Huckabee says churches should give up tax exempt status

[mook]

I don't see the point of mortgage interest deductions. I guess it's to encourage home ownership, but does it really do that much?

I'm in the Dennie/maxiep camp of doing away with a ton of deductions and massively simplifying the tax code. It's one of the few ways I really differ from Democrats.

I just think if we had a more transparent system it'd be easier to then go on to debate the size of government and the value of government services. I like a lot of government services, but I can definitely see the merits of shrinking some as well. It'd be much easier to discuss in an open and honest manner if lobbyists, corporations, charities, unions and everybody else weren't trying to game the tax system.

I think Republicans could be natural leaders in this area if they actively pursued a truly revenue-neutral tax overhaul. Unfortunately, it always seems like they try to combine that idea with reducing spending/taxes and implementing reform in a regressive manner, which alienates too many moderates.

It should be a two-step process:
1. Simplify tax code with a goal to not change most people's overall liability much
2. Have a debate over how much to tax and who should pay less/more

Any politician of any stripe who came forward with this plan would be extremely popular.

 

[Denny Crane]

The government is good at writing checks. They really shouldn't be examining our personal financial statements.

I think a sales tax is in order. You pay the tax when you spend. Everyone pays it, can't get around it. The rich spend more, they pay more.

At the end of the year, the government sends everyone a check for $4K or $6K or whatever number makes sense. $4K to a poor person is HUGE. To a rich person, a fraction of their income. It's progressive.

If they are going to go by our financial statements, then they should treat us accordingly.

Gross income. Minus Expenses. Net income. Pay tax on that.

Expenses are your rent, your credit card bills, your food bills, your gasoline bills... basically everything.

 

[mook]

In many countries the government notifies you of your liability. You get a notice that you owe X amount, and if you wish to contest it you are welcome to. It puts the burden of tax preparation on the government bureaucracy, and it takes all of the fear out because if the government fucks up and tells you the wrong amount it's their fault and not yours.

I suspect the only reason we don't operate this way is because of lobbyists (Turbotax, H&R Block, etc).

 

[Denny Crane]

Why does the government need to know all the minute details of our personal finances?

That's a rather huge invasion of our privacy, no?

 

[mook]

Why does the government need to know all the minute details of our personal finances?

That's a rather huge invasion of our privacy, no?

Because not everybody is willing to risk everything on the untested libertarian ideal of an exclusively sales-tax based federal government. If you can demonstrate where it's been successfully done for, say, a 20 million person modern industrialized country, I might be convinced it could work for a 300 million person country.

Until then, I think a more traditional three pillar approach (income, property and sales) tax continues to make the most sense. But it should be drastically simpler (and thus require far less of my personal data), it should include a national sales tax, and it should be the government's job to present to me their proposal of what they think I owe.

Even if you disagree with me, you have to admit my thinking gets us a lot closer to where you'd like to be than the current system.

 

[Denny Crane]

Because not everybody is willing to risk everything on the untested libertarian ideal of an exclusively sales-tax based federal government. If you can demonstrate where it's been successfully done for, say, a 20 million person modern industrialized country, I might be convinced it could work for a 300 million person country.

Until then, I think a more traditional three pillar approach (income, property and sales) tax continues to make the most sense. But it should be drastically simpler (and thus require far less of my personal data), it should include a national sales tax, and it should be the government's job to present to me their proposal of what they think I owe.

Even if you disagree with me, you have to admit my thinking gets us a lot closer to where you'd like to be than the current system.

More than 1/3 of the EU's tax revenues are from VAT taxes. The tax rate is a little under 20%.

Given they tax 40% of their GDP and we tax 16%, the 20% rate is going to generate what we need here.

Are the 27 EU nations enough of a modern industrialized country for you? ;-)

 

[Denny Crane]

The left wing think tank Brookings Institute likes the idea.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2010/04/07-vat-sawhill

The big challenge, of course, is making all of this politically palatable. What might it take? In my view, the key to success is to greatly simplify the system. Most people hate the current system not just because we all like to keep more of what we earn but also because filing income tax returns makes cleaning out the basement seem like fun. Michael Graetz, a professor at the Yale Law School, has proposed a VAT [PDF] that would replace income taxes for everyone with an income of less than $100,000 a year and would eliminate 100 million tax returns. As April 15 draws nearer, almost everyone can appreciate why this would be a popular step. The business community, along with many Republicans, could be brought on board by a promise to lower the corporate rate.