Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

On 08/21/2012 09:07 AM, Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Can we stand back and pause a short minute to take in the spectacle
of a man who wants to be President of The United States, who wants
us to seriously regard him as a paragon of the American civic
ideal, declaiming proudly and in public that he has paid his taxes
at a third of
the rate normally associated with gentlemen of his economic
benefit.


Certainly.

That Romney paid a lesser rate implies that he took advantage of tax
breaks, deductions, etc., built into the tax code.

Now these exemptions and so forth were placed in the tax code by our
betters to further various social goals such as contributions to
charity, home mortgage interest, and the like. To the degree that
Romney sought out and participated in those social goals, he should
be commended!

Ross Perot, as an exemplar, paid NO taxes on his millions in income
because his income was solely in the form of tax-exempt mutual
bonds.

Because Romney evidently helped fund various social goals, cities
are improved, children don't go to bed hungry, the homeless find
succor, alcoholics have access to treatment programs, and, for all I
know, stray dogs and cats get three hots and a cot.

Yes, and I take "advantage" of the breaks too, specifically the huge
loophole that transfer of appreciated stock to charity offers (a
total charitable deduction for FMV, without regard to basis or cap
gains).

Perhaps we should have an automatic sunset to those social goals.
Equally to depletion allowances and subsidies to green technologies.
(I have no idea what the law says on these at the moment, just that
they have supporters and detractors on the left and the right).


How about no deductions for anyone for any reason period?

How about a flat tax at time of *consumption* with a "prebate" to make
sure the first $XX,XXX dollars are effectively untaxed so as to not
put an undue burden on the poor?

This is called the "Fair Tax" and it would work swimmingly. But the
left, especially, hates this. Why? There's getting the money and
there's spending the money. Getting it should be simple. The problem
is that not everyone agrees on how to spend it. So the left,
especially, has used all manner of tax monkeybusiness to change how we
get it, who pays, and who does. The right, seeing what was going on,
joined the party. Fair Tax would make the getting part of it simple.
Then the only argument would be the spending part which is FAR more
evident and transparent to the taxpaying public.

Sounds indeed simple and very worthwhile. I could be persuaded. It
would certainly eliminate a bunch of IRS employees, accountants and
lawyers who don't really contribute to GDP. There is only 1 disadvantage
I can see right off. It leaves us without a tax mechanism to promote
things like home ownership, charity, etc. But perhaps we can do without,
just like other countries (I think).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid