Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site teldata.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!zehntel!tektronix!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac
From: tac@teldata.UUCP ()
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Flat Tax
Message-ID: <314@teldata.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Apr-84 17:43:18 EST
Article-I.D.: teldata.314
Posted: Thu Apr 19 17:43:18 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Apr-84 08:45:43 EST
References: <434@burl.UUCP>
Organization: Teltone Corp., Kirkland, WA
Lines: 60

, (sop to the blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice)

>>  From: wjb@burl.UUCP (Bill Buie)
>>  Subject: Flat Tax
>>  
>>  Do you really mean to do away with *ALL* deductions?
>>  
Well, Bill, I can't speak for the rest of them, but I do.  

>>  Consider, for instance, Joe Blow, who is self-employed.  Maybe he
>>  builds widgets in his backyard or hacks software in his garage.  Now
>>  Joe's total volume in sales for a given year are $150,000.  His
>>  expenses, stuff like debt servicing and cash outlays for equipment
>>  and raw materials ran to $127,000.  Under the present setup, Joe
>>  writes off the $127,000 as a business expense, and pays taxes only
>>  on the $23,000 he cleared.  I think that this is quite reasonable. 

It seems to me that he still does this.  The businesses should be inc.
for Joe's protection, and there are quite different tax structures for
businesses as I recall.

>>  Is anybody out there talking about taxing Joe for his total volume
>>  (resulting in a tax larger than his true income)?
>>  
It seems to me that the figure most talked about for flat taxes is 15%.
At this tax rate Joe would only have to pay $19050 in taxes, not more
than his profits (though damn near!).

>>  You can probably see implications.  Would somebody take this up and
>>  debate it?  I'm learning a lot in this discussion.
>>  -- 
>>  				--Bill Buie
>>  
Just imagine our well intentioned government getting the same bug in their
ears that you have.  Well, says the learned representative from Podunk,
New Whereever, we better save ole Joe.  So they pass a law that widget
makers can't be taxed unless they fail to subtract their expenses.  Now
comes the cute part--everyone else can still be taxed.  So they scratch
their heads a few times and decide that conglobules are at least twice
as valuable to the economy as widgets so they pass a law that those who
make conglobules can write off twice their expenses in deductions.  Opps,
they forgot the everpopular thingamabob, and we all know how important
that is.  Soon, Joe is only paying taxes on his profits, Fred is not
paying anything, Bob is getting money back (he only made $1.6 Million
in the thingamabob business this year) and you and I (who do not get
to deduct our expenses) are footing the entire bill.  I think that if
you look you will find that most people do not get to deduct the actual
expenses of day to day living from their income, so why should the rest?
The expenses of a business are different in name, but no different in
nature than the expenses of a family.

It is very important to realize that if you give to a government the
power to do something they will mis-do it (sooner or later) every time.
A course in the history of government and it's abuses is in order for
anyone who would like to disagree with that statement.

	    From the Soapbox of
	    Tom Condon     {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac}

	    A Radical A Day Keeps The Government At Bay.