What happened to tax reform?

posted at 9:31 am on August 11, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

Any of you who somehow stayed awake through the debates during the presidential elections over the course of … well, of your life… surely remember that one of the hottest topics for both candidates and supporters was tax reform. Both sides were talking about it, though admittedly the Democrats were mostly talking about raising certain taxes to make things “more fair.” (Hey, that’s still “reform” by definition, right?) The Republicans had all sorts of plans, and much of the myriad debates were spent jousting back and forth about who had the best plan to do what they universally agreed must be done, and how soon they would get right on that project after being elected. There was the 9-9-9 plan, the flat tax, the VAT and/or the complete elimination of the IRS and a national consumption tax, among others.

And then the election ended. So too, apparently, did any and all serious discussion among elected officials of doing anything. (Aside from the aforementioned tax increase, of course, which they managed handily.) So what happened? If it was all that important to everyone, how did it just evaporate every single time as soon as the votes were finished being counted? George Will put together a column this weekend where he explains it pretty well.

Every complexity in the 4 million-word tax code was created at the behest of a muscular interest group that tenaciously defends it. Which is why tax simplification would be political reform: Writing lucrative wrinkles into the code is one of the primary ways the political class confers favors. Furthermore, “targeted” tax cuts serve bossy government’s behavior modification agenda: Do what we want you to do and you can keep more of your money. Simplification would reduce the opportunities for the political class to throw its weight around. Hence the flinch from simplification.

This history lesson seems to be offered while being justifiably skeptical of a letter sent from Max Baucus and Orrin Hatch to the rest of their Senate colleagues suggesting that jut maybe it’s time to do more than simply talk about tax reform.

Together with Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) of the House Ways and Means Committee, Baucus and Hatch propose a “blank slate” approach, erasing all deductions and credits — currently worth more than $1 trillion a year — and requiring legislators to justify reviving them. Hence the Baucus-Hatch letter, in response to which almost 70 senators sent more than 1,000 pages of suggestions. Although some often were short on specificity, the submissions were given encrypted identification numbers and locked in a safe, as befits dangerous documents.

It’s a bit early to paint this as simple posturing for the mid-terms, so maybe Baucus and Hatch are serious here. But the fact that the responses had to be anonymous and locked away from public view probably tell us more than enough. How are you going to get enough members of the upper chamber to sign on to any sort of significant, tough changes to the tax system if they won’t even put their name to a suggestion in the open?

The blank slate approach is a pretty good one, though, and might actually prove to be the one place where a stymied and gridlocked legislative body such as the one we “enjoy” now would be useful. To get all of the “wrinkles” Will describes put back in place, you’d need to get a majority of them to agree. With that as the bar to be set, there should be virtually no changes approved. But then, maybe I’m still giving Congress too much credit. It’s possible that they might be so desperate to hold on to the support of those who buy these tax advantages that they would begin heading for the cloak rooms and cutting deals, much the way that Congress has done business since the founding of the nation.

Will it go any further than this letter being published? Don’t bet your chewing gum money on it. But it’s nice to dream about it for a while.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

To get all of the “wrinkles” Will describes put back in place, you’d need to get a majority of them to agree. With that as the bar to be set, there should be virtually no changes approved. But then, maybe I’m still giving Congress too much credit. It’s possible that they might be so desperate to hold on to the support of those who buy these tax advantages that they would begin heading for the cloak rooms and cutting deals, much the way that Congress has done business since the founding of the nation.

You’re giving Congress way too much credit. A mere majority to put each favored group’s exemptions back in is child’s play for Congress.

Steve Eggleston on August 11, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Taxes will continue to rise. End story. The GOP, the only party for lower taxes has lost it’s way, and with that its base.

Bmore on August 11, 2013 at 9:46 AM

The elite has decided that reform must not happen. The complexity of the tax code is a feature, not a bug. If the average person suffers because of it… let them eat cake.

njrob on August 11, 2013 at 9:51 AM

have decided*

njrob on August 11, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Tax reform. Yeah, right.

Might as well sing, “Knick-knack, paddy-whack, give the dog a bone.”

