Well how else are you gonna do it? Handwritten notes on Hallmark stationary saying "pay it whenever"?

See the bigger issue....why is there so many in trouble with taxes that automated machine/response needs to be generated? Gordon is right. This notice would not need to be generated if people would pay their taxes. I hate seeing those commercials were lawyers bargain down for clients what is owed in taxes. "Hi, I got out of paying $80,000.00 in taxes and only cut a check for $10,000 thanks to Wee, Cheatem and How." There are so many red flagged returns at the doing of tax payers it is not a wonder there is automated letters.

Which is exactly why the political class - both sides of the same coin - don't want to ever reform the tax code. Doing so means that while the middle class pays - they won't have all the loopholes.

Look at how any true reform of the tax code gets attacked. Its rather telling.

The middle have all the loophles they have, the poor and the wealthy have all the loopholes they have.
Some of those loopholes overlap but none of them have all the loopholes.
Likewise with business.


To look at that you would first have to produce an example of true reform.

Throwing out the multi-hundred page tax code and instituting a flat/fair tax isn't reform?

Moving from an income tax structure to a consumption tax structure isn't reform?

Yes it isn't, its just more of the same.
Look how quickly Cains simple plan hit reality, as it was at first it already had probably a hundred pages of ah buts, once he tried to actually work some numbers he had to add a couple of hundred pages for but ifs anda few hundred pages of but thens which would soon come back to the ah buts with extra pages for them.
As for consumption tax, bloody hell what a nightmare of paperwork, forget multi hundred page, cut down a whole forest for the paper.
Flat tax/fair tax isjust a sloganeering gimmick and consumption tax is such a nightmare its why they moved to income in the first place.

If the main driver of this country's GDP is consumer spending, how is a consumption based tax system that provides disincentives to consumer spending a good thing?

It's only a disincentive if the total tax paid is somehow more. Note that I'm not defending 999, it seems half-baked to me. I was thinking something more like the fair tax. It eliminates all other federal taxes, so consumers have more to spend in the first place (and in the case of fair tax, the tax rate times the poverty level is refunded to everyone, so the poor pay no tax whatsoever).

That said I'm more in a flat tax camp.

I see no reason why the personal income/payroll tax code cannot fit on a page or two.

No breaks for anything. If they want to make it more progressive, make it tax XX% of all income over a certain level. Say the poverty line.

Ditto the corporate rate. Make it flat, no special cases, no exceptions—but a low rate.

Now see - you have no idea if that is accurate - its a "guess". Plans take time to create - the "at first" is what is called a work in progress. 9-9-9 actually is SIMPLE - its not hundreds of pages. Trying to make a "guess" or a "probably" into something factual is not gonna fly. The final product is what is important - and that is simple enough for the public school educated crowd to even get it.

Apparently your not familiar with the US tax system. They didn't "move" to an income based tax system because consumption tax is a nightmare. They did so to create another revenue stream. Otherwise the US government would be stuck with only tariff income.

The US has a consumption tax system - or rather - a lot of consumption tax systems. It is called state sales tax. There is no reason that a consumption tax could not be federally applied with each state being responsible to collect it - for a very small percentage of it to cover the cost since the infrastructure is already in place.

999 is so simplistic it was in reality unworkable and just a slogan.
How many pages do you think it would take to set out all the parameters just for the initial "empowerment" nonsense(which is a only a version of existing tax breaks for incentivising business in deprived areas)?

Then you should have understood...."To look at that you would first have to produce an example of true reform."
They did the same move as the rest of the western world for the same reasons.

Yes there is no reason why not, but there are and always will be lots of questions about the impact, effectiveness and shall we say "Black" issues that have always dogged sales taxes.

You know what, I think Warren Buffet has it right:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/op...uper-rich.html

Any system where one person earning a middle class income is taxed at twice the rate of a millionaire or billionaire due to exclusive deductions, deferrals, reclassifications, etc. is very, very unfair. If we are going to get serious about reforming taxes, we need to have a parity across the board: everyone pays at the same rate and no deductions (except, perhaps for charitable comtributions, emergency disaster loss/recovery, or one-time only exigencies) and no "special status" due to occupational "conditions" (you know, those near-mythic "job creators"). If a millionaire/billionaires maid pays at a 38% tax rate, so should their boss: conversly, if the boss pays at a 17% tax rate, sho should the maid...

Yawn.

He pays less than the mean for the 1%. He pays less than the mean for the 0.1%. He in fact manages to pay less than the norm for the top 400 tax filings.

The reason is simple, most of his income is "capital gains." He only pays himself 100k a year—for no other reason than to dodge taxes. Most people making around a million pay an effective rate around 30% since they do not have the luxury of deciding to pay themselves differently.

Regardless, he STILL pays far more than "his share." He lives in the same, low key house he always did. He uses no more services than anyone else, yet still pays millions in taxes every year.

There is no inherent reason why even identical % of income is "fair." The only possible objective definition of fair would be a system of shares. (Total budget)/population = per capita share. If you have a family of 4, you pay 4 shares. Under the current, insane levels of spending this is obviously impossible for most, so we pretend to have a system where everyone pays, but in fact all the bills are paid by the very top tier of taxpayers. Under a "share" system, clearly spending would have to be gutted back to some reasonable % of GDP. Realistically, the best we can do in terms of fairness would be a single rate for all, and make deficit spending harder.

The story (editorial) was talked about by the credulous press without much (if any) examination. Has he submitted his tax returns for public review? What about his maids, etc? They must make a lot if they have an effective rate even equal to 17%. Since he demonstrably pays less than others in his income range, why doesn't he simply pony up extra cash as a donation to the feds? What, he'll only do so if someone making 1M$ a year does the same compared to his vast earnings?

Also, most of his wealth is in unrealized capital gains. When liquidated, they will be taxed at that rate. Which is low, but it will be a huge chunk of money.

What's most funny, is that even if the "Buffett Rule" he proposed were made law it would raise... wait for it... 19 billion a year. That covers less than 2 days of current spending.

BTW, a flat tax would solve this.