The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.

Avatar of
Anonymous @ 5 years, 1 month ago

I think Milton Friedman put it best when he said that there is nothing in the world as permanent as a government program (or in this case, agency).

If we accept the reality that the IRS is the here to stay, what do you think is the best way to limit it’s scope and power? Who will step up to the plate, politically?

         
Avatar of Pete
Pete @cubs1987 5 years, 1 month ago

There’s a Milton Friedman clip on youtube where he talks about this. He talks about how elections and donors are sought by promising tax breaks, and also if a flat tax were to be inacted dems would be wary of the right offering breaks to businesses and the right would be wary of the left raising the %.

         
Avatar of Ryan Hill
Ryan Hill @foaryan 5 years, 1 month ago

Both parties have a vested interest in the IRS because the income tax gives both parties the power they have. It took a constitutional amendment to get us an income tax (previously the Supreme Court had struck down other income taxes).

A fat tax would, perhaps, be a step in the right direction, but it still is a system in which the federal government has access to your private income information. I’d prefer a transaction-based system in which you are taxed on what you spend. It could be done, but you’re right, not with the current party structure.

         
Avatar of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com 5 years ago

I feel the fairest tax is a flat tax with no exemptions for anyone. In order for a flat tax to work you would have to set some safeguards in place.

First, once you set the amount, say 10%, the percentage is to be locked and could not be used for political leverage. One party or another saying they would reduce it, get in office then jack it up instead. We’ve seen that played time and time again.

Second, to change the rate, the government would have to show to an odd number of independent auditors who would give their evaluations on whether or not the percentage needed to be raised or not. With the exception of a war, in which case the percentage could be raised to a predetermined number. Anyone who tries to bribe or achieves in bribing an independent auditing company will be tried for treason. If it is found that the auditing company accepted the bribe, the company and any of it’s agents that were involved shall likewise be tried for treason.

Third, any individual or company that falsifies income will have to pay twice the percentage on the falsified amount. If this is a continuous problem with an individual or company they will be tried for tax evasion and be given a predetermined sentencing, so that all are treated fair and equal.

Forth, any government agency that is found to be misrepresenting funds shall be investigated and the individual who was misrepresenting what the funds were being used for will be tried for treason.

This is just spit balling off the top of my head. Some punishments may seem harsh to some. I intended them to be harsh to send a clear message that this is not a game and playing the old bait and switch with tax dollars won’t be tolerated.

I would be interested to hear more ideas along these lines.

         
Avatar of mamajay
mamajay @mamajay 5 years ago

Really interesting, James Riggs. Lots to think about. Is a national sales tax and no income tax a bad idea?

         

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.