If 51% of our population is currently not paying Federal Income Tax, what reason would they have for supporting a flat tax candidate?
If you are not currently paying Federal Income Tax because of the quirks of the code, why would you support a candidate espousing a plan for a flat tax that would suddenly shift any tax burden to you?
How does the President justify saying everyone should pay their fair share but half the people in our country pay nothing? If he thinks folks who pay nothing are paying more than their fair share, how can he say that those who pay everything don’t pay enough? What should a fair share be? How does he quantify what a fair share should be?
Having said all of that;
The chances of the US Congress passing a Flat Tax in place of the current system is zero so I would suggest we focus on “reforming” the current law to eliminate the special interest deductions everyone seems to detest and adjust tax rates so lower income folks start paying something.
Changes affecting deductions may change more quickly, but changes increasing tax rates on lower income “tax payers” should take place more gradually. Big changes coming too quickly cause big protests.
I think we all agree that the current tax code is too complex and unwieldy. But if the existing progressive system is so much more desirable, what has Congress done or what are they doing to strip away the exemptions that allow a company like GE to pay no Federal Income Tax?
Americans are upset, but it’s likely that inaction by Congress is the most frustrating reason. Let’s get the Super Committee working on deleting 2/3 of the 71,000 pages of the tax code for starters. When the Simpson-Boles Report suggested a few changes, neither side of the political aisle stepped up and agreed because of their own sacred cows; that has to change.
In my view, our government uses the tax code to shape public behavior. We create incentives for behaviors we like and penalties for behaviors we dislike.
As an example, we want folks to buy homes so we give generous deductions for mortgage interest. But, what happens to the housing industry in our country if that cash cow dries up? So is that one is a keeper; if it is, then how about the next one and the next one?
The Progressive Tax system is not an equal treatment system but it’s characterized as being more “fair” because it shifts a higher burden to folks who have been successful and a lesser burden on everyone else. I don’t understand how the more you make the higher the rate is fair! If we have to accept that application of the word “fair” as the true definition of fair, maybe that is part of the problem.
No Loss for Words 
What are American Jobs Worth?
by Steve DanaThe most important issue for Americans is getting our unemployed workers back to work. Our consumer driven economy needs our people working to fuel the recovery.
What specific actions do we need government to enact that would cause a business to invest or to hire new workers? At what level of government do we need these actions?
My first thought was Energy Policy in our country and I see the potential for jobs with pay and benefits that can support families, but I see over-regulation and legal challenges that prevent those jobs from ever coming to market. The energy segment is really important to the national economy not just because of the jobs, but also because of the products they produce for our homes and our cars.
It is of national importance to get these industries back on track producing competitively priced energy for American consumers. Failing to address the issues preventing energy companies from doing what they do will not provide those jobs and will increase the cost of energy to all of us.
So what do we need the government to do that will make it possible for private sector “for profit” companies to get to work? I’m asking because I don’t know.
I have ideas, but I am not an authority so I need help.
I do know it is really easy to file a lawsuit to prevent a company from drilling or mining because of environmental concerns. The cost to file the suit is minimal and the risk to the filer is minimal. Even lawsuits without merit can be filed as a harassment strategy.
It is really frustrating to work through the regulatory process and when you have a permit in hand find you are stopped in your tracks because of a lawsuit challenging some aspect of the permit.
I use national energy policy as an example of how government over-regulation or being overly sympathetic to litigation prevents the formation of jobs and forces higher consumer prices for energy products available to American consumers.
Here are two reasons for the Federal government to act proactively to reduce regulations and change statutes that allow frivolous or trivial lawsuits that can create the jobs and produce the energy our country needs.
Am I off base on this? If I am not, then can we do it legislatively or does it require control of the executive branch? If we capture an executive position, how do we implement changes that will clear the way for jobs and cheaper energy?
I can think of The Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act as two legislative initiatives that increase cost to consumers and lose jobs for American workers. I am certain that there are dozens of federal and state laws that do as well.
We need to recommend specific changes to state and federal laws that will address these concerns so that voters can see why or how they lost their jobs or how their neighbor lost her job. People need to see the relationship between a statute and industries impacted. Let’s give voters a chance to choose between jobs and spotted owls.
Posted in Regulatory Reform | Leave a Comment »