving the money owed to them by the government. Why does it have to be this way?

 

The first initiative I would set for regarding taxes is to make the reporting easier. I would research tax return agencies, accountants, and the consumer on how to make the process better. If the federal government is holding on to your money, why can’t we make it a little easier for you to get it back?

 

My overall agenda regarding taxes is keep them low and keep them fair. I believe that individuals in low income situations who are attempting to go to school should be rewarded with tax credits. I believe that it is the social responsibility of higher wage income recipients to bear a higher percentage of tax burdens. I believe that money should not be taxed as it is passed between generations. I also believe in reducing income taxes and leaning more towards a low federal sales tax. I think social security deductions should be raised to meet the growing retiree population.

 

I also believe it would be in the best interest of the nation for my advising tax attorneys, economists, and accountants to have a little more voice in this issue than simply my opinion. However, in order for the federal government to better serve its citizens, I believe reexamining the reporting process, lowering of income taxes, and implementing a national sales tax are the most important issues to be dealt with immediately.

 

Thank you for taking the time to consider my initiatives on tax reform in America.

 

PA

[Texsox]

I really dislike repeating myself so often is this forum. Allow me to summarize. We have forgotten why we pay taxes. We pay taxes to run the government. To provide the goods and services that allow millions of people, spread out over millions of acres, to live in safety and security with a high standard of living.

 

President Reagan, who I have a lot of respect for, found the perfect strategy to be wildly popular. Give the elected leaders all the money they want to fund programs and return home a hero, and also give the taxpayers back some money in their taxes. Who wouldn't want free stuff? Problem is we eventually have to pay all this back with interest. Spending goes unchecked when no one has to pay for things.

 

Truly lower taxes comes from lower government spending, not increased borrowing. Lower government spending comes from making the leadership responsible for how they are spending the money. Only through a balanced budget is that accountability realized.

 

I favor a simplification of our personal income tax system. It should not take a trained accountant to file the average Americans personal income tax.

[NorthSideSox72]

This is indeed an important topic, and I'd like to offer a concrete, affirmative plan...

 

Ideally, a national sales tax (along with state and local) is the way to go. Sales tax, versus income tax, allows for numerous advantages. One big one is that the IRS can be substantially reduced in size and scale, since we no longer would need as many of the archaic, labyrinthine tax codes and exemptions in the present books, or as much government overhead. Enforcement mechanisms can be focused on businesses alone, not both businesses and individuals, making the agency more effective and less costly. In terms of the effect on the economy generally, there is another positive – giving the working public more cash in hand and facing larger costs for non-essential items, they will tend to save and invest more money. This ultimately leads to lower costs to government in the way of welfare, and lower costs to financial firms in the way of defaults and bankruptcies.

 

There is one major negative shift that would occur in the economy, however – in the short run, people’s purchases of non-essential items would drop. This would of course have a negative effect on many businesses. This effect is cancelled out in the long run though, as people are later able to pull more money out due to returns from savings and investments, and lower payments of interest against revolving debt. So what do we do to address the short term problem? The billions of dollars saved by reducing the IRS to a fraction of its current size, along with differential gains in any drops seen in welfare costs, can be used as temporary sales tax relief to businesses in those markets. This makes a neat transition economically.

 

One other note – with sales tax, we do still have the opportunity to make the tax structure progressive (rather than flat, or in some people’s view of sales tax, regressive). Like some states already do (MN and CO come to mind), the tax rates on clothing, store-bought food and other essentials can be lower than that of other items. This means that the relative tax burden is lowered for lower income families. Costs like rent/mortgages, utilities, and other non-taxed items will remain non-taxed and, because the income needed to pay those costs is now not taxed in their paychecks, the effective tax on those is reduced.

 

This is of course an ideal scenario, and any transition to a national sales tax and away from income tax would take decades in the current political environment (if it ever worked at all). But it is absolutely key that any increase in sales tax be met with an at least equal decrease in income tax – this is where Congress would need to be pressured and exposed to public scrutiny. Such a change cannot be used as a way to increase the overall tax burden.

Edited November 30, 2006 by NorthSideSox72

[Rex Kickass]

I believe in taxation that is progressive rather than regressive. Every American should be able to assume a specific amount of income will be guaranteed tax free from the government each year. I propose that the first 25,000 dollars earned per year be made tax free. Beyond that, I feel that the highest marginal tax rate should be capped at 35%.

 

Further, I feel that the US should explore methods of taxation that are consumption based - especially when it comes to helping to acheive a goal of energy independence. As such, I propose extending tax credits to those purchasing hybrid and ULEV vehicles. I also propose creating a federal sales tax for new cars based on energy efficiency. The lower the efficiency, the higher the rate of sales tax. Further, I feel that those who utilize our public transportation networks should be rewarded as well by being able to write off the cost of a monthly or yearly bus/train pass on Amtrak, commuter rail/bus or city transportation systems.

[Gregory Pratt]

I would raise taxes as necessary and as approved by Congress. But I wouldn't raise one penny more than necessary and I'd only raise if spending cuts alone can't help balance budgets.

[NorthSideSox72]

I believe in taxation that is progressive rather than regressive. Every American should be able to assume a specific amount of income will be guaranteed tax free from the government each year. I propose that the first 25,000 dollars earned per year be made tax free. Beyond that, I feel that the highest marginal tax rate should be capped at 35%.

 

Further, I feel that the US should explore methods of taxation that are consumption based - especially when it comes to helping to acheive a goal of energy independence. As such, I propose extending tax credits to those purchasing hybrid and ULEV vehicles. I also propose creating a federal sales tax for new cars based on energy efficiency. The lower the efficiency, the higher the rate of sales tax. Further, I feel that those who utilize our public transportation networks should be rewarded as well by being able to write off the cost of a monthly or yearly bus/train pass on Amtrak, commuter rail/bus or city transportation systems.

Rex, I've decided to send my one question in this thread to you...

 

First, I must say, I agree with your thought on consumption-based taxes. More use fees in general as part of revenue, putting the burden on users of resources, is a positive thing.

 

But I would like some clarification. You mention a new federal sales tax on cars, based on efficiency, which has merit. But its a new tax. Are you comfortable increasing the tax burden overall by adding this tax, and further by extending the larger credits for hybrids? Is the sales tax to cover the credits? I am just trying to determine if you are talking about a tax increase (in the overall sense), or a tax rebalancing in favor of those buying "green". And as that pertains to your overall tax policy, do you feel that (barring national emergency) the current overall tax burden on the people as a whole is adequate, or do you see need to increase or decrease it?

[Rex Kickass]

Rex, I've decided to send my one question in this thread to you...

 

First, I must say, I agree with your thought on consumption-based taxes. More use fees in general as part of revenue, putting the burden on users of resources, is a positive thing.

 

But I would like some clarification. You mention a new federal sales tax on cars, based on efficiency, which has merit. But its a new tax. Are you comfortable increasing the tax burden overall by adding this tax, and further by extending the larger credits for hybrids? Is the sales tax to cover the credits? I am just trying to determine if you are talking about a tax increase (in the overall sense), or a tax rebalancing in favor of those buying "green". And as that pertains to your overall tax policy, do you feel that (barring national emergency) the current overall tax burden on the people as a whole is adequate, or do you see need to increase or decrease it?

 

I should be pretty clear here. I do not necessarily think that the overall tax burden on Americans should increase. That being said, I do think there are programs in our country that are underfunded and will remain so until we create streams of revenue dedicated to fully funding those projects. Among those include mass transit.

 

I feel that we can further refine our tax policy by rewarding those citizens who choose to become good neighbors in our society. In situations where consumption of natural resources is an issue, we can definitely use our tax code to do such. This tax would apply to vehicles with less than 15,000 miles on it only. When an American makes a choice to purchase a new vehicle, there are a variety of different options, and at each level of vehicle - from subcompact to SUV, there are more ecologically sensitive choices than others. And choices that will help the US reduce consumption. A consumption sales tax based on the efficiency of new vehicles, will not only encourage Americans to buy more ecologically sensitive cars, but the auto industry to focus their efforts on more ecologically sensitive cars.

[NorthSideSox72]

TOPIC CLOSED.