Taro T Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 The tax reform panel made it's recommendations yesterday. Link Does anyone see this as even being a starter? My guess is that the recommendations are total non-starters as I expect they will cause far more more wailing and gnashing of teeth over lost deductions than they will gain fans from the AMT elimination. It also appears they fell into the "revenue neutrality" fallacy. Increased tax revenues tend to accompany lowered tax rates. This plan does very little lowering of rates as it tries to make up for "lost" AMT revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 I would have to read the actual proposal, but from what I see here this plan is ridiculous. You cannot have a half-azzed approach to reforming the tax code. If you are going to do it, do it right. If you are going to simplify it, simplify it in such a way as to prevent it from getting more complex again in the future. This will never make it into law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 People will never go for it. All they are hearing is "lost deductions". They are not even acknowledging the additions of items that HELP the taxpayer, such as the ability to pay for medical insurance in pre-tax dollars. I applaud the effort to change the BS tax system we have here, but I agree that its still a little raw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 It's a great plan to ensure that Northeast states vote Dem in the mid-term elections (which puzzles me on why Dems are against it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 I've said it before and I'll say it again. A "simple" tax code takes away Congress' power to punish this one and favor that one. Without that, nobody would even bother to send them a Christmas card, let alone fork over campaign contributions and transporting them to Hawaii to discuss corn subsidies in Ohio or sugar subsidies in Louisana. Yes, they could continue to regulate, but lobbyists and their employers would go public big time about this and that. Congress can hurt 'em with regs, but that's nothing compared to hurting them with taxation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Would this be a feasible tax reform plan? Everyone pays 10 percent. No deductions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Would this be a feasible tax reform plan? Everyone pays 10 percent. No deductions. 494112[/snapback] Too low to be realistic. Raise it to 15% to 20% and then you're in the right ballpark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Read this What has me leery is that DeLay backs it and he never does anything for the good of the little guy. But perhaps he's just pandering, figuring this won't ever come to pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Read this What has me leery is that DeLay backs it and he never does anything for the good of the little guy. But perhaps he's just pandering, figuring this won't ever come to pass. 494154[/snapback] It's the best tax proposal I've ever heard. That should be enough to ensure it will never happen. Compare it to the Tax Reform Panel's suggestions, then read Stuck in Cincy's post again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Read this What has me leery is that DeLay backs it and he never does anything for the good of the little guy. But perhaps he's just pandering, figuring this won't ever come to pass. 494154[/snapback] I just finished reading Boortz/Linder's book on this and I am very impressed. I think they need to work on how they impliment the prebate part of it, though. Otherwise, I fully support this plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Would this be a feasible tax reform plan? Everyone pays 10 percent. No deductions. 494112[/snapback] I'd settle for simply eliminating the 10% of the loopholes and deductions that give the worst ROI. I mean, as complex as the tax code is, there's got to be a certain number of loopholes and deductions that are so little-used and error-prone that they amount to damned little returned to the taxpayer but incur significant cost to the government via auditing and enforcement. Identify and eliminate that BS, and you'll spend less to collect more without adversely impacting the average American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 At first, I figured that the first object of the plan was to screw the Blue states, since it eliminates the deduction for state and local taxes. But after looking at it further I feel that it is a vast improvement over the current complex system. At least it gets rid of the dreaded AMT and cuts down on the myriad deductions and tax avoidance schemes. I also like the simplification of the Retirement & Education savings. Education savings especially has become a complex calculation to see which type of account benefits you. This simplifies all of it. There will be winners and losers under any tax reform plan, but we will just have to suck it up in the name of simplifying things. Unfortunately, I don't feel that it has much of a chance of passing once the politicians get involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts