lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (04/16/84)
From THE SIMPLE TAX by Robert Gnaizda in Coevolution Quarterly Summer 1983. The present federal income tax code, an incomprehensible 1784 pages, is longer than the aggregate of the Bible, the Koran, and the major BUddhist scripture. As a result: The vast majority of Americans have no faith in the tax system and their government and/or feel righteous in violating such tax laws; Ninety-nine percent of Americans are functional illiterates since, with the exception of some, but not all, tax attorneys and CPAs, no one understands the implications of a system that is incomprehensible, counterproductive to a postindustrial society, and often violative of all our training and experience in logic, reason and ethics; ... To replace our complex federal tax system, a diverse and bipartisan group of US senators are urging a federal simple or flat tax that would fit on a postcard... Such a tax would cover all income from every source and eliminate every deduction, no matter how meritorious. ... ... over a recent three-year stretch, Texas billionaire Bunker Hunt paid only ... $9.75 in income taxes for the entire period of 1975-77. <lists other such examples> The simple tax would eliminate the inequities by ensuring that persons earning equal amounts of income pay equal amounts of tax, no matter how artful their tax attorneys may be. SIDEBAR: The most discussed proposal for a federal flat tax comes from the Hoover Institution, a Ronald Reagan "think tank" that has been one of the leading advocates of supply-side economics. Unfortunately, its flat tax is a misnomer. It is not a true flat tax since it fails to consider the impact of the highly regressive 7 percent social-security tax, which is only levied on the first $35,000 of salary. UNDER A CALIFORNIA SIMPLE TAX INITIATIVE THERE WOULD JUST BE TWO TAX RATES FOR EVERYONE. FOR EXAMPLE, FOR A COUPLE, THOSE RATES WOULD BE 4 PERCENT FOR ALL INCOME UP TO $50,000 AND 7 PERCENT FOR ALL INCOME ABOVE $50,000. (THE PRESENT MAXIMUM IS 11 PERCENT.) [The proposal is for a california state tax, although a federal simple tax is also advocated -lkk] Under the principle "a rose is a rose is a rose" all income, no matter how ingeniously labeled, would be fully taxed, including all income... There would be only two exceptions: 1) The first $75000 of income per individual, $10000 per head of household, $15000 per married couple would be excluded from tax in order to protect the poor and the vast majority of social-security recipients. 2) A $1000 deduction per dependent would be permitted. ... A typical family of four with the median California income of $22000 would pay a California simple tax of just $200. .... The major question raised is whether a simple or flat tax with a 7 percent maximum rate would raise sufficeint revenue. It is estimated that in 1985... gross income in California could be an estimated $360 billion. This could generate $11 billion in tax revenue, even after substantail minimum exclusions for individuals and married persons. ELEVEN BILLION DOLLARS IS APPROXIMATELY $4 BILLION MORE THAN WAS GENERATED BY CALIFORNIA'S INCOME TAX IN 1981. THIS IS MORE THAN ENOUGH TO MAKE UP FOR THE ESTIMATED $1.5 BILLION EXPECTED STATE DEFICIT WITHOUT NEED FOR AN INCREASE IN THE REGRESSIVE SALES TAX. WHAT TO DO It is unlikely that any legislature dominated by million-dollar special interests will voluntarily eliminate a system that is a major source of campaign funds. A number of people are proposing as a first step a Simple Tax Initiative for 1984 in CA. If you are interested in participating, or want information on how to produce a simple tax in other states, write to: Simple TAX 3020 Bridgeway Suite 166 Sausalito, CA 94965 ----- I hope I've covered most the relevant details in these excerptes. Other topics include the need for mortgage deductions, etc. Read it yourself and see. -larry -- Larry Kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) (USE) ..decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!lkk (ARPA) lkk@mit-mc
abc@brl-vgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (04/17/84)
I think you mentioned the most important point about such tax reform when you referred to the million dollar special interests. There is NO WAY that the Bar Associations of this country are going to give up all that (earned?) revenue without one helluva fight!
