Carroll perpetuates flat-tax myths
Vincent Carroll’s column on the wonders of the flat income tax (“A flat tax, anyone?” On Point, March 28) perpetuate three common flat-tax myths.
Myth 1. The flat tax is “easy to calculate” vs. the current multiple-rate tax system. All the time and complexity preparing individual income taxes lies in determining how much of your income is subject to tax, not whether the taxable amount is subject to a single rate or one of several rates. The only way to make the system “easy” is to eliminate all or most of the tax deductions, income adjustments, etc. That can be done with the current system.
Myth 2. It’s fairer. When rates flatten to a single bracket some people gain, some lose. When Colorado flattened its state income tax to 5 percent, lower-income taxpayers paying 3 percent ended up paying 2 percentage points more in taxes, while wealthier taxpayers paying 8 percent paid 3 percentage points less. Under a federal flat tax of 19 percent, the wealthiest will see their tax rate cut nearly in half.
Myth 3: Taxpayers will pay less in taxes than under the current system. First, see Myth 2. Second, if taxpayers overall pay less, that’s less revenue for government. That means either a significant cut in government services (the main goal of the flat tax), or, more likely, mounting deficits our children and grandchildren will eventually have to pay for.
Bruce W. Most, Denver
I am a flat tax and/or national sales tax (not European VAT) advocate; because for every exemption, deduction, credit, and other accounting term one comes up with to make the system "fair" actually makes it less fair.
I would be more than glad to give up my mortgage interest and property tax deductions for a fair system. Owning a home will always be a better deal than renting regardless of the tax system.
The current system encourages cheating at worst, errors at best. How much money is estimated to be lost due to tax fraud and other errors? I've heard it's in the billions. How much money is wasted to fund the operations of the IRS, which should be nothing more than a simple collection agency? As for H & R Block, tax lawyers & accountants, and tax software; they are parasites that evolved due to our convoluted tax code, and they produce nothing of real value to the economy. Since steel workers and textile workers had to find new ways to make a living when their industries disappeared, let the tax leeches do the same thing.
Also, the current system essentially subsidizes the poor with the progressive tax rates. No doubt a lot of poor people think a refund is manna from heaven; when in reality it is a government subsidy check. The wealthy became wealthy through innovation and hard work, and the disappearing middle class needs relief in order to rebuild themselves.
Don't confuse a national sales tax with the European VAT (Value Added Tax), which is an accounting nightmare foisted on manufacturers and businesses to determine how much value was added to a product from raw materials to finished product.
A flat tax is income based, and a national sales tax is consumption based. Each by itself is is fair, and a combination of the two would be fair too.
Lastly, the IRS likes to lie to taxpayers that the average time to fill out your tax forms is 3 - 10 hours as I recall. I don't know about you; but I'm tired of wasting my life filling out mindless forms for mindless bureaucrats. I have better things to do with that time, I'm sure you do too.
Posted by QBT on April 12, 2007 11:37 AMQBT,
The letter writer cites percentages. All your reply does is offer another "stick-it-to-the-poor" argument for getting a fat "subsidy" for the already undertaxed wealthy.
"Fairness" is, of course, in the "mind of the writer"; but poor as it is, the current tax system outdoes your porposals by miles!
Posted by Old Grouch on April 12, 2007 11:49 AMQBT,
The letter writer cites percentages. All your reply does is offer another "stick-it-to-the-poor" argument for getting a fat "subsidy" for the already undertaxed wealthy.
"Fairness" is, of course, in the "mind of the writer"; but poor as it is, the current tax system outdoes your porposals by miles!
Posted by Old Grouch on April 12, 2007 11:51 AMTaxes are the primary tool used in social engineering. If we like a behavior, use tax deductions and credits to encourage it. If don't like a behavior, tax it more. If all you wanted was to collect sufficient revenue to run the government, would you really need 5,614 pages of code, 93,415 pages of regulations interpreting the code, and hundreds of thousands of pages of case law, notices, letter rulings, technical advices memoranda, treatises, GAO advice, etc?
Posted by Bob on April 12, 2007 12:12 PMThe is no law that allows the Federal Government to collect a non-apportioned tax on the personal income of American workers. Just ask the IRS to show you the law and they will not be able to because it does not exist. IRS will cite the 16th ammendment, but if you take the time to read and examine what it says, it does not give the IRS this power. This was cited in a recent court case as well and now millions of people even, former IRS agents do not pay any income tax. View the recent film "From Freedom to Fascism" by Aaron Russo for greater detail. It is free to view on Google. Taxes are collected by using force and fear on the public.
Posted by Jack on April 12, 2007 12:13 PMJack, I think they would refer you to Sec. 1 of the code. Sec 1 is of subtitle A of Title 26 of the US Code (i.e. federal law) enacted by Congress. Tax protesters say that Congress does not have this power under the enabling legislation. I doubt they are right.
Posted by Bob on April 12, 2007 12:36 PMOf the people By the people and for the people except for taxes and then it Tax the rich and give to the poor.
I for one am all for the flat tax or a national tax. Government wouldnt know what to do with the money.
old grouch if you buy something for a 100 and I buy something for a 1000, i pay more tax just the same rate.
some one please tell me why I need to pay a higher tax rate than my neighbor?
Because, Earl, libs tend to make decisions out of fear based emotions, such as envy, and jealously. Fear causes them to hate. And If they hate you, they want to hurt you. This makes them victims, which is a much easier way to live for the many who are too weak or afraid to take responsibility for their own happiness.
Posted by Bob on April 12, 2007 01:27 PMNice simple answer Earl.
But, who sets the difference in price to begin with?
If the complex economic forces - including the wealthy who own and control many areas of them - set the price of a loaf of bread at 1000, and you can affort to pay the flat tax, fine.
But, when these same complex forces also set the income of the laborer at a level where all he can afford is 100, that's "fair"?
The basic problem with all the nice, easy, and overly simplistic solutions is just the same in any area. They sound good, especially to those who refuse to see complex problems in a full light. But, when actualy implemented, they only serve to add to the problems, not really "solve" anything at all.
The letter writer cited the example of the form of "flat tax" presently in use in Colorado. The poor LOST, while the rich GAINED, more or less as usual.
What is "your neighbor's" cost of living expense, compared to your own? When you buy for 1000 for one, how does that then become "fair" for your neighbor who has to buy for more than one on the same income?
Posted by Old Grouch on April 12, 2007 01:51 PMTo make the flat tax fair (fair being a subjective term) the elimination of all deductions would need to be necessitated. I think the problem people have with the flat tax is perception.
1. Those that do not pay taxes will now have to pay taxes. Let's use 10% as that is very simple to understand. Those making $20,000 a year will pay $2,000 in taxes. Those making $2M a year will pay $200,000 in taxes. This eliminates the penalty of making more money. As you can see, those that make more still pay more, just not an inflated amount.
At this time in our current system, the wealthiest 4% pay approximately 85% of the taxes. That, in my opinion, is just wrong. If you are an American citizen, to fund the federal government, you should pay taxes.
A flat tax is just that. A flat percentage applied to everyone. Imagine the amount of revenue alone that could be generated if businesses were under the same constriction. Again using the 10% model imagine the taxes a $10B business would pay, without the corporate welfare given to business. That in and of itself could eliminate individual federal taxes.
Posted by Dan2 on April 12, 2007 01:52 PMBecause it is tax season. . . Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. "Because you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Posted by Rory on April 12, 2007 01:56 PMOG, are you arguing that the rich control prices of goods in the US?
Posted by Bob on April 12, 2007 02:05 PMRory:
Interesting scenario. I totally follow your reasoning in regards to individual taxation. My problem is that 60% of US coporations pay no taxes at all. So that means in your scenario the bar owner gets the wholesale beer for free. It looks like all the beer drinkers are getting the short end, eh?