They could do it any time, using one sheet of paper:

“Effective immediately upon signature of the President, all previous laws regarding income tax are rescinded, and the tax rate will be X% of the gross amount of income no matter the level of income nor the source from where it is derived.”

Or something like that.

Liam on August 11, 2013 at 9:54 AM

njrob on August 11, 2013 at 9:51 AM

You were right the first time around – “elite”, like “group”, is singular even if the term encompasses multiple people.

Steve Eggleston on August 11, 2013 at 9:55 AM

Tax reform. Yeah, right.

Might as well sing, “Knick-knack, paddy-whack, give the dog a bone.”

They could do it any time, using one sheet of paper:

“Effective immediately upon signature of the President, all previous laws regarding income tax are rescinded, and the tax rate will be X% of the gross amount of income no matter the level of income nor the source from where it is derived.”

Or something like that.

Liam on August 11, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Nice, simple, but I’d add a phrase limiting the tax to domestically-derived income.

Steve Eggleston on August 11, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Nice, simple, but I’d add a phrase limiting the tax to domestically-derived income.

Steve Eggleston on August 11, 2013 at 9:58 AM

And let rich fat-cat liberal Democrats and RINOs be corrupt overseas, too? No, thanks.

MAKE THEM PAY.

Liam on August 11, 2013 at 10:01 AM

And let rich fat-cat liberal Democrats and RINOs be corrupt overseas, too? No, thanks.

MAKE THEM PAY.

Liam on August 11, 2013 at 10:01 AM

They do pay…to the country they’re doing business in.

May I suggest the Green Room post on the record number of ex-pats renouncing their American citizenship because the IRS is unique in taxing their overseas work.

Steve Eggleston on August 11, 2013 at 10:03 AM

They do pay…to the country they’re doing business in.

May I suggest the Green Room post on the record number of ex-pats renouncing their American citizenship because the IRS is unique in taxing their overseas work.

Steve Eggleston on August 11, 2013 at 10:03 AM

I see your point. Okay, I’ll let politicians off the hook on that one, for sake of real Americans. :-)

Liam on August 11, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Too many people make too much money off the present, bloated tax code. It’s not going anywhere.

CurtZHP on August 11, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Tax reform. Yeah, right.

Might as well sing, “Knick-knack, paddy-whack, give the dog a bone.”

They could do it any time, using one sheet of paper:

“Effective immediately upon signature of the President, all previous laws regarding income tax are rescinded, and the tax rate will be X% of the gross amount of income no matter the level of income nor the source from where it is derived.”

Or something like that.

Liam on August 11, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Nice, simple, but I’d add a phrase limiting the tax to domestically-derived income.

Steve Eggleston on August 11, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Unfortunately, any attempt to do this will inevitably end up like a Constitutional Convention. What you’ll get will be whatever the “idealists”, “reformers”, and “progressives” want.

Constitutional Convention?

“Hey, let’s abolish that nasty Second Amendment! No rational person wants anyone but the government, who they can trust, owning guns!”

Simplify the tax structure?

We decree that effective immediately upon signature of the President, all previous laws regarding income tax are rescinded, and the tax rate will be 100% of the gross amount of income no matter the level of income nor the source from where it is derived.

“We’ll take it all and give it back as programs, ‘adding value’ as we do so! That way, money will only be spent on moral, good and worthwhile things! UTOPIA HAS ARRIVED!!!!”

The only way it can work, ever, is if there is some limit on the actions of the government imposed from the outside, that is, the citizenry. However, you may have noticed that we now have a ruling class which rejects not only purely practical limits on their actions, but indeed the very principle that there should be any limits.

We have a government composed of “enlightened intellectuals” who believe that absolute power equals an absolute ability to “do good”, with them defining what constitutes “good”.

Now, do you really want them rewriting the tax code to suit themselves?

clear ether

eon

eon on August 11, 2013 at 10:17 AM

eon on August 11, 2013 at 10:17 AM

You just couldn’t resist coming along with facts, logic, and reason to ruin what was a nice little fantasy, could you? LOL

Liam on August 11, 2013 at 10:33 AM

eon

eon on August 11, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Actually, eon, while I’m opposed to a Constitutional Convention in general and in principle, it must be stated that such a convention would be called and staffed by State Legislatures (Washington D.C. would be left completely out of it).

With the preponderance of Non Progressive state legislatures at this time there is a very good chance that Progressive Agendas would not prevail.

However, as we’ve learned from several “Conservative” Supreme Court Justices, you cannot always trust people with power, especially anywhere near that swamp by the Potomac called Washington D.C. – so there is also a very good chance your perceived outcome is also possible.

jaydee_007 on August 11, 2013 at 10:35 AM

I just worked on a budget for someone, who graduated and got a job, right out of college because he studied math, physics, computer science. He was hired for 60K, and he is taking home 35K as far as we can figure out. That is 25K to the state and federal government. It does not even include sales taxes, excise on a car from his locality. Another single young person -a self employed entrepreneur- I know is so far behind on paying taxes that they have to pay quarterly taxes for next year, while paying a payment plan to the IRS for last year, and do you know what you can’t do anything right, if they don’t set up your billing…and it takes MONTHS for them to set up your payment plan, all the interest is accruing and they say you are behind in your payments. YES, THAT IRS. This person laments that they cannot -INVEST Mr. President- in more promotional activities for their self employment because they are paying the government in the 28% bracket and even that is killing their advancement. The SE taxes are extraordiary! 15%.

Anecdotal, yes. It breaks my heart. It breaks my heart that the tax on starting up on your own is prohibitive.

It leads to people working under the table, and not claiming any income. In my daily life I meet a lot of women who work under the table watching their friends kids, driving other people’s children around for cash and these are not illegal aliens. You are limited to earning something like $800 in loose change before you need to document your business and pay taxes. You need an EIN number. You need to tell the woman that hires you that she needs to pay your SS. It is all very mean, and the rates are too expensive. A lot of people have one legit business and then they have the CASH work they do on the side, and they justify it saying they are making up for what an unjust government is grabbing of the money they earned.

You work for yourself, you put in the hours, your profit margin is a small percentage point, invest time and money in, get costs back, and profit out, and the government TAKES a higher rate of PURE profit than you make on your efforts. And they are not an investor in your business, they are a detractor from your success, holding you back every month.

Most major industries do not see the profit rate that the federal government gets thru taxation. http://www.forbes.com/sites/sageworks/2011/07/11/10-most-profitable-industries/ Profit rates run from 10% to 20% in the BEST industries (2011 figures). Why should the government take a higher percentage when they are not a partner?

The young in spirit fight on uphill, they want to be somebody, they have dreams, thank God. It is just something to dwell on, the formula for the taxation of one single person leaves them with the same cash to spend as the working poor get in benefits and subsidies. The rest of their paycheck is going to pay others who are milking the system, who don’t try as hard. I think they say it is marriage and or birth of a child that wakes people up to that fact. Or maybe an afternoon spent listening to Rush.

Fleuries on August 11, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Tax Fairness?

Top 1% Garner 16.9% of all income, but pay 36.73% of all income taxes
Top 5% Garner 31.7% of all income, but pay 58.66% of all income taxes
Top 10% Garner 43.2% of all income, but pay 70.47% of all income taxes
Top 25% Garner 65.8% of all income, but pay 87.30% of all income taxes
Top 50% Garner 86.5% of all income, but pay 97.75% of all income taxes
Bottom 50% Garner 13.5% of all income, but pay only 2.25% of all income taxes

Point of note on Capital Gains.

When a sole proprietor owns a business he realizes a profit which is considered his personal income. After the expenses (the cost of doing business) are established, what is left over is his income for his personal livelihood.
In a corporation the Stock Holder is the Owner, and the Profits are distributed to the owners in the form of Dividends which are taxed as Capital Gains. This is because the Corporation’s profits have already been taxed as Corporate Profits and therefor the distribution of such is the distribution of already Taxed Money, making taxation of “Qualified Dividends” a Double Taxation.

Example: A corporation with 100 Stockholders each owning 100 shares of stock (that is 10,000 shares of common stock.)

The Corporation announces a Profit (after all expenses) of $1,000,000.00 to be distributed to the Shareholders.

In a proper situation, each stockholder would receive from the corporation $10,000.00 to be added to their personal income and it would be taxed at the Marginal Rate of 35% or $3,500.00 in taxes would be paid on the Dividend. (subject to personal Deductions etc.)

However, the way it happens now is that the money will first be taxed as Corporate Profit at a rate of 35% thus making the distribution to the owners not $10,000.00 each but $6,500.00 each. That money is then added to their personal income as a Qualified Dividend and taxed at the rate of 15% or $975.00 (with no personal deductions or exemptions)

So the effective tax rate paid by a Shareholder of a corporation under Qualifying Dividends is 44.75%.

That’s higher than the rest of us pay. But because people only see the $975.00 everyone thinks they are getting away with a dodge.

When in fact they are paying more than the rest of us.

jaydee_007 on August 11, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Fleuries on August 11, 2013 at 10:37 AM

I’ve often said that if Tim McVeigh had targeted the IRS instead of the FBI that he’d be doing the talk show circuit today instead of pushing up daisies.

Oldnuke on August 11, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Why can’t we use the new “improper intent” precedent from the gay rulings?

Obviously these carveouts have the improper intent of apply laws unequally.

They should be struck down.

p0s3r on August 11, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Look no further than congress passing a law exempting them selves and their loyal servants from Obamacare for an answer. Soon we would have more wrinkles than we have now due to “special” laws being passed. Reverse procedure?

Herb on August 11, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Herb, your quote has the wrong facts.

Look no further than congress passing a law exempting them selves and their loyal servants from Obamacare for an answer.

The Congress thanks to Grassley passed a law which Amended the ACA to say that Congress would not be exempt from Obama Care. The Congress all voted to say they were not hypocrites. That law stands, it is Obama and Sebelius giving a waiver to the Congress because democrats could not pass a bill in the House to change this, thru executive power he claims he can do this. The Congress has not changed the law, it has been Magically changed.

Obama would like you to think that republicans in the Congress have exempted themselves and want you to have to comply. That is why he won’t take up their bill that extends the privilege Obama has asserted in a waiver for Business compliance on Jan. 1 to individuals. He will blame Congress for these things. Just wait.

Fleuries on August 11, 2013 at 11:19 AM

jaydee_007 on August 11, 2013 at 10:45 AM

You might want to update your example in light of the expiration of the “Bush tax cuts”.

Too many people make too much money off the present, bloated tax code. It’s not going anywhere.

CurtZHP on August 11, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Bingo! I suspect that the new and improved will look much like the old.

teejk on August 11, 2013 at 11:46 AM

The ‘blank slate’ idea was one of the best ideas to come out of Congress, short of replacing the IRS with a ‘Fair’ or ‘Flat’ tax, since the ‘Constitution’ because it eliminated all loop holes and forced politicians to go on the record to introduce and defend any they wanted to add. As predicted, it was killed when politicians, intent on avoiding having to go on record as defending some big donor’s BS tax deduction, demanded a ‘sealed box’ of loop holes still be allowed & that the politicians wanting these select few loop holes remain anonymous.

Those who asked for this should be identified and run out of Washington on a rail as they have just identified who/what is wrong in Washington.

easyt65 on August 11, 2013 at 11:59 AM

jaydee_007 on August 11, 2013 at 10:45 AM

You might want to update your example in light of the expiration of the “Bush tax cuts”.

teejk on August 11, 2013 at 11:46 AM

The Principle holds regardless of the Specific Numbers!

jaydee_007 on August 11, 2013 at 12:04 PM

jaydee_007 on August 11, 2013 at 10:45 AM

The kicker – each and every change in the tax code starting with the 1986 overhaul has increased the percentage of the taxes paid by “the rich”.

Each. And. Every. One.

Steve Eggleston on August 11, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Each. And. Every. One.

Steve Eggleston on August 11, 2013 at 12:33 PM

But it’s for the children and poor minorities and the environment and besides what about global whatchamacallit. And shut up…so there.

Oldnuke on August 11, 2013 at 12:39 PM

eon on August 11, 2013 at 10:17 AM

jaydee_007 on August 11, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Just because the convention that gave us the current Constitution was staffed by representatives of (12 of the 13) states, it does not mean that Congress will have the next one staffed by the states. After all, Congress is the one that gets to (a) decide if there are really 34 states that have petitioned for a Constitutional convention and (b) call for one. Nothing in the last hundred years suggests that Congress will let the states actually set the direction for a convention, and at best the odds of Congress letting the legislatures have a say in ratifying a radical rewrite is even.

Steve Eggleston on August 11, 2013 at 12:42 PM

But it’s for the children and poor minorities and the environment and besides what about global whatchamacallit. And shut up…so there.

Oldnuke on August 11, 2013 at 12:39 PM

And the Middle Government Class!

Or is that “especially”?

Steve Eggleston on August 11, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Steve Eggleston on August 11, 2013 at 12:42 PM

I don’t think you’ll find very many people who think a constitutional convention would be a very good idea. In light of the Obamacare health bill and the current immigration bills imagine what the constitution would look like after today’s crop of politicos got through with it. You’d need a crane to get it into Congress. Entire forests would have to be sacrificed to print just one copy. A new building would have to be built onto the National Archives just to house it.

Oldnuke on August 11, 2013 at 12:50 PM

And the Middle Government Class!

Or is that “especially”?

Steve Eggleston on August 11, 2013 at 12:44 PM

That’s a “Special Protected Class” and they have their own special set of rules.

Oldnuke on August 11, 2013 at 12:53 PM

That’s a “Special Protected Class” and they have their own special set of rules.

Oldnuke on August 11, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Because they’re SPECIAL!

Oldnuke on August 11, 2013 at 12:54 PM

The best way to understand this whole issue is to look at what the government does: it takes money from some people, keeps a bunch of it, and gives the rest to other people.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on August 11, 2013 at 1:29 PM

This history lesson seems to be offered while being justifiably skeptical of a letter sent from Max Baucus and Orrin Hatch to the rest of their Senate colleagues suggesting that jut maybe it’s time to do more than simply talk about tax reform

…they’re going to finally print the tax code… on our toilet paper?

KOOLAID2 on August 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Convene an Article V convention.

Repeal the 16th.

It’s just that simple, folks.

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 2:27 PM

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

As I Said, the STATE LEGISLATURES Decide Yea Nay not the Congress, so it does not matter what the crowd in Washington Wants, the States (3/4′s of them) have to say yes for it to go forward.

jaydee_007 on August 11, 2013 at 2:47 PM

The simplest and most effective form of tax reform we could do is to simply eliminate the corporate income tax. I’m not sure how much of the tax code that would eliminate, but I’m fairly confident it would be more than half of the written pages — even though it’s a fairly small fraction of revenues.

Count to 10 on August 11, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Hey, Obamacare is a Tax!

Wasn’t that enough “reform”.

Like immigration “reform”.

profitsbeard on August 11, 2013 at 4:40 PM

Repeal the 16th.

It’s just that simple, folks.

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Bad idea. The tariffs that would be required to pay for the obligations the federal government has now would crush the economy flat and still fail.
What is actually needed is to place the limits on income tax that were left out of the 16th amendment — like making it personal income only, and banning such gimmicks as deductions and credits. A hard limit on the marginal rate would be a good idea too (say, 20%).

Count to 10 on August 11, 2013 at 4:41 PM

The Principle holds regardless of the Specific Numbers!

jaydee_007 on August 11, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Agreed…but your example makes it look better that it will be. I would take the time to bring it up to date but when I try to describe “double taxation” to most people they ask when my spaceship arrived.

teejk on August 11, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Bad idea. The tariffs that would be required to pay for the obligations the federal government has now would crush the economy flat and still fail.
What is actually needed is to place the limits on income tax that were left out of the 16th amendment — like making it personal income only, and banning such gimmicks as deductions and credits. A hard limit on the marginal rate would be a good idea too (say, 20%).

Count to 10 on August 11, 2013 at 4:41 PM

Question for you:

How did the government function without the sixteenth amendment between 1789 and 1913? Perhaps if the government was hamstrung by a severely reduced revenue stream, it wouldn’t be able to eff up our lives with so many out of control regulations!

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 8:51 PM

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 8:51 PM

Good point. And it’s not like our present bloated regime’ is any better at doing what they regard as “vital functions”. For instance, look at our track record on public health re epidemics (keep in mind that the Center For Disease Control dates only to 1946):

1793
Philadelphia: more than 4,000 residents died from yellow fever.

1832
July–Aug., New York City: over 3,000 people killed in a cholera epidemic.
Oct., New Orleans: cholera took the lives of 4,340 people.

1848
New York City: more than 5,000 deaths caused by cholera.

1853
New Orleans: yellow fever killed 7,790.

1867
New Orleans: 3,093 perished from yellow fever.

1878
Southern states: over 13,000 people died from yellow fever in lower Mississippi Valley.

1916
Nationwide: over 7,000 deaths occurred and 27,363 cases were reported of polio (infantile paralysis) in America’s worst polio epidemic.

1918
March–Nov., nationwide: outbreak of Spanish influenza killed over 500,000 people in the worst single U.S. epidemic.

1949
Nationwide: 2,720 deaths occurred from polio, and 42,173 cases were reported.

1952
Nationwide: polio killed 3,300; 57,628 cases reported.

1981–Dec. 2005:
Total estimated U.S. AIDS cases: 988,376; total estimated AIDS deaths: 550,394 (Centers for Disease Control).

2009
In April, H1N1, also known as Swine Flu, breaks out and quickly spreads to more than 70 countries. The Centers for Disease Control reports that between April and October, 22 million Americans had contracted the virus, 98,000 required hospitalization, and about 3,900 people died from H1N1-related causes.

(Data courtesy infoplease.com)

At a rough guess, NOLA and NYC’s cholera problems were mainly insanitary water supplies. As for NOLA, Philly, and the bottom end of Ol’ Miss in the “yellow jack” department, mosquito eradication worked wonders, once it was suggested in the World War One period. (Then they outlawed DDT, and things began going to hell again.)

Our government is not only too big, expensive, and intrusive, it doeasn’t even do what it tries to do very well. Read Bernard Goldberg’s book Bias to see how badly everyone from CDC on down to the MSM handled the AIDS epidemic. While they were obsessing about “heterosexual AIDS”, which was virtually non-existent, they observed an almost Mafioso-level oath of Omerta re the real threat, to the gay male community, in the name of “political correctness”.

We may never know how many lives might have been saved by a PSA that simply said, “Avoid bareback gay anal intercourse, especially while drunk or stoned“. Which was exactly what the Communicable Disease Ph.Ds at Mayo and Johns Hopkins were saying, if anyone had bothered to ask.

It’s bad enough when you have a government with a structure resembling the mythical Labyrinth in both complexity and malicious intent toward anyone who gets caught up in it. But when it’s incompetent into the bargain, you’re looking at a disaster of Biblical proportions.

It’s not a matter of if it’s going to blow up like Sodom and Gomorrah both; it’s a matter of when.

clear ether

eon

eon on August 11, 2013 at 10:44 PM

It’s not a matter of if it’s going to blow up like Sodom and Gomorrah both; it’s a matter of when.

clear ether

eon

eon on August 11, 2013 at 10:44 PM

It can not be said enough! The premise that government needs our tax dollars is predicated on the premise that our tax dollars pay for constitutionally sound endeavors, an assertion which is patently and provably false.

gryphon202 on August 11, 2013 at 11:41 PM

The Principle holds regardless of the Specific Numbers!

jaydee_007 on August 11, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Agreed…but your example makes it look better that it will be. I would take the time to bring it up to date but when I try to describe “double taxation” to most people they ask when my spaceship arrived.

teejk on August 11, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Just say the example is a Married Couple earning less than $450,000.00 a year and the percentages are correct.

jaydee_007 on August 12, 2013 at 2:16 AM