wmartin@brl-vgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (04/17/84)
Over the past few months, I've seen references to state tax rates in netnews articles -- this one mentions an 11% California rate and a previous mentioned a 10% (I think) Oregon rate. Just thought that I'd point out that Missouri has a maximum 6% rate, and other states have lower rates or no state income tax at all. Why do you put up with such gouging? States are such worthless entities, anyway -- there certainly is no reason to tolerate them stealing your money this way... (This ought to generate some flamage...) Will
edwards@felix.UUCP (04/19/84)
> Over the past few months, I've seen references to state tax rates > in netnews articles -- this one mentions an 11% California rate and > a previous mentioned a 10% (I think) Oregon rate. Just thought that > I'd point out that Missouri has a maximum 6% rate, and other states > have lower rates or no state income tax at all. Why do you put up with > such gouging? States are such worthless entities, anyway -- there > certainly is no reason to tolerate them stealing your money this way... > > (This ought to generate some flamage...) > > Will How can someone post an item like that and not expect someone to say "It's well worth the money to live in California instead of Missouri!" I'm not sure I exactly feel that way, but when someone hands you a straight line, sometimes you have an obligation to use it ... :-) Dave Edwards FileNet Corp. (decvax,ucbvax}!trwrb!felix!edwards
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (04/20/84)
From Will Martin at ARMY BALLISTICS RESEARCH LAB: States are such worthless entities, anyway -- there certainly is no reason to tolerate them stealing your money this way... ----- Well, one state, the USA, pays for the computer you work on, and your salary too I presume. The state taht you live in also pays for the roads taht allow you to get to work, and much of the rest of the infrastructure that allows you to do your job. One state with very low expenditures is Mississippi, which has one of the lowest per/capita education rates in the country. Also one of the poorest. (Yes, I know about N.H. but there are many extenuating circumstances in that case) -- Larry Kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) (USE) ..decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!lkk (ARPA) lkk@mit-mc
jlilien@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Joel Lilienkamp) (04/23/84)
Larry pointed out in a recent article that Mississippi has the lowest per capita public education spending in the country. This I do not dispute. I have heard as recently as 1982 that Mississippi does not even have a mandatory public education law, and consequently, most rural black children do not go to school because they have to work in the cotton fields! The person who told me this was the head of Mississippi Legal Aid Services, so I would expect her to be an authority. If this is true, I think the situation is abominable! Joel
eric@gang.UUCP (Eric Kiebler) (04/27/84)
[Now just a cotton-pickin, ah say, a cotton-pickin minute here, boy...] Please don't flame Missouri. I'm tired of it. All Missourians are tired of it. We have a maximum 6% tax because the vast majority of tax payers are in agricultural fields (no pun intended). Face it -- farmers don't like paying taxes and don't elect people that do. There are lots of reasons to live in Missouri rather than other portions of the country. (This is a limited retort, I assure you). First, the taxes are lower (:-)! If you drive through the state on I-70 you don't see much very interesting. If you drive through the lower part of the state, there is landscape which rivals anywhere else in the country. The Ozarks are wonderful, and some parts of it are even civilized. No culture? In St. Louis, we have a wonderful Symphony, outdoor and indoor theatre, a number of fime educational institutions, and all that shit. We have hot, muggy summers, and mild winters with occasional periods of severe cold. We have earthquakes and tornados, too, but that's about it. I have lived here half my life. I have left and come back. People are here because they *like* it here. I live here for that reason. I would rather make 10% less and spend it 30-40% better than making 10% more and spending it 30-40% less effectively in other cities (such as Boston or most of CA). And both TWA and AIR-1 have their hub here, so when you have to leave, you just go! And, of course, we have that stupid arch... All seriousness aside, eric -- from the gang down at... ..!ihnp4!afinitc!gang!eric !wucs!gang!eric Remember: GOD is REAL! JESUS is INTEGER*4!
jsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman) (05/07/84)
Texas has no state income tax at all. Let's see some flames
from California about that, now.
--
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712 USA
jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsqkeduh@hogpd.UUCP (D.HUDEK) (05/10/84)
<!!>
To the fellow who mentioned the fact that Texas has no
state income tax -- SHHH !!! Didn't you read your Texan
manual ?? See pages 23 through 518 for a short list of
items we're not supposed to reveal !!!
Hey everybody--- pay no attention to the man. There MUST
be a state income tax-- I mean, who ever heard of a state
that didn't have one? And you wouldn't want to live there
anyway -- it's all one flat, dry desert. No trees, no lakes<snicker>,
no hills<heh heh>.... you'd hate it... no fun at all ! Probably
really expensive to live there too. Trust me !! Really !!
* *
\ /
_____
/ \
| ' ` | {ihnp4! or pegasus!} hogpd!keduh
| > | Hey... this isn't Dallas ?!?
| _ |
| (_) |
\___/fair@dual.UUCP (Erik E. Fair) (05/18/84)
If my information is current, Texas isn't the only one without a state income
tax. Nevada and Connecticut also have no state income tax.
Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucb-arpa.ARPA
dual!fair@Berkeley.ARPA
{ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!fair
Dual Systems Corporation, Berkeley, Californiahansen@pegasus.UUCP (Tony L. Hansen) (05/18/84)
> If my information is current, Texas isn't the only one without a state > income tax. Nevada and Connecticut also have no state income tax. Neither does South Dakota have a state income tax. (I can't guarantee that North Dakota still exists, but South Dakota sure does! :-) ) Tony Hansen ...!ihnp4!pegasus!hansen
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (05/18/84)
At the very least, Connecticut does have a state tax on
unearned (i.e., dividend, interest) income. My father-in-law
complains about it every year when we visit them.
--
Bill Jefferys 8-%
Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail)
{ihnp4,kpno,ctvax}!ut-sally!utastro!bill (uucp)
utastro!bill@ut-ngp (ARPANET)lab@qubix.UUCP (05/19/84)
>From what I understand, Florida does not have a state income tax (one of
Harris Corp.'s lure to try to get me there). I'm also sure one of the
New England states (New Hampshire?) is likewise.
--
The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
{decvax,ihnp4,allegra,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab
decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPAbruce@fluke.UUCP (Bruce Reynolds) (05/24/84)
This message is empty.