Posted by J on April 12, 2007 02:25 PMBob, it is clear that you have never actually read the law. And since in a recent court case the judge agreed with the plaintiff that there is no law, the judge dismissed the case. In this documentary. "From Freedom to Fascism", the film maker interviews current and former IRS agents who tried to win $50,000 if they could prove that this law actually exists. This was an ad that appeared in USA Today at the time. They all failed and some now do not pay Federal income taxes and the Feds are leaving them alone. Why? Because there is no law that requires Americans to pay Federal income taxes. The law applies to taxes on Corporate profits, not on wages. In the documentary, Director Russo interviews the former IRS Commissioner who keps saying the 16th ammendment. which is not true because the 16 ammendment was not ratified by enough states to make it law. Do your homework first Bob. Go ahead and call the IRS and ask them to show you the law. They won't because it does not exist.
Posted by Jack on April 12, 2007 02:28 PMFYI - "From Freedom to Fascism" by Aaron Russo will be on Channel 12, this Sunday, April 15,2007 at 8pm I believe. Watch, learn ang get mad. Then join.
Posted by Rick on April 12, 2007 02:35 PMSorry- it's at 7pm
Posted by Rick on April 12, 2007 02:37 PMI heard Aaron Russo on late night conspiracy radio. My question is: Will he be wearing his tin foil hat on Channel 12???
Posted by edmond on April 12, 2007 04:21 PMBob, please tune into Arron Russo's excellent documentary "From Freedom to Fascism" and become educated about the income tax fraud being perpetrated on the American people. Aaron is an award winning film maker, who also the directed the film "Trading Places" with Eddie Murphy and "The Rose" with Bette Midler.
In this documentary, Aaron wanted to find out if there is actually a law that requires people to pay taxes on their labor and he finds that there is no such law. He sites a recent case where the U.S. Supreme court ruled that the Government has no authority to impose a direct unapportioned tax on the labor of the American people and that the 16th amendment does not give the Government this power. After you see this film, you will understand why the corporate controlled U.S television networks do not want to show this documentary to the public. They want to hide the truth as long as possible. But viewer supported TV stations like channel 12 want to show the truth and do not depend on Government funds. For a similar reason, called needed advertising dollars, you will not see anything about this in the Rocky Mountain News. In this film you will also learn that in May of 2008, unless the law is changed, every American citizen will be required to obtain and carry in their possession at all times, the National Identification Card and that those who refuse to do so will not be able to enter a Federal Building, open a bank account or board and fly on a commercial airliner and these are just some of the restrictions. Hitler had a program similar to this. The film also discusses Goverment plans to plant a RFID chip in every American to track us wherever we go and shows that there has been an agreement signed by President Bush, without the vote of the American people, to form a North American Union that would combine the U.S, Canada and Mexico into one entity, like the European Union. The requirement of Americans to pay Federal Income tax is a myth.
Posted by Jack on April 12, 2007 04:41 PMEdmond, go ahead and joke, but you will not find a law that requires Americans to pay Federal income tax on their labor. And yes, you might include making folks abide by a non- existent law a conspiracy.
Posted by Alex on April 12, 2007 04:54 PMLearn the truth at;
http://www.freedomtofascism.com
Posted by Jack on April 12, 2007 05:05 PMAlex,
US Constitution, Amendment XVI (rat. Feb 1913): 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.
If you don't believe me, look it up!! No conspiracy here.
Posted by NPG on April 12, 2007 05:05 PMNPG, that is a lie
Posted by Jack on April 12, 2007 05:07 PMJack,
No, it is not. Really, look it up!!!! Don't dismiss me for a liar merely because I provide the law in question. If you can refute the validity of the US Constitution, fine, go ahead and do it. If you can't, then zip it, pal.
Posted by on April 12, 2007 05:10 PMJ,
"My problem is that 60% of US coporations pay no taxes at all."
Can you provide a link to that claim? Are you sure it is 60% do not pay any taxes or pay no state tax?
Posted by John II on April 12, 2007 05:10 PMJ,
Here's the Taxes
Posted by John II on April 12, 2007 05:18 PMoops, should have read "link" not "taxes".
Posted by John II on April 12, 2007 06:11 PMDear 5:10 "Zip it Pal". A U.S. Supreme court judge as made the decision that there is not law that forces Americans to have Federal taxes illegally confiscated from their wages. Watch the documentary or borrow a TV and then contact this judge and whine about it. Then you might challenge the former IRS agents that have found this judge to be correct. Several of these perfessionals, who were attempting to win the $50,000 mentioned before, spent over one year examining the law and still could not find it. These are the ones that now do not pay Federal income taxes and are not being bothered by the IRS. The IRS will go after folks that do not understand the law.
Posted by Zippy It on April 12, 2007 06:33 PMDan2,
Your illustration of the income application of the flat tax idea is very clear, and does serve as a lucid argument. In theory, it is by far a better format than the idea of a flat tax on sales. And, were it again not over-simplified by excluding the complexities of other economic factors surrounding the whole matter of taxation, it would, indeed, prove to be a great deal more "fair" than most tax structures today.
One of the missing complexities is - as with all form of flat tax proposals I've seen, or heard of so far - the lack of consideration of the relative differences in "overhead", or basic cost of living, between payers.
The income of $200,000 a year, after paying 10% leaves $180,000 for use. The income of $20,000 a year, after paying 10% leaves $18,000 for use. Let's take a "family of 4" for example.
The basic $180,000 for use after taxes gives us a total of $45,000 per family member when divided. The $18,000 for use after taxes gives us a total of $4,500 per family member. Let us say that rent - or mortgage payment - is $500 per month. After payment of $6,000 per year, the $45,000 per family member now decreases to $43,500 per member. But, for the $18,000 family the remainder decreases to $3,000. And every fixed expense reduces the difference per family member accordingly.
No exemptions finally arrives at a point at which the low income family will be either left with at best a marginal "scale of living", or simply wiped out. While the higher income family will still have a substantial reserve for emergency, as well as for its "scale of living".
With respect to the example from Earl - a form of "flat sales tax" - the difference in remaining amounts after simple purchases wipes out the low income family so rapidly as to make the whole tax simply one of "confiscation".
I do not fault some form of a less cumbersome taxation than the present graduated income tax as such. I only seek to have the complexities of economics considered when attempting to solve a problem such as this with a "one size MUST fit all" approach.
Bob,
Along with other factors, yes. The manufacturer, and the vendor, always have a share in setting costs. There is nothing wrong with the idea. It is, after all, a part of capitalism. But, it cannot be simply ignored when considering the whole of economics as it affects "scale of living"; and as it also ultimately affects something such as a "flat tax" on sales especially.
Rory,
Unfortunately, altogether too many of our business and industry tax payers have already started "drinking overseas". In more ways than one.
Posted by Old Grouch on April 12, 2007 07:21 PMWell, if we do not have a law that requires us to fork over our hard earned paper Federal Reserve notes, which are just pieces of paper made on a printing press and are hard to earn as it is, then why do we need a flat Tax? Get real Vince Carroll. The Government wastes it on war.
Military spending now takes 40% of every dollar of Americans have illegally confiscated from their labor on wages and salaries . This is according to a newly released publication by the National Prioritues Project (NPP) a non-profit research organization that examines the local impact of Federal spending policies.
NPP offers breakdowns of how the Federal Government spends median household's tax payments in each state and over 200 cities.
In 2006, current military spending accounted for 27 cents of every income tax dollar paid. Additionally, nine cents of every Federal income tax dollar paid today could be attributed to borrowing to pay for past wars and military build-ups. Finally, disability payments, health care and other benefits accrued to veterans made up a little over three cents to Federal income tax dollar bringing total military spending up to close to 40 cents of every tax dollar. Got any more great ideas Vince?
Posted by Max on April 12, 2007 08:04 PMSounds like Old Grouch is concerned that his subsidy would be done away with under a flat tax and/or national sales tax system.
If a flat tax is unfair to the poor as Old Grouch contends, then it could be an incentive to go out and try to better one's lot in life instead of waiting for the Gummint Cheese check and pissing & moaning.
By the way, I am a middle class American.
Posted by QBT on April 12, 2007 08:34 PMD'Oh" I'm Old Grouch, Dang It!
Posted by Old Grouch on April 12, 2007 11:06 PMJack - I've researched the issue. I saw the short video you mentioned. And, you are wrong. The 16th Amendment is broad in scope. And the Supreme Court in every case, except one, has supported Congress's constitutional ability to define income. And even in that one case, it clearly states that income include gains derived from labor. Some tax protestors say you don't have gain from labor because you have basis in the effort. But, again, Congress does not support that interpretation.
So, you may like to say that you cannot find where it says Congress can tax wages. But, that is irrelevent given the language of the Constitution, the 16th Amendment, and the many Suprement Court cases permitting Congress to define it. For, you cannot, and will not ever, be able to point to any place that says Congress cannot tax wages.
And by the way, I like this discussion and look forward to seeing the show you referenced.
Posted by Bob on April 13, 2007 10:14 AMOG - Are you pulling my leg? Surely you know that although a seller can charge anything they want, a buyer will shop for a better deal. If they can get it cheaper elsewhere, they will. It's called competition and the price is ultimately determined by the seller that is willing to recognize a lower profit margin.
Posted by Bob on April 13, 2007 10:18 AMThanks Bob, it is an interesting discussion. The documentary is not a short video though, it is a full length movie. I saw the film in Denver when the director was in town and attended his sold out discussion after the movie at Tamarac Square. If you pay attention, Aaron Russo goes out and tries to get anyone from the IRS to simply show him the law that says Americans are required to pay income tax on their labor and no one can produce this law. He interviews an IRS agent who spent a lot of time trying to win the $50,000 that was offered in a USA Today full page Ad to anyone who could produce a law that shows that we have to pay Federal income tax. Being an IRS agent, she says that she thought it would be easy and that $50,000 is a lot of money and she wanted to win it. She finally gave up and stated on camera that she no longer files a tax return because there is no law and also states that millions of others also do not file anymore. Aaron goes as high up in the IRS as he can go and when he finally gets an interview with the former IRS Commissioner, the discussion gets really interesting when even this person cannot show him the law. After viewing the DVD I bought of the movie, it still appears that there actually is no law and that the IRS simply has people conditioned to pay the tax through the use of intimidation, threats and fear. But watch it on Sunday and tape it for later.
Posted by Jack on April 13, 2007 10:58 AMAs usual, Bob, you seize on a single point as if it negated the whole complexity. Try reading what I write, first. That is, if you really intend to carry on a discussion or dialogue.
QBT,
That's the old, "Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps", approach. Which is another non sequitur to the whole discussion concerning the complexity of economics and taxation.
But, that's O.K. You seem to do better with personal insults than with reasoned discussion anyway.
Jack, et.al.,
There is a Supreme Court Dissent (even several, in different cases) to a Ruling concerning Income Tax, which contests the majority decision. That's not quite the same thing as "no law".
Go to Google - or your own preferred search engine - and look up "U.S. Constitution". Then read Amendment XVI for yourself. If you still feel that that is not the law of the land, I wish you all well if you actually try to practice non-payment. But, I certainly hope you have sufficient monetary reserves to be able to afford the lawyers - and/or pay the penalties and interest; as well as the time out of life to serve the sentence for tax evasion - when the IRS gets around to your case, which it will in time.
Posted by Old Grouch on April 13, 2007 11:23 AMWell, Old Grouch, I can tell that you have nol watched the movie either and know a lot more than seasoned IRS agents who not only cannot find the law but simply do not pay anymore. Are you worried about them and their lawyer fees too?
Posted by Jack on April 13, 2007 12:05 PMSorry OG. I looked at what you wrote and am having trouble understanding your point.
Posted by Bob on April 13, 2007 01:10 PMJack,
Of course, they may get away with whatever they be doing for some time to come. That's not at issue with me. And neither is the content of the movie.
