Only one candidate talks about real tax reform


P

Paul Thomas, CPA

AK said:
Would you care to discuss the subject

No.

If I did, I would have done so to your first post.





little boy??


Troll.


You can keep trolling, but you should do so in other waters - like over on
alt.rec.radio or misc.amature.antenna or alt.ham.fest or some place that
carries your values, like alt.andy.loves.andy.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who
posts....usually irrelevant....messages in an online community....with the
intention of baiting other users into an emotional response.



What are you looking for from your posts. Why do you demand that I post a
reply to your troll post.


YOU are the troll andy.
 
Ad

Advertisements

A

AK

Paul Thomas said:
No.

If I did, I would have done so to your first post.
Act like an adult, and I will treat you like one Paul.
I don't know what went wrong in your life, but you need to find a different
way to work it our Thomas.

AK
 
A

AK

Troll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who
posts....usually irrelevant....messages in an online community....with the
intention of baiting other users into an emotional response.
And anything intended as a post for a rational discussion subject gets a
childish "emotional response," should a Paul Thomas, CPA in Athens, GA, read
it and not wish to discuss the subject.

Discuss the subject, little boy, or pass over it. Those are the grownup
options, Paul. AK
 
P

Paul Thomas, CPA

AK said:
And anything intended as a post for
a rational discussion subject gets a childish "emotional response,"

From you - yes indeed.



My comment to Henry was right on target. Your - now nine day old - rant is
proof that my observation was accurate.


"But you're wasting your time trying to explain that
to Andy, whose hatred of all things IRS related runs
deeper than the oceans and is vaster than space."




Right on topic. And correct in every way.




should a Paul Thomas, CPA in Athens, GA, read it and not wish to discuss
the subject.


If I chose to "discuss the subject" of your post, I would have done so.

I did, however, discuss the subject of Henry's post.



Discuss the subject,

Make me - troll.




little boy,


Troll.







or pass over it.



I did. You didn't notice, and jumped into another topic and started your
trolling.





Those are the grownup options,


They are your options - which are far from grown up.


Why are you here troll?

What do you hope to accomplish troll?
 
A

AK

<snip the BS>

I guess if you were ever going to grow up, Paul, you would have done it
within half a century.

AK
 
A

AK

Mike Huckabee seems to be the only candidate prepared to deal with
the pathetic tax system we have that gets worse every year.

"Government ought to be facilitating free enterprise, not complicating
it" is Huckabee's position. He's the only candidate who hasn't
forgotten the conclusions of the advisory panel that included ex-IRS
Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti.

The current tax system is a bonanza for Congress people who take bribes from
special interest groups to get tax breaks, all at the expense of the general
public. It's time that this country had a leader who took heed of the
advisory panel's work. AK

===================================================

America Needs a Better Tax System
Statement by the Members of the President's
Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform

For millions of Americans, the annual rite of filing taxes has become
a headache of burdensome record-keeping, lengthy instructions, and
complicated schedules, work sheets, and forms - often requiring
multiple computations that are neither logical nor intuitive. Not only
is our tax system maddeningly complex, it penalizes work, discourages
saving and investment, and hinders the competitiveness of American
businesses. The tax code is riddled with tax provisions that treat
similarly situated taxpayers differently and create perceptions of
unfairness.

Since the last major reform effort in 1986, there have been more than
14,000 changes to the tax code, many adding special provisions and
targeted tax benefits, some of which expire after only a few years.
These myriad changes decrease the stability, consistency, and
transparency of our current tax system while making it drastically
more complicated, unfair, and economically wasteful. Today, our tax
system falls well short of the expectations of Americans that revenues
needed for government should be raised in a manner that is simple,
efficient, and fair.

As a result, there is widespread agreement that we must reform the
tax system. On January 7, 2005, President Bush established the
bipartisan Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform to recommend options
for reform of our tax code. We recognize the importance of our task
and the magnitude of the challenges we face. Our muddled tax code
reflects years of compromises and quick fixes. History has taught us
that although it is relatively easy to achieve consensus on the need
for reform, it is much more difficult to devise a solution that
satisfies all competing interests. We will undoubtedly be required to
make many difficult choices, but we are committed to presenting
options to ensure that our tax system will keep pace with America's
growing, dynamic, and changing economy.

To develop reform options, we have divided our work into two stages.
The first stage, involving a comprehensive examination of the existing
tax system to make sure that we understand its complexity, its impact
on economic growth, and its unfairness, is nearly complete. In the
second stage of our work, which is now beginning, we will build on our
understanding of the current system and consider specific reform
proposals.

After its formation, the Panel moved quickly to begin a conversation
about the current tax system and to discover what Americans think
about our tax laws. We established a website - www.taxreformpanel.gov
- to provide the public real-time information about the Panel's
activities. We also requested comments from the public and have used
the website to receive - and post - the submissions. To date, we have
been contacted by thousands of concerned Americans who have shared
their experiences with the tax code. Their comments confirm the
importance of our mission.

Since February 16, the Panel has held six public meetings across the
country. Our first two meetings were held in Washington,
D.C.,followed by meetings in Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, and
California. We will be holding a seventh meeting on Monday, April 18,
2005, in Maryland. At each of our meetings, distinguished policymakers
shared their views on tax reform. We also heard from tax experts from
the fields of economics, accounting, finance, and law. We learned
about the problems in our tax system from individuals and from large
and small business taxpayers as well as from the people who assist
them - both paid and volunteer. We focused on the challenges facing
American families, low-income taxpayers, people facing the
alternative minimum tax (AMT), and businesses of all sizes.
We have repeatedly heard that our system is needlessly complex.
Increasingly, Americans are looking to experts for help navigating
this complexity, with over 60 percent using a paid preparer to compute
their taxes. This complexity is costing the U.S. economy about $140
billion per year. To put this amount in perspective, it is roughly the
same as giving $1,000 to every family in America or the amount of
money needed to fund all of the following: the Department of Homeland
Security, the State Department, NASA, HUD, the EPA, the Department of
Transportation, the United States Congress, our Federal courts, and
all foreign aid. For low-income taxpayers, the complexity of the
Earned Income Tax Credit, child credits, and filing status imposes
substantial costs on those who are least able to bear them.

One particular problem that cannot be ignored is the rapidly growing
reach of the AMT. The AMT imposes a stealth tax system that is
separate from, but parallel to, the regular income tax system. The
AMT was enacted in 1969 to target a small group of high-income
taxpayers who were avoiding paying all income taxes. Since then,
changes to the AMT and the effect of inflation have transformed the
AMT into a trap for a growing number of unsuspecting middle-income
taxpayers. The AMT will catch almost 4 million taxpayers this year and
20 million taxpayers next year. Some projections suggest that by
2015, as many as 50 million taxpayers, or about 45 percent of all
taxpayers who pay income tax, will be paying AMT.

The AMT ensnares taxpayers by denying them exemptions and credits
that are available under the regular tax system, while leaving
untouched many of the highest earners in the country. Taxpayers
subject to the AMT are required to compute their taxes twice even
though they have not participated in tax shelters or attempted to
avoid taxes. As one of our witnesses commented, good tax policy should
be simple, efficient, and fair, and the AMT violates all three of
these principles.

The problems of complexity are not limited to individual taxpayers.
In the area of business taxation, we heard how our tax code treats
business income differently depending on the type of entity that
earned it, treats capital invested in businesses differently depending
on whether it is debt or equity, and treats mergers and acquisitions
differently depending on whether the transaction satisfies certain
arcane formalities. Our business tax code is littered with special
provisions providing special rates, deductions, or credits. These
provisions - designed to encourage particular conduct or business
activity - create complexity, volumes of new regulations,
opportunities for tax shelters, and unfairness. Moreover, these
provisions often do not have their intended effect on taxpayer behavior and
motivate businesses to adopt governance structures that may not be
consistent with business efficiency.

Representatives from small businesses also explained to us how
entrepreneurs bear disproportionately higher compliance costs than
larger businesses. In addition, experts described the rules that
govern the taxation of income earned abroad as easily avoided by the
well advised and a trap for the poorly advised. We were dismayed to
hear that very few people actually understand our complex system of
international taxation. It is hard to believe that our dysfunctional
system does not hinder American businesses from selling their products
or otherwise competing in the global marketplace.

Simplifying and reforming the tax code should lighten the burden on
taxpayers, eliminating numerous tax headaches. It will allow
Americans to spend less time doing their taxes and more time doing
what they would rather do, like spending time with their families. For
American businesses, a better tax code will allow them to devote more
resources to developing new products and services, expanding their
operations, and hiring more workers.

Taxes affect almost every aspect of our lives and may hinder
America's economic well-being. The United States is a low saving nation,
and
our savings rate has declined in recent decades. Our tax system may make
matters worse by discouraging saving. We heard from experts who
described the differing rules and eligibility requirements associated
with the multitude of provisions added to our code to encourage
saving. The dozen or so tax incentives intended to encourage education
represent another example of an area that is needlessly complex.
Taxpayers should not need a college degree to figure out if they are
entitled to education tax benefits.

It is no surprise that American taxpayers are intimidated by the
choices in the code. As a result, taxpayers often make bad decisions
about which option is best for them, or they may fail to benefit from
these tax incentives. Surely there are better ways to encourage saving
and promote education.

At our Chicago meeting, Nobel Laureate James Heckman explained how
taxes influence whether we work, how much we work, and which skills we
acquire for work. The tax code also impacts a wide range of business
decisions, such as how much to invest, how to finance investment, and
whether to incorporate or take a company public. For example, business
taxes are not well integrated with personal taxes. Efforts to avoid
the double tax on corporate earnings have created a misallocation of
investment between the corporate and non-corporate sectors and rapid
growth in the use of S corporations, partnerships, and other entities
that do not pay corporate income tax.

We have seen how preferences in the tax code cause taxpayers to
devote more resources to tax-advantaged investments and activities at
the expense of other more productive alternatives. Reform of our tax
code should alleviate this wasteful use of our economic resources and
boost economic growth.

Some witnesses suggested that distortions created by the tax code may
have little or no benefit. Distinguished economists and policymakers,
including former Treasury Secretary James Baker and Chairman Alan
Greenspan of the Federal Reserve System, told the Panel that a broad-
based, low-rate tax system would provide the greatest economic
efficiency, simplicity, and ease of administration. One of our
witnesses observed that the wave of tax reform in developed countries
around the world during the past two decades reflects the view that
low-rate, broad-based, progressive systems are fairer and more
efficient than tax codes laden with special provisions that must be
subsidized by higher rates on all taxpayers.

Our tax code contains numerous provisions that attempt to distribute
tax benefits to specific groups of taxpayers. For example, there are
15 common tax benefits available to families - including provisions
that relate to children, education, and retirement savings-that
provide 14 different phase-out provisions to reduce benefits above
specified income levels that, in turn, contain nine different
definitions of income. The variety and complexity of targeted tax
benefits support the view that some taxpayers are not paying their
fair share and reward those who have the means or inclination to find
all the angles to reduce their tax. Tax noncompliance is due to a
variety of factors, but the complexity of the tax code is a
significant contributor because it makes it harder for taxpayers to
understand and apply the tax laws and more costly for the IRS to
administer them.

Reform of our tax code should result in a simpler and fairer tax
system that will be easier to understand and harder to manipulate.
This will allow Americans to feel confident that they, their
neighbors, and their business competitors are all paying their fair
share.

The comments and the testimony of witnesses at the public meetings
conveyed the dismal condition of our current tax system. Our tax laws
have been compared to an overbuilt and dilapidated house with

conflicting architectural styles and a crumbling foundation, a sick patient
who
is about to expire, and a factory that has been littered with so much
garbage that it can no longer operate productively. Nobel Laureate
Milton Friedman described our tax system as a blackboard that has
been filled up with so much writing that the slate must be wiped
clean. Most of the comments reflected the sentiments of one family who
expressed their view, "Tax reform is necessary and long overdue!"

During our examination of the existing system, several themes emerged
from the public comments and testimony. These themes will guide our

efforts as we consider options for reform:
.. We have lost sight of the fact that the fundamental purpose of our

tax system is to raise revenues to fund government.
.. Tax provisions favoring one activity over another or providing

targeted tax benefits to a limited number of taxpayers create
complexity and instability, impose large compliance costs and can lead
to an inefficient use of resources. A rational system would favor a
broad tax base, providing special treatment only where it can be
persuasively demonstrated that the effect of a deduction, exclusion,
or credit justifies higher taxes paid by all taxpayers.

.. The complex and unpredictable influences of the current tax system

on how families and businesses arrange their affairs distorts economic
decisions, leads to an inefficient allocation of resources, and
hinders economic growth.

.. The complexity of our tax code breeds a perception of unfairness
and creates opportunities for manipulation of the rules to reduce tax.
The profound lack of transparency means that individuals and
businesses cannot easily understand their own tax obligations or be
confident that their neighbors or competitors are paying their fair
share.

.. The tax system is both unstable and unpredictable. Frequent
changes in the tax code, which often add to or undo previous policies,
as well as the enactment of temporary provisions, result in
uncertainty for businesses and households. This volatility is harmful
to economic development and creates additional compliance costs.

.. The objectives of simplicity, fairness, and economic growth are
interrelated and, at times, may be at odds with each other.
Policymakers routinely make choices among these competing objectives,
and, in the end, simplification is almost always sacrificed. Although
these objectives at times are in tension, meaningful reform can
deliver a system that is simpler, fairer, and more growth oriented
than our existing tax code.

With these themes in mind, we are ready to consider specific
proposals for reform. These options may include modifying current law,
overhauling the existing system, or replacing the current structure and
starting
over. We will study the major reform proposals that have been offered
in the past, as well as new ideas. According to the Executive Order
establishing the Panel, each of our recommendations for reform, if
implemented, must:

.. Simplify the tax laws to reduce the costs of compliance and to
make it easier for taxpayers to plan for the future and manage their
affairs;
.. Share the burdens and benefits of the tax system in an
appropriately fair and progressive manner while recognizing the
importance of homeownership and charity in American society; and
.. Promote long-run economic growth, higher wages and job creation by
encouraging work effort and increased saving and investment to
strengthen the competitiveness of the United States in the global
marketplace.

The President has requested that at least one of our recommendations
be based on our existing tax system. Finally, to allow comparisons
between the options and the current tax system, the Panel intends to
use the baseline in the President's Budget and to recommend options
that are revenue neutral.

Americans deserve a fairer tax system that will minimize the burdens
of complexity and compliance and promote economic prosperity and
growth. The President has presented us with a unique and historic
opportunity to take a fresh look at our tax system. Now is the time to
take action to reform our broken tax code. We look forward to
completing this important and formidable task - and to presenting
options that will ensure a better tax system for current and future
generations.

Approved:
Connie Mack, III, Chairman
John Breaux, Vice-Chairman
Charles O. Rossotti
William E. Frenzel
Elizabeth Garrett
Edward P. Lazear
Timothy J. Muris
James M. Poterba
Liz Ann Sonders
 
Ad

Advertisements

P

Paul Thomas, CPA

I'm not the one who is in a newsgroup that they don't belong in.


Do you see me in any of the amature radio groups?



So why is an amature radio person in a tax group, except to troll.





One can count on one hand all the times you've offered any advice to anyone
that wasn't a continuation of, or begining of, your troll postings.


"File separately in Ohio".........that's about the extent of it.
"Contact the Taxpayer Advocates office"........That one too.

Any others you can think of?


How about this past week.......

How about this past month.......

How about since 2000...........






Face it Andy, a majority of your posts here, like 99.9999999% are troll
posts.








What would stephen or nell say your posts were?

What would they say you were here for?

To give advice? To get advice? Or to stir the pot looking for trouble.







Shall we find out?
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top