RP is having some fun with taxes ( <-- note: very heavy sarcasm) and asked if there are any volunteers to re-write the Tax Code and Regs.

I am the man.

First, let me state that the ultimate goal would be to eliminate income taxes altogether. Yes, it would too work just fine. It worked wonderfully before the Constitution was ammended to make this government theft legal. Restricting the government's access to money and the carrot/stick of monetary levies and gifts keeps government small and efficient. We have a bloated monster precisely because the government has given itself the power to take as much as the public will bear.

Anywho...that's not going to happen without open rebellion so I've come up with a simple and effective tax system that will work, will be perfectly simple and will be fair to all.

10% of income over $20,000 is paid as income tax. As many people as want to may form a household and file together. A family of five would pay 10% of any collective income over $100,000. There are no other taxes on income and there are no other exemptions. There are no loopholes.

Oh, yeah - almost forgot. As a corollary to promote fiscal responsibility, any politician submitting or approving a deficit spending budget gets a toe cut off. See the comments in RP's post for a bit more in-depth look at the toe-ectomy issue.

Posted by: Jim at 08:49 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

1 You know, that with every plan, the devil is in the details. The problem is defining income. Right now, gifts of money are not income (up to a certain point they are tax free and then a gift tax return is required). Proceeds from life insurance policies are not income. Money or property taken by inheiritance, not income. Would you eliminate all those exclusions from income? How about giving to charity? That is favored by the tax code by giving you deductions. I have to say I don't envy the job of the people making these decisions today.

Posted by: RP at February 18, 2005 08:58 AM (LlPKh)

2 Forgot to say, thanks for the link, Jim! If anyone chooses to follow the link and come over, please remember that you may not look at any other post on my blog. You can't look at anything else. Nothing. Not one single other thing. And no smiling. Let's see how that works. It usually works great with the kids.

Posted by: RP at February 18, 2005 09:01 AM (LlPKh)

3 We'll paraphrase Miriam-Webster here. Income is a gain measured in money that derives from capital or labor. Gifts are not income. Insurance payments and inheritance are not income. Work benefits are income as they are derived from labor. Gifts are not income as they do not. There would be no loopholes, no deductions at all ever except the $20,000 per human one.

Posted by: Jim at February 18, 2005 09:24 AM (tyQ8y)

4 Yeah, but I don't think it really makes sense to exclude gifts, for instance, from income. Income ought to be defined broadly as benefit (to capture money and property or anything in any form) accruing to you or to your beneficial ownership from any source. Then you avoid the scams as people try to move around the definition. I don't think income should only be defined as coming from labor or investment. Then you exclude intergenerational transfers of wealth by way of gift. It certainly spends like income from the point of view of the grantee and it feels like money from the point of view of the grantor.

Posted by: RP at February 18, 2005 10:10 AM (LlPKh)

5 We're getting away from income tax there. We aren't trying to generate a profit tax. The reason the current tax code is such a convoluted and bloated mess is precisely because the government is using customized definitions of income in order to assess a profit tax.

Posted by: Jim at February 18, 2005 10:13 AM (tyQ8y)

6 I disagree. I think that the problem is that naturally any benefit you receive is really income and the problem has been distorting the definition to make all the exceptions. Once you start carving out exceptions, you get the massive mess we have. Simply define everything as income and then, among other things, I bet you can lower the rate to much, much lower that we ever conceived of being possible.

Posted by: RP at February 18, 2005 10:55 AM (LlPKh)

7 Okay, we can do that. Scrap the income tax idea and institute a profit tax instead. Personal profit tax is as described above; 10% of all profits made over $20,00o.

Posted by: Jim at February 18, 2005 11:06 AM (tyQ8y)

8 I think that we could probably end up a lot lower than 10% if for no other reason than, by way of example, I understand that $3.5 trillion alone is paid in the form of corporate dividends each year.

Posted by: RP at February 18, 2005 12:33 PM (LlPKh)

9 Maybe, but I doubt it. Most folks won't be paying anything at all. Since we moved to a profit model it's gains vs. losses. If I make a salary of $50,000 and spend $30,000 during the year (for a $20,000 profit) I owe no taxes. The folks who'd actually be paying are mostly investors and savers.

Posted by: Jim at February 18, 2005 01:18 PM (tyQ8y)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Get Syria out of Lebanon!

I still find it odd that the Arab states have no problem with Syria conquering Lebanon, holding them in thrall as a puppet state, killing their prime ministers, etc. I thought the Arabs were all about (opportunistically defined) ancient sovereign lands.

Oh, right. That's only when it's the Jews who are kicking Arab ass.

Posted by: Jim at 06:31 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

Sign the petition to revoke this terrorist group's tax exempt status.

(Hat tip to DCeit)

Posted by: Jim at 09:36 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.