Published: Thursday, May 23 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
"No longer will there be bitter disputes between the so-called one percent
and the rest of us."A national sales tax replacing income taxes
would be a huge tax increase for most Americans, and a huge cut for the 1%.
Sales tax? Yeah, give the rich tax cuts while increasing taxes on the poor and
middle class. That'll help us...Oh, and by the way...
someones' gotta collect that sales tax... and this changes absolutely
nothing with regards to the current situation anyway since switching from income
tax to sales tax doesnt stop the notion of tax exempt groups from existing.
This is not the time for "knee-jerk" reactions to the I.R.S. scandal.
Before taking drastic measures, we must first demand full accountablity of those
in the I.R.S. who have abused citizens of the United States. We must demand
full accountability of the administration that allowed those abuses to continue
for more than a year. We must prosecute those who use the I.R.S. for political
purposes.After all who have participated in the I.R.S. scandal have
been prosecuted, then we should look at the tax system and change it so that our
economy can grow. I agree with Frank that we need a flat tax.
Whether that flat tax is levied via a national sales tax or whether it is levied
as a percentage of income doesn't matter to me, but, I would prefer a
national sales tax because that would encourage saving money instead of spending
money. Money in a savlngs account helps the economy grow when the bank lends
that money to grow businesses.
I suppose we should 'dismantle'; the Military for their
scandals,Congress [including Republicans] for their scandals, Utah
State AG John Swallow for his scandal, etc., etc.The IRS needs
to be tweeked, and the problems fixed -- not dismantled.
Yeah, dismantle government! That's the real (and really simplistic) answer!
Why not just work constantly for honest and even handed government?
This area of the tax code is long overdue for overhaul. The law states
501(c)(4) must EXCLUSIVELY be involved social welfare activites. But since the
1950's the Treasury regulations re-interpreted "exclusive" to mean
"primarily" which has come to mean up to 49.9% of activity conducted by
501(c) (4) can be political. The Citizens United decision has dramatically
increased the use of this statute for political means. The Citizens United
decision stated "the Government may regulate corporate political speech
through disclaimer and disclosure requirements," however 501 (c) (4)s have
provided a curtain of secrecy to the public knowing the sources supporting
various political agendas. Utahns and Conservatives may see no problem with
keeping large donors secret-- until/unless a hotly contested measure within UT
grabs national attention and large influxes of ads etc come flowing from outside
UT.The campaign finance system in the U.S. is eroding the
public's faith and trust in elections. At a minimum, disclosure should be
required of those injecting large amts into campaigns. Re:MikeRichardsYou do realize that R-Darrell Issa has known about
and been in contact with the investigators since July 2012.
"This is not the time for "knee-jerk" reactions to the I.R.S.
scandal. Before taking drastic measures, we must first demand full accountablity
of those in the I.R.S. who have abused citizens of the United States."
Agreed. We probably disagree however in that it seems pretty clear by now what
top officials knew and when. However, while it appears even amongst many
Republicans that these officials didn't necessarily break the law they
certainly committed malfeasance in their jobs and should be held accountable.
What we don't know is who at the operational or ground level started this.
BTW, a number of liberal groups came under the same scrutiny as the conservative
groups. The other telling feature here is that none of the major conservative
or liberal players were targeted. So if it was a political tactic instigated
from the top of the administration it certainly didn't match the political
skills they demonstrated elsewhere in winning two general elections against all
A national sales tax alone will not raise enough revenue unless the rate is very
high (say 40%-ish). This is why most countries in the world have both an income
tax and a consumption tax (like a VAT or GST).
Dismantle to GOP. They have had enough conspiracies and bad ideas to
fill many lifetimes. Dismantle them. It's not like they are proposing
anything anyway. They are merely just obstructing governing to make things hard
for the President.
The retail sales tax is a terrible way to finance government. It is
not equally applied to products. It is applied to the retail price paid for the
product. Retail prices can vary greatly in the same town. The alternative to
allowing them to vary is called price fixing. It is not applied to
all consumption. Not to business, not to charity, not to used products, not to
most services, not to investments, not to speculation, not to capital gains, not
to inheritances, not to foreign products. Collecting the tax adds
cost to the product and not all the tax collected is remitted to the government.
Unscrupulous people use sales tax revenue to bribe government
employees by promises of relocation of the business or residence. There are probably even more and better reasons to not use Sales Tax for
The proposal for a flat tax on every sort of income without exception and
without deduction in the best way to make support for the government fair and
honest. And easy to collect. Every penny of outgoing money from a
business is income to somebody. If the business was required to pay an amount
equal to the flat rate on every outgoing payment, then everyone is paying, the
owner, the supplier, the employee, and even the foreign worker and owner no
matter where they are. No more individual tax returns. No more tax year. The tax is paid to the government at the same time as paid
to the receiver. No more taxes on business income retained. Only
the outgoing money is taxed.
@ UltraBob"Every penny of outgoing money from a business is income to
somebody." This is patently false. If I transfer money to a bank as a
temporary investment of my working capital, the money transferred to the bank is
not income to anybody. If I lay down a bid (say $1 million) on the purchase of a
property, my deposit is not income to anybody (because if I am not the winning
bidder my money will be refunded). You would need a complicated system of rules
to prevent abuses and unintended consequences resulting from this type of tax
system.Let's say I buy one airplane for $1 billion from Airbus
(taking delivery in France) and your flat tax rate is 15%. Who ultimately
incurs the $150 million in flat tax and why should anyone pay $150 million in
tax when nobody is earning $150 million profit on the plane? What if I buy 10
planes? This type of tax system punishes capital transactions and this one
reason is why we don't see it in the world.
Nice to see you back in the funny pages, Frank.
Ahh, conservatives smell an opening and another chance to shift more capital to
If you buy an investment from a bank the bank doesn’t sit on that money.
It is paid out to others as wages, dividends, return on investments, etc. Your
business would pay the flat rate on the money you give the bank. The bank would
pay the flat rate on their payouts. When you “lay down a
bid” you are buying something called a “right”, your business
would pay the flat rate on the money you pay out. We assume that the right has
the value that you pay for it. If your bid money is returned to you is of no
consequence to your business as income to the business is not taxed. If you
purchase the property your business would pay the flat rate on the purchase
price minus the bid money.If you buy an airplane from an American
business, your business would pay the flat rate on the amount paid. There is no
tax if purchased from a foreign business, you are free to buy and sell in the
foreign world as you please. If you sell the airplane, the purchaser must pay
the flat rate, because you are an American business.
I have a better idea...Dismantle the GOP.They
haven't had much interest in actually governing for at least a decade now.
Their party is already headed to the junk heap. Lets help them, shall we?
Truthseeker,If what you say is true, then that should seal
Obama's fate. Why did the Administration NOT correct errors caused by the
I.R.S. when it knew about since at least July 2012?Obama claimed
that he knew nothing about the I.R.S. violating the law, but you said that
Darrell Issa knew about the abuse since July 2012. Are you telling us that
Republicans were privy to I.R.S. abuses and that Democrats knew nothing about
those abuses? Are you telling us that Darrell Issa was the only person in
America who knew about that abuse? Are you telling us that no one inside the
I.R.S. knew that the I.R.S. was actively using its power against Republicans?
Are you telling us that using the acing director taking the 5th Amendment
against prosecution was justification for abusing the rights of Americans?What you said shows that Obama had better resign rather than face
@ UltraBobCongratulations, you have just put Boeing, Lockheed
Martin, and every other US manufacturer out of business by making foreign
manufactured goods cheaper than U.S. manufactured goods (by the amount of the
flat tax). In addition, you have destroyed the U.S. commercial banking business
by taxing (and thereby eliminating) overnight deposits from U.S. corporations.
This is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. So
you're saying, if I (and a group of investors) decide to start an small
airline and buy a few $1 billion airplanes from Boeing, we have to pay a tax
totaling $450 million (assuming a 15% tax rate) before we've even sold our
first ticket (but if we bought the same planes from Airbus we would pay zero)?
@UltraBobI guess the more important questions, UltraBob, are why
would any foreign buyer purchase a US built airplane (from Boeing, Lockheed
etc.) if it is going to cost so much more than the same plane sold by a foreign
vendor, and how are you going to force foreign buyers (with no U.S presence) to
collect and remit the tax to the United States when they buy form U.S.
re:MikeRichardsI realize this is going to be a futile exercise but here
goes:You could search the internet "IRS Inspector General
Report" and read the report yourself.#1 Sometime late in 2010,
IRS employees started using an "expanded" criteria which resulted in
more scrutiny of conservative applications. The IG report stated:
"Specifically, only first-line management approved references to the Tea
Party in the BOLO listing criteria before it was implemented. As a result,
inappropriate criteria remained in place for more than 18 months." In June
2011, the "Director" became aware of the expanded criteria and directed
the criteria to be changed. In Jan. 2012 the employees reverted back to the
"expanded" criteria. When discovered again, the Director required any
BOLO changes to be approved at the executive level. #2 The
Inspector General of the Treasury launched an investigation in June-July 2012
and notified the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, R-Darrell Issa with
periodic updates. #3 WH staff became aware of the IRS investigation
in 4/2013 and didn't pass the information to Obama. The IG investigation
was not completed and released until 5/14/2013.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments