These are my comments on the flat tax -- on You Tube videos:
Milton Friedman - Why Tax Reform Is Impossible
LibertyPen
Walter Picca
MY COMMENT: Milton Friedman is partly correct—the U.S. Congress cannot fix the Tax Code and make it fair; because, they have been bribed by special interests who donate money to their political campaigns and themselves are; mostly, rich people—or plan to become wealthy—on K street. But, he is wrong-- a flat tax without tax breaks and deductions is the solution.
He is just as bias—as lawmakers—seeking acceptance from his well-to-due supporters [and audience] –rich people that hate the graduating income tax.
He would not be popular, if he advocated keeping the graduating income tax and removing tax breaks, loopholes, tax havens, and [some] tax deductions, and make it simple and set the graduating tax rates and brackets to pay for the annual cost of the federal government.
The Tax Code can be made simple without discarding the graduating rates: they don’t make the Tax Code complicated.
It is made complicated by Congress—to conceal the tax breaks—to do that they use legalese—that only tax pros understand.
It is not only the individual income tax that needs fixing, but also the corporate profit tax: they [i.e., most] don’t pay their fair share: he left that out. He is a deceitful man.
The solution: put reforming the Tax Code in the hands of non-partisan tax-experts: not elected lawmakers who are corrupted by special interests and their interests.
Chad Phelps Reply:
put it in the hands of non partisans? what you are suggesting is to put it into the hands of the have nots to make the decision on how much of the wealthiest people's money we take. there are no non partisans
Walter Picca Reply:
That is not what I said [or suggested]. I said, non-partisan "tax experts". You left that out. These are not "have nots." They would be retired IRS agents or auditors or tax pros who understand the tax code; mostly, the middle class--not millionaires.
People who have not signed the Norquist pledge.
I don't advocate over taxing the rich or putting writing the tax code in the hands of the "have nots." They are not tax experts.
Non-partisan tax experts are not under the influence of lobbyists--and don't require campaign donations, because, they are not running for office.
If you are against the "have nots" writing the tax cut; why, are you not against the rich and super rich writing the tax code.
That has been the case since Ronald Reagan became president and the Republican Party adoption of the Norquist no-tax-increase pledge.
The pledge violates the Oath of Office.
That's what happens when the rich take over the Congress: they refuse to pay for government expenses.
The tool they used: the Norquist pledge.
They rigged the tax code in favor of the rich and corporations. That will not change as long as Republicans control the Congress.
The Republican Party has not renounced the Norquist pledge as unconstitutional. It is. It prevents lawmakers from exercising their congressional power to pay for legitimate government expenses, such as, wars, etc.
Over 95% of Republicans members of Congress have signed the pledge: agreed not to raise taxes for any reason; consequently, the growing $18 trillion National Debt.
Milton Friedman's plan is no different than that of the Republican Party: a plan to flatten the income tax.
The fairest income tax: graduating tax rates: it does not over tax workers, the middle class or the rich [based on benefits received].
Chad Phelps said, there are no non-partisans. That is mostly true in Congress, members generally vote along party lines.
That is not true outside of Congress. They are free to exercise their conscience, reason, and senses. If, you sign the Pledge, you can't.
Chad Phelps Reply:
+Walter Picca what you need to learn is you never bite the hand that feeds. if you take from the wealthy, they're gonna take it back at the expense of their employees. the best policy is to make it advantageous to not use those loop holes. you'll get less per person, but more because they're paying money they otherwise would hide.
John Stossel - The Flat Tax
LibertyPen
Walter Picca
MY COMMENT: You can reform the tax code without destroying the graduating income tax: there is no fair replacement.
CousinJimmays Reply:
+Walter Picca You do not understand math if you think graduated income tax is "fair". A flat % is the same percentage on 100 million $$ or 100 $$. That's fair. But best would be to abolish the income tax altogether!
Walter Picca Reply:
The higher the individual's income, the more the nation's resources, laws, infrastructure, services, benefits, and the labor force contributes, and the less the individual; therefore, a graduating income tax is fairer, than flat.
The fact, that CEO compensation to average worker pay has increased from 20:1 in 1965 to 303:1 in 2014 makes the graduating income, even more justified.
The reason we have a corrupt Congress, they have changed the original graduating income tax to a regressive income tax; that is, the rich pay a higher tax rate than the super-rich. That is unfair: backwards.
To abolish the income tax would cheat the government, the people, and the nation of its contribution to the individual's income. That is the worst solution.
George McGovern put it correctly, he said: "I believe in the graduating income tax we got under Woodrow Wilson--many years ago. I think it is the foundation stone of all these programs to strengthen the United States. It means the more you make, the higher your tax rate goes. And, that is the only fair way to do it.
H BI reply: +Walter Picca that CEO bull average is inflated because of Fortune 500 companies. Flat tax is the only fair tax. Everyone is pulling their weight, no excuses
My reply [12/22/2015]:
I am not only speaking of CEOs, but athletes, actors and actresses, hedge fund managers, the top 5% of incomers, the top 400 households, etc.
The flat [individual] income tax is not fair: that is the reason, under most proposals, a big swath of low incomers up to $50,000 are exempted. Everyone is not pulling their weight; because, it is not fair to tax low incomers, the bottom 60%, at the same rate as millionaires and billionaires. George McGovern is correct: the income tax should be based on benefits received, the bigger your benefit, the higher your tax rate to pay for the people's, the government's, and nation's natural resources contribution; but, that is not the only reason: it is also fair to tax individual income--as it increases at a higher rate--to pay for the cost of social programs: education, healthcare, aid to the needy, natural disasters, homeland security, wars, etc. To pay for these benefits at a flat rate: it would be overly burdensome for the low incomers and middle class--and a light burden for the top 1-5 percent: that is not a fair tax.
The flattening of the income tax rates, since Reagan, has resulted in a spike in federal fiscal deficits--or the skyrocketing National Debt--over $18 trillion.
The top 5 percent have become very rich, Uncle Sam deeper in debt: that is not a fair tax system.
Steve Forbes on the Flat Tax, Trump, and Election 2016
ReasonTV
Walter Picca
MY COMMENT: Steve Forbes has been pushing the flat tax for a long time: why? Because, he is a billionaire: he would pay less. His plan is the same as the GOP plan which, generally, includes a larger income exemption for individuals--to get support for a flat tax that would, generally, eliminate the estate tax, derogatively, called the "death tax" and the capital gains and dividend taxes, two big sources of income of the rich and super rich. Taxing workers and the middle class at the same rate as the rich and the super rich means: the rich and super rich would be less and workers and the middle class must make up the difference--or deficits. The flat tax, generally, also comes with the plan to cut government expenses to make up for the lost revenue: that means cutting public works, services, and social programs; such as, Social Security, Medicare, etc. A single flat tax on wages would not generate enough revenue to pay for government expenses, which means: other taxes would be added to make up for the lost revenue--of federal deficits.
The graduating income tax is the correct [fair] principle of taxation: the tax rates go with higher benefits [or income] received from the nation's resources, labor force, infrastructure, government services, laws, research, disease control, healthcare, justice system, national defense, homeland security, consumers, banks, GDP, etc.
The flat tax is unfair: it is a higher burden on workers and the middle class--and lower burden on the rich and super rich. The graduating income tax rates decrease the gap between the rich and poor: the flat tax increases the gap between the rich and poor. Steve Forbes likes to pay little taxes on his big benefits. He is a greedy Motherland Robber: the nation contributes more to the income of the rich and super rich, than the individual; but, he wants the bigger share for himself.
Steve Forbes made it clear in the video--he does not like "social engineering"--taxing the rich to pay for social programs for the poor and needy.
He said, Milton Freidman was right...
Steve Forbes criticized Hillary....
He did not criticize Donald Trump....
He lauds Reagan's tax cut [on the wealthy]...
Forbes does not like the "balanced budget amendment" --because it might result in a tax increase. That's his major concern.
ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, says: "Rather than merely oppose the flat tax, sensible people should push for a truly progressive tax -- starting with a top rate of 70 percent on that portion of anyone's income exceeding $5 million, from whatever source." I consider him a non-partisan tax expert. The top income tax rate was 70% before Reagan cut it to 28%--resulting in a spike in deficits.
ROBERT KUTTNER, professor at Brandeis University's Heller School, said in his book: "The Rich Get Richer", 1996, "Defense of principle can be good politics -- and progressive taxation is a principle well worth defending."
I also consider him a non-partisan tax expert: following the Reagan tax cuts: the-- rich got richer-- and Uncle Sam deeper in debt. They did not pay for their benefits.
Steve Forbes does not think so, when he ran for the republican nominee for president in 1996 and 2000, both times proposed at flat tax.
All republicans running for office propose tax cuts on the wealthy to get campaign donations from the rich and super rich, and it works:
Steve Forbes has in the past endorsed: Rick Perry, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio--republicans who would make the income tax flatter--or flat.
Currently, he prefers Rand Paul's more than Marco Rubio's, because it has two rates: he says, these are like rabbits that will reproduce higher rates.
Rand Paul has one rate 14.5%, it can't reproduce higher rates. Forbes is not only a Motherland Robber, but deceptive: he failed to mention Rand Paul would eliminate the estate and gift taxes, a huge tax break for the wealthy.
That is bad for democratic rule.
It also cheats Uncle Sam.
It also would eliminate the corporate profit tax, another big tax cut for the Forbes family, which is a majority shareholder of Forbes Media.
Steve Forbes also failed to mention: it would add the VAT of 14.5%--that would be harder for workers and the middle class consumers to pay--than the rich and super rich.
It also would eliminate the payroll tax, future senior citizens would no longer have guaranteed Social Security benefits and Medicare.
Forbes prefers the worst of the worst tax cut plans.
Apr 18, 2016
Tax Day: A Painful Reminder Of Why We Must Have The Flat Tax [Steve Forbes]
My comment: A better idea: a simple graduating income tax.
Ted Cruz on Passing a Flat Tax, Abolishing the IRS by ABC News Videos
My comment[4/18/16]:
Ted Cruz is a crazy Motherland F...er. He is worst than Trump and worst than Kasick. You need the IRS to collect the income, Social Security, and corporate profit taxes. You would also need the IRS to enforce and collect the flat tax. This is a Republican scam to get elected. The best tax: a simplified graduating income tax. Of the democrats running: Bernie's is best, Hillary's is second: better than all republicans. Cruz's citizenship should be revoked and sent back to Canada for attempting to emasculate Uncle Sam.
A progressive income tax won't be fair
Chicago Tribune
3/18/2018
My comment: Progressive taxation is fair; because, as a person’s income increases: the nation’s national resources, laws, labor force, infrastructure, services, national defense, courts, educational systems, social services, disease control, research, homeland security, etc. – contribute progressively, more to that income, than, the individual; for example, a person who makes $100,000,000 a year: paying 70% of the profit or income to the government, and keeping $30 million for the self is not unfair; plus, the government needs that revenue to provide those benefits. A person, who thinks he deserves $70 million and the government $30 million is very egotistical.