Whats the income taxes future & its impact upon US society?

[juiceman]

Clearly, everyone here thinks that it is legal, and I'm not going to try and argue any of those points.

But what do you think is the future of the income tax and the bearing or impact it will have upon future American society? The 100 year anniversary of the 16th amenment is right around the corner and the fair-tax proposal has been sitting in Congress' lap for almost a decade now. Do you think it will change?

See, I myself, can't help but think of names like Ron Paul, Ronald Reagan, Huckabee, and Bob Barr. Those are just a few prominent politicians who have gone out to publicly say we need to do away, or drastically change, the IRS. These are our leaders. Our law makers and our even president. And they have publicly stated that the current form of taxation needs to go.

So what should the future be? And what do you think it will be?

I greatly appreciate any reasonable replies.

[Doktor Avalanche]

As a professional troll: do you get paid by the hour or by the word?

[LPC]

See, I myself, can't help but think of names like Ron Paul, Ronald Reagan, Huckabee, and Bob Barr. Those are just a few prominent politicians who have gone out to publicly say we need to do away, or drastically change, the IRS. These are our leaders. Our law makers and our even president.

You might want to pick up a newspaper and catch up on current events, because we had an election just last week and the results might interest you.

I'm also sorry to have to tell you that President Reagan's term ended 20 years ago, and he died 4 years ago.

Only 2 of the names you mentioned were involved in last week's election. Ron Paul ran unopposed for the 14th Congressional District in Texas and will be able to control 1/435ths of the votes in the House of Representatives. (Which somewhat overstates his influence because he's a member of the Republican Party, which is in the minority and lost between 20 and 26 seats in the election.) Bob Barr ran as the Libertarian Party's candidate for President and got about 500,000 votes. Out of about 125,700,000 votes cast. Which means he got less than 0.04% of the votes cast.

So I've got another writing tip: If you're trying to predict the future, you might want to look at the policy positions of the winners of the election, not the losers.

[The Operative]

Clearly, everyone here thinks that it is legal, and I'm not going to try and argue any of those points.

We don't just think that it is legal, we KNOW that it is legal.

But what do you think is the future of the income tax and the bearing or impact it will have upon future American society? The 100 year anniversary of the 16th amenment is right around the corner and the fair-tax proposal has been sitting in Congress' lap for almost a decade now. Do you think it will change?

The fair-tax proposal will probably sit for another decade or more. In my opinion, the fair-tax proposal is a ridiculously bad idea. While there is some debate about it that I won't go into here, the simple fact is that under the fair tax, the wealthy will have direct control over how much in taxes they will pay. While everyone has some control over their tax burden to some extent, under fair-tax, the wealthy will have a better capability to avoid taxes than they do now.

See, I myself, can't help but think of names like Ron Paul, Ronald Reagan, Huckabee, and Bob Barr. Those are just a few prominent politicians who have gone out to publicly say we need to do away, or drastically change, the IRS. These are our leaders. Our law makers and our even president. And they have publicly stated that the current form of taxation needs to go.

The IRS will never go away. Even under the fair-tax or flat-tax, some agency still has to collect the tax payments. Is the IRS a poorly-run bureaucratic nightmare? Possibly, but that doesn't mean it isn't necessary. BTW, in my opinion, Ron Paul is a first-class kook.

So what should the future be? And what do you think it will be?

I greatly appreciate any reasonable replies.

The tax code needs to be simplified. Many of the deductions for AGI and from AGI need to be eliminated. However, as long as Congress tries to manipulate social behavior through tax law, it will never change.

[.]

Bob Barr ran as the Libertarian Party's candidate for President and got about 500,000 votes. Out of about 125,700,000 votes cast. Which means he got less than 0.04% of the votes cast.

Hey, don't be misunderestimatating the non-entity that Bob "I'm a dufus, I used to be a Republican, but now I'm a goof-ball Libertarian" Barr is.

500K votes is .4%, not .04%.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Clearly, everyone here thinks that it is legal, and I'm not going to try and argue any of those points.

But what do you think is the future of the income tax and the bearing or impact it will have upon future American society? ....

So what should the future be? And what do you think it will be?

I greatly appreciate any reasonable replies.

Sorry for the repeated use of the analogy, but tax law is like a camel - it's a horse designed by a committee.

If you've every been in or watch congressional testimony you can tell the people with the big chairs are really out of their realm in most cases; 90% of what some of them understand about any issue, especially complex ones, comes from their staff. 90% of what those staffers know comes from their own work experience and/or from the lobbyists they are inundated with (where they are also cultivating positions for their own future).

Nothing is going to change except there will be more taken from some and less taken from others.

[wserra]

Don't misunderstand, JRB, I'm not saying you're wrong. But you do get the November "Cynic of the Month" award.

[Prof]

Don't misunderstand, JRB, I'm not saying you're wrong. But you do get the November "Cynic of the Month" award.

While JRB is somewhat cynical, that doesn't mean he's wrong. Even paranoids have enemies.

On a more serious note, and in an attempt to respond to the Juice, I think I can comment based upon a historical perspective. (I am not a tax professional, although I frequently deal with and often litigate with the IRS in bankruptcy and related matters. While I may have some competence in talking about the history of taxation in the US and the history of income taxation, I am not competent to discuss the actual ins and outs of the various statutes.)

First, you need to understand, as the authors of the Constitution understood, that a national government needs a broad base of possible sources of revenue. The Constitution, unlike the Articles of Confederation, provided that base.

Next, you need to view the needs of the US government, circa 1800, as quite limited. Other than an Army, Navy, Post Office, and harbor improvements, the national government did little and was expected to do little. As the country expanded, however, even those small duties became more and more expensive, as the population expanded into regions previously not served by any sort of governmental presence. The expansion of the duties of the Army and Post Office alone were expensive. Since much of the "new" country, particularly in the trans-Mississippi West, was not served by rivers, overland transportation became more important and expensive.

As American trade expanded, the costs of protecting that trade on the high seas increased, leading to the "shores of Tripoli," the War of 1812, and eventually to overseas possessions and the associated costs.

With this brief sketch, I hope you can see that the growth of the expected functions of the government required increased revenue. When the Civil War came along, the only way the national government could finance the war involved bonds and an income tax. While the income tax was repealed, it came back at the turn of the next century, resulting in a Supreme Court decision and the 16th Amendment. After the passage of the 16th, the US has relied increasingly upon an income tax from both corporations and individuals. At the same time, the costs of and demands on the national government have increased enormously.

In other words, as the size of government has increased, the demand for revenues has increased leading to an income tax on individuals and corporations.

As long as the citizens expect and even demand a large government providing expensive services, including both the military and civilian sectors, the government will have to seek revenue where it can find that revenue, including income taxation.

As long as the tax system is view as a mechanism for social engineering, the tax codes will have provisions which are designed to promote things like charities, religions, home ownership, and the like.

And, as long as high net worth individuals and large corporations are subject to income taxation, those persons will hire tax lawyers, CPA's, and lobbyists, in an often successful attempt to insert "loopholes" or exploit ambiguities or take advantage of various provions.

Put simply, the tax code will not change significantly -- will not be simplified -- and the tax base will not be changed from income to consumption -- unless there is a fundamental change in the way that Americans view their National (and, for that matter, State and local) government. "We have met the enemy and he is us," said Pogo (Walt Kelly).

[Duke2Earl]

The key fact is that every government has always had taxes. The reason why Jesus was born in that stable was his parents were on the way home to pay their taxes. On a historical basis our current tax burden in this country is quite light. And so long as we continue to insist as a society on substantial government actions and benefits paid to members of that society, there will always be a substantial tax burden on individuals.

You make a bad mistake in thinking that somehow the IRS is either responsible or the villians of this story. They are simply a law enforcement organization just like the police. Are you angry at the police for enforcing the law? Congress makes the laws. And the truth is no matter what tax we have, income tax, fair tax, sales tax, VAT, property tax, or whatever, you need some enforcement organization or the law is a joke. Nobody is going to pay tax, any tax unless there is someone who will enforce it and penalties for failure to pay. I agree with the comment above that the "fair" tax is totally misnamed because it isn't even close to fair and it would cause, at best, enormous economic dislocations but the stupidest part of it is when they claim it would get rid of the IRS. WRONG! You might end up renaming it but to have no enforcement agency.... never going to happen. Just ask any state sales tax enforcement agency what the problems are of enforcing the current state sales taxes and then imagine how those problems will exponentially explode when the "sales" tax rate goes up to about 40%. You may end up with needing more enforcement as opposed to less.

Is the tax law too complicated?... yes. Is that likely to change?.... no. The truth is that annoying and complicated as it is, the income tax has served the county pretty well for almost 100 years. Look around the world... does any major economy not have an income tax? Does any major country raise all of their revenue by sales taxes? Most country have both an income tax and a sale or VAT tax. And why is that? There seems to be this urban myth that any tax would be better than what we have. But in actual practice, not just here, that hasn't been proven. There are several reasons why we have the system we have. Not the least among them is that it generally works pretty well and that no one really has a better idea.

There is lots we could do to improve the tax system. Actually, more enforcement (not less) would be a major improvement. Simplification is long overdue. You could flatten the rates some but that has both pros and cons. If you, or Mr. Huckabee think the "fair" tax would be an improvement you both don't really understand the issues and show a reckless disregard for the economy and the severe economic repercussions involved. So my forecast, is that over the forseeable future what we will have is what we have had in the recent past.... more tweaking but no systemic change.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I accept the nomination for the addition of Resident Cynic to my duties as Judge of the District of Quatloosia.

[Doktor Avalanche]

And iothers are wrong, to compare the tax code to a camel (horse designed by committee), it is really a platypus - something designed by committee, but no one really knows what it really is.

The platypus is proof that God/Yaweh/Allah/The Flying Spaghetti Monster smokes really wicked dope.

"Let's see <puff><puff>.....duck's bill....<puff>...otter body...<puff>...beaver tail....<puff>...it's a mammal AND it lays eggs! <exhale>

HEY DARWIN - EVOLVE THIS!"

[Famspear]

. . . . But what do you think is the future of the income tax and the bearing or impact it will have upon future American society?

The federal income tax will continue to grow in pervasiveness, oppressiveness, and needless complexity! Why? Because we, the lawyers, the CPAs, the politicians, the international bankers, the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the Shape-Shifting Lizards who control world events behind the scenes and benefit from the 5,400 plus pages of mind-numbing complexity that is the perverted beauty of the Internal Revenue Code, will never let the income tax die! Bwahhhh-hhhaaaa--ahh! We control the horizontal! We control the vertical! Do not try to adjust your set! Ha--hahhhhhahha oh hahhhhhh! Small craft warnings! What can I say about this elixir??!?? Ha-ha-hahaaaaaaa!!

I greatly appreciate any reasonable replies.

Oh.

Never mind. Please disregard this message.

[Doktor Avalanche]

This is not the message I was looking for.

Move along...

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

Clearly, everyone here thinks that it is legal, and I'm not going to try and argue any of those points.

So you have no point?

At least speak up. We at Quatloos know that the spiritual qualities of the income tax are more important than the legal ones. We worship the 16th Amendment. After all, who else protects our children and society? If we gots rid of the income tax we'd be going back to living in caves and eating chickweed. No juiceman, the income tax is what gives us life and purpose and meaning. Why even you feel it's power. If you did not have the income tax to rail against, you would have to find another purpose for your existence. Possibly chickweed.

But what do you think is the future of the income tax and the bearing or impact it will have upon future American society? The 100 year anniversary of the 16th amenment is right around the corner and the fair-tax proposal has been sitting in Congress' lap for almost a decade now. Do you think it will change?

The income tax will continue to bless us and look after the children of the believers and punish our enemies with earthquakes and audits.

See, I myself, can't help but think of names like Ron Paul, Ronald Reagan, Huckabee, and Bob Barr. Those are just a few prominent politicians who have gone out to publicly say we need to do away, or drastically change, the IRS. These are our leaders. Our law makers and our even president. And they have publicly stated that the current form of taxation needs to go.

Mere mortals, hucksters, tallywhacker whackers, and whipper-snappers?

But why Ronald Reagan? He lorded over one of the biggest tax hikes in US history? Or did you forget when you drank the magical drink made with the flavorful powder known as taxberryprotesusrex?

[Q Continuum]

What is the incomes taxes future and its impact upon society? Simple answer.

I think Benjamin Franklin answered that question about 200 some odd years ago. "Death and taxes are guaranteed"