I do not doubt that there are those who do not regard the law as pertianing to them; even going so far as to insist that the law doesn't exist. After all, the current Administration if full of those who don't hold that the Constitution - together with its Amendments - is actually the foundation of our laws, rights, and even government as well.
And of course, this Administration is not the first to be filled with such individuals. Nor is it the first to hold to such ideas. (One might be permitted to hope it were the last; but that's beside the point.)
The simple facts of the matter are that Amendment XVI empowers Congress to set up a system of taxation on income. Congress has. Income Tax is a reality, under the Law of the Land.
And, the Internal Revenue Service, which is the National Tax Collector, has as part of its law enforcement capacity a bounty system for use in catching up with tax evaders, among other enforcement capabilities.
Sooner or later, tax evasion gets caught. And when it does, the argument that "there is no law" doesn't stand up; nor does it prevent fines, jail terms, and high cost legal expenses from becoming part of the evader's life and future.
The movie, and/or the actions of non-payers, and/or both, are not proof of the non-existence of the law.
Posted by Old Grouch on April 13, 2007 01:44 PMOld Grouch, more nonsense you spout today as usual. Just be a good boy and pay your taxes by April 16th, the real April Fools day, because 23 million Illegal Aliens are depending on your support. Muchos Gracias!
Posted by Jack on April 13, 2007 07:14 PMOld Grouch:
I can only conclude that you somehow benefit from the pretzel logic that is our current and highly unfair tax system; whether through the poverty subsidy that it is, or as one of the parasites who evolved with the ever changing tax code that the IRS itself doesn't understand.
The government is meant to serve the people, and tax collection should be nothing more than simple revenue collection to fund government operations.
Bob above said it well in that the government uses taxation as a social engineering tool, of which "sin taxes" on booze and cigarettes are good examples. Other good examples are the deductions for having children, the more you have (and no doubt can't afford) the more deductions one gets. Other than helping to over populate the planet, why encourage families to have more kids than
they can afford?
I don't need the government to encourage me to be the "Happy Loan-owner" that I am by giving me deductions for mortgage interest and property taxes. I and the majority of Americans know full well that home ownership will always be a better deal financially than renting.
This year my tax software asked me a new question...Did I earn any income from the equivalent of Canada's Social Security. How's that for a new foreign income source that is specific as to where the income originated? What's next; some sort of question regarding a specific source of Mexican income? Could this be further social engineering to soften Americans up for the North American Union known as Amexida (AMerica-mEXIco-canaDA)?
I swear the government through its onerous tax system and other regulations is the biggest hindrance to entrepreneurship in America today. How many good business ideas never reach fruition because of this nonsensical red tape?
In the end, the government and economy will function just fine with a flat tax and/or national sales tax. The economy and country did just fine prior to the income tax system, and it would do so in the future.
You may like the status quo of our tax system Old Grouch; but many Americans are sick and tired of being screwed by it.
I have written that some form of taxation that was less complicated as our present one would, no doubt, be an improvement. I have also attempted to point out that a simple "one size MUST fit all" form of approach to the complexity of economics is not that much of an improvement, in and of itself, that it should be immediately adopted.
I could take issue with your statement that "In the end . . . etc.,"; but since that would only serve to encourage you to draw further erroneus conclusions about my person, and my basis for presenting what I do, I see no reason to pursue the matter further.
Posted by QBT on April 14, 2007 08:21 AMSorry. The above posting was addressed to QBT, not posted by him. My cursor - or mouse, or whatever - stuck on the "Your Name" box, rather than rolling down to the "Comments" box. My apologies.
Posted by Old Grouch on April 14, 2007 08:26 AMBy all means Old Grouch, defend the current system, even a simplified one that won't happen because our current system caters to special interests.
I just happen to be a member of the special interest group called American citizens who are fed up with this yearly bureaucratic accounting ritual nightmare.
Posted by QBT on April 14, 2007 12:34 PM