Hopefully this lax attitude towards taxes will impact the policies they enact

W

WINEX_IHB

New member
First Geithner, then Daschle. Now this:







<a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid={E9A951C9-1578-4513-9773-4700FFE23E08}">http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid={E9A951C9-1578-4513-9773-4700FFE23E08}</a>



White House performance officer withdraws candidacy

By Robert Schroeder

Last update: 10:25 a.m. EST Feb. 3, 2009

Comments: 48

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Nancy Killefer, President Barack Obama's candidate to be the first chief performance officer for the U.S. government, has withdrawn her candidacy, the White House confirmed Tuesday. No reason was given but the Associated Press reported that she made an error on her taxes in 2005. The report comes as Health and Human Services Secretary-designate Tom Daschle is facing scrutiny over his failure to pay some taxes.
 
<blockquote>The Rangel Rule Act of 2009, HR 735



All U.S. taxpayers would enjoy the same immunity from IRS penalties and interest as House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Obama Administration Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, if a bill introduced today by Congressman John Carter (R-TX) becomes law.



Carter, a former longtime Texas judge, today introduced the Rangel Rule Act of 2009, HR 735, which would prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from charging penalties and interest on back taxes against U.S. citizens. Under the proposed law, any taxpayer who wrote ?Rangel Rule? on their return when paying back taxes would be immune from penalties and interest.</blockquote>


Makes this look much better.



I really think at this point they need to discuss an amnesty program for all Americans.



That would be a huge public relations win for the Democrats. Waive all interest and penalties as long as the taxpayer has all of their tax returns filed, then put them on a payment plan.



Anyone not taking advantage of the amnesty program will not be able to reduce the interest or penalties and they will not be eligible for a reduction based on ability to pay in the future.



In other words make it a use it or lose it program.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1233710541]<blockquote>The Rangel Rule Act of 2009, HR 735



All U.S. taxpayers would enjoy the same immunity from IRS penalties and interest as House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Obama Administration Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, if a bill introduced today by Congressman John Carter (R-TX) becomes law.



Carter, a former longtime Texas judge, today introduced the Rangel Rule Act of 2009, HR 735, which would prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from charging penalties and interest on back taxes against U.S. citizens. Under the proposed law, any taxpayer who wrote ?Rangel Rule? on their return when paying back taxes would be immune from penalties and interest.</blockquote>


Makes this look much better.



I really think at this point they need to discuss an amnesty program for all Americans.



That would be a huge public relations win for the Democrats. Waive all interest and penalties as long as the taxpayer has all of their tax returns filed, then put them on a payment plan.



Anyone not taking advantage of the amnesty program will not be able to reduce the interest or penalties and they will not be eligible for a reduction based on ability to pay in the future.



In other words make it a use it or lose it program.</blockquote>


And then we need true tax reform that simplifies the tax code so those that want to comply actually can comply, and a tax rate that is less usurious.
 
I have always been a proponent of a flat tax. Lets say 6% for individuals and 10% for couples. No payroll deductions needed. No need to file a return. If you are not self employed. Employers withold either 6% if single and 10% if married. The numbers may need adjusted.



The IRS would only be needed to police the self employed and corportations. The downside is it would put CPA's for the most part out of business. It would also require the IRS downsize. Not to mention what it would do to all of the tax preparation software companies.



There can still be a bottom as far as who pays in. So lets say you make below x amount a year then no tax is paid. No rebates for people that don't pay.



No cap either if you make 1 billion dollars you pay 6% if you are single or 10% if you are married.



Finally the IRS needs to stop acting like the Mafia with Interest and Penalties. I have met loan sharks with better terms then the IRS.
 
Econ 101 - If you want to discourage an activity, tax it. If you want to encourage it, subsidize it. Which makes you wonder why we want to discourage people from earning a lot of money and why we penalize them (tax on interest and dividend income and capital gains) for saving. Therefore, I've always preferred a consumption tax to a flat tax. The biggest advantages are that it promotes saving and is capable of taxing the underground economy. The only real downside is that it would require the Constitution to be amended (to strike the 16th amendment and replace it with a corollary supporting a national sales tax as opposed to an income tax)



But it would be hard to come up with a system that is worse than what we currently have.
 
[quote author="optimusprime" date=1233712415]Add Tom Daschle to the ...ahhh on second thought no thanks since you need to see my taxes lol



Getting laughable.</blockquote>


You want laughable?



The head of the Treasury (Geithner) doesn't pay income taxes.



Daschle (the nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services) not only didn't declare all of his income to the IRS, but when he amended his tax returns, he didn't pay the medicare taxes on the money he tried to cheat the government out of. ( <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJJfV9ZZNi.4&refer=home">http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJJfV9ZZNi.4&refer=home</a> )



Well, it turns out that our old friend Marion Barry <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012803487.html">failed to file his tax forms</a> again. Obama hasn't nominated a new head of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. Wouldn't it be hilarious if Barry is tapped?
 
Hey trrenter...what do those of us who paid our taxes properly get under this scheme? If we're letting everyone who didn't off the hook...can the responsible folks at least get a lollipop? (of course if you make over 75,000k you only get a fraction of the lollipop and if you make over 87,500k you are left with just the stick, aka the shaft).
 
[quote author="4walls4me" date=1233715343]Hey trrenter...what do those of us who paid our taxes properly get under this scheme? If we're letting everyone who didn't off the hook...can the responsible folks at least get a lollipop? (of course if you make over 75,000k you only get a fraction of the lollipop and if you make over 87,500k you are left with just the stick, aka the shaft).</blockquote>


This is why it would be a public relations win. Many people behind on their taxes can actually qualify to get their penalties waived at the bare minimum. Interest is harder to get waived but it can be done. A late taxpayer can also get thier taxes reduced if the IRS deems they cannot pay the full tax bill even harder to do but still possible. Taxpayers can also go into a collection bucket as "uncollectible". Meaning they owe but they can't pay without causing hardship. (not sure how you can qualify for that program. After 10 years the taxes will be dismissed.



So what I am saying is since the IRS does it now on a case by case bases just run a short amnesty program and see what taxes shake free.



The taxpayers that have paid on time get nothing. Just like we always do. Maybe we can disqualify any American that has unpaid back taxes from any of the stimulus checks.



What do you think all those companies that advertise they can reduce your tax bill do?
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1233718463]



What do you think all those companies that advertise they can reduce your tax bill do?</blockquote>


Those companies over charge. That is what they do.



95% of the time those companies are not able to reduce your tax bill. That is advertising in order to gain clients.
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1233721764][quote author="trrenter" date=1233718463]



What do you think all those companies that advertise they can reduce your tax bill do?</blockquote>


Those companies over charge. That is what they do.



95% of the time those companies are not able to reduce your tax bill. That is advertising in order to gain clients.</blockquote>


Awgee what I meant was "what do you think they TRY to do"



They try to reduce your tax bill by using the avenues that already exist today. They may not be successful but there is already provisions for doing what I am proposing which is to waive the interest and penalties.



Most of the reductions these companies claim are actually just filing amended returns. They usually use somone that didn't file taxes so the IRS did it for them with no deductions.



File the return with deductions and you usually reduce the tax bill by a good bit.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1233712542]Econ 101 - If you want to discourage an activity, tax it. If you want to encourage it, subsidize it. Which makes you wonder why we want to discourage people from earning a lot of money and why we penalize them (tax on interest and dividend income and capital gains) for saving. Therefore, I've always preferred a consumption tax to a flat tax. The biggest advantages are that it promotes saving and is capable of taxing the underground economy. The only real downside is that it would require the Constitution to be amended (to strike the 16th amendment and replace it with a corollary supporting a national sales tax as opposed to an income tax)



But it would be hard to come up with a system that is worse than what we currently have.</blockquote>


Wouldn't a consumption tax create a black market of cheaper untaxed goods? You'd end up replacing the IRS with an enforcement arm to police the taxing of all transactions.
 
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1233723811][quote author="WINEX" date=1233712542]Econ 101 - If you want to discourage an activity, tax it. If you want to encourage it, subsidize it. Which makes you wonder why we want to discourage people from earning a lot of money and why we penalize them (tax on interest and dividend income and capital gains) for saving. Therefore, I've always preferred a consumption tax to a flat tax. The biggest advantages are that it promotes saving and is capable of taxing the underground economy. The only real downside is that it would require the Constitution to be amended (to strike the 16th amendment and replace it with a corollary supporting a national sales tax as opposed to an income tax)



But it would be hard to come up with a system that is worse than what we currently have.</blockquote>


Wouldn't a consumption tax create a black market of cheaper untaxed goods? You'd end up replacing the IRS with an enforcement arm to police the taxing of all transactions.</blockquote>
Is there a hidden market for untaxed goods in California? Has the CHP been turned into an army of tax collecting patrolmen? Do you even stop to think about what you are typing?



My main reason for opposing a flat tax, sales tax, or any "revamping" of the tax code is that it requires that politicians make the decisions, which will not lead to an "either this or that" choice, but rather a "this AND that" solution.
 
Do any of you guys own a business ?

Ever had to deal with the California State Board of Equalization ?

Ever survived an Audit with these sharks ?

You had better have EVERY invoice. EVERY tracking number to prove

the transaction was exempt from the State Sales Tax.



Yuck. "Consumption Tax". Totally sucks

if your the business collecting and paying that tax. For large accounts

like Car Dealers they literally just suck it out of your account the next week

if you dont file the MONTHLY return. Lets just put more burden on the businessman

shall we.



It should be:

Flat Tax. NO EXEMPTIONS. PERIOD. Simple and sweet. Percentage of Net Income.

Problem is. It eliminates the bulk of the IRS and CPA`s. Tragic.

The rich couldn`t munipulate the system. Tragic.
 
[quote author="Oscar" date=1233726421][quote author="green_cactus" date=1233723811][quote author="WINEX" date=1233712542]Econ 101 - If you want to discourage an activity, tax it. If you want to encourage it, subsidize it. Which makes you wonder why we want to discourage people from earning a lot of money and why we penalize them (tax on interest and dividend income and capital gains) for saving. Therefore, I've always preferred a consumption tax to a flat tax. The biggest advantages are that it promotes saving and is capable of taxing the underground economy. The only real downside is that it would require the Constitution to be amended (to strike the 16th amendment and replace it with a corollary supporting a national sales tax as opposed to an income tax)



But it would be hard to come up with a system that is worse than what we currently have.</blockquote>


Wouldn't a consumption tax create a black market of cheaper untaxed goods? You'd end up replacing the IRS with an enforcement arm to police the taxing of all transactions.</blockquote>
Is there a hidden market for untaxed goods in California? Has the CHP been turned into an army of tax collecting patrolmen? Do you even stop to think about what you are typing?



My main reason for opposing a flat tax, sales tax, or any "revamping" of the tax code is that it requires that politicians make the decisions, which will not lead to an "either this or that" choice, but rather a "this AND that" solution.</blockquote>


That's why a consumption tax would require an amendment to the Constitution. The 16th amendment reads:

<em>

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.</em>



Change the Constitution to replace the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes with phrasing that does the same for purchase of specified goods/services and your fears are put to rest.
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1233731500]Errors? Geithner and Daschle said their taxes owed were due to errors.</blockquote>


Yes the erroneously under reported income.
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1233727909]Do any of you guys own a business ?

Ever had to deal with the California State Board of Equalization ?

Ever survived an Audit with these sharks ?

You had better have EVERY invoice. EVERY tracking number to prove

the transaction was exempt from the State Sales Tax.



Yuck. "Consumption Tax". Totally sucks

if your the business collecting and paying that tax. For large accounts

like Car Dealers they literally just suck it out of your account the next week

if you dont file the MONTHLY return. Lets just put more burden on the businessman

shall we.



It should be:

Flat Tax. NO EXEMPTIONS. PERIOD. Simple and sweet. Percentage of Net Income.

Problem is. It eliminates the bulk of the IRS and CPA`s. Tragic.

The rich couldn`t munipulate the system. Tragic.</blockquote>


Did we actually agree on something? What a crazy day.



Flat tax must be the right idea then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top