Everyone Should Pay Income Taxes
It's bad for our democracy to exempt half the country.
...
A very small number of taxpayers -- the 10% of the country that makes more than $92,400 a year -- pay 72.4% of the nation's income taxes.
...
As a result of the 2001 tax cuts enacted by a bipartisan Congress and signed by President George W. Bush, the share of taxes paid by the top 10% increased to 72.8% in 2005 from 67.8% in 2001, according to the latest data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
...
According to the CBO, those who made less than $44,300 in 2001 -- 60% of the country -- paid a paltry 3.3% of all income taxes. By 2005, almost all of them were excused from paying any income tax. They paid less than 1% of the income tax burden.
...
When you make almost 26% of the income and you pay only 0.6% of the income tax, that's a good deal, courtesy of those who do pay income taxes. For the bottom 40%, the redistribution deal is even better. In 2001, these 43 million Americans, who earn less than $30,500, made 13.5% of the nation's income but paid no income tax. Instead, they received checks from their taxpaying neighbors worth $16.3 billion. By 2005, those checks totaled $33.3 billion.
Today, Mr. Obama and many congressional Democrats want the "wealthy" to pay even more so there is more money for them to redistribute. The president says he wants the wealthy to pay their "fair share." Who can argue with that? But he never defines what that means. Is it fair for 10% to pay 70% of the income tax? Does he believe they should pay 75%, or 95%, or does fairness mean they should pay it all? It's clever politics to speak like that, but it is risky policy.
Mr. Obama is adding to this trend with his "Make Work Pay" tax cut that means almost 50% of the country will no longer pay any income taxes, up from a little over 40% today.
I did not realize that such a large percentage of the country pays no federal taxes. In fact, I'm shocked by this revelation.
One response to this is that although the bottom 50% will pay no federal taxes, they will pay other taxes (social security and medicare taxes, sales tax, etc.). However, they don't pay federal taxes, and one might ask how much say they should have in how federal tax money is spent by the government. Of course, in practice, there is no reasonable way to prevent them from having a say, and no one would actually want to deny them their right to vote for politicians who promise to raise federal taxes on the taxpaying class in order to send even more federal money to the bottom 50% who do not pay federal taxes. But it's interesting to think about whether it should be this way. Instead of trying to deny them a say in how federal money is spent, perhaps they should have to pay at least some federal taxes.
Would it be reasonable to suggest that the share of federal taxes paid should match the share of income earned? This is separate from the overall tax rates. Whether overall tax rates are low (more likely when we have a Republican president) or high (more likely when we have a Democratic president), one might argue that the share of taxes paid should roughly match share of income earned. This could apply to state taxes as well (but not to social security and medicare, which you are supposed to get back later in life).
On the surface, this principle makes sense to me, but I have not had time to think through it. Perhaps it is a badly flawed idea. And I note dissenting views here and here that I will have to think through. I read their arguments, but I don't quite get their main point yet. In any case, I was really struck by the fact that, soon, 50% of the nation will not pay federal taxes. It's a statistic that caught me by surprise and one that needs to be discussed a lot more.
15 comments:
"I did not realize that such a large percentage of the country pays no federal taxes. In fact, I'm shocked by this revelation."
Old hat. The WSJ opinion page has been harping about this for the last few years. The picture gets even worse if one considers net payments. By that measure, we are already past 60% who have a positive account balance with the federal government (ie. they receive more money than they pay in).
"However, they don't pay federal taxes, and one might ask how much say they should have in how federal tax money is spent by the government. Of course, in practice, there is no reasonable way to prevent them from having a say, and no one would actually want to deny them their right to vote for politicians who promise to raise federal taxes on the taxpaying class in order to send even more federal money to the bottom 50% who do not pay federal taxes."
Speak for yourself. I would love to see an amendment to the constitution which states specifically that a person would only be allowed to vote if they have a net pay-in to the US government. If the US govt. gives money to a corporation then the shareholders will get that noted on their federal balance sheet. If somebody gets welfare checks or paychecks from the federal government, then that would count against them, etc. I would like even more an amendment which makes voting power proportional to the total amount paid in.
The current system as it stands is basically organized theft. The top 40% makes money and pays it in and the bottom 60% takes it and maintains this nice setup using their voting power. The decentralized nature of this catastrophe makes this even worse as their is no single entity or indeed any entity to punish. The only thing to do is to fix the separation of responsibility and power here and keep an eye out for it in the future.
"Would it be reasonable to suggest that the share of federal taxes paid should match the share of income earned?"
Congratulations! You have just come up with the flat tax. Good luck trying to get it through congress.
The uneven distribution of taxes is just one of many reasons why the current tax code drastically needs to be revamped. It is also one of the reasons I am very disheartened by the current state of affairs: The Democrats, the party that most often resorts to economic populism at the expense of the rest of us is the current party in power, and they only have to game the tax code a little bit more before they will be able to truthfully claim that their opponents want to make more people pay taxes.
As for how we should redo our tax code, I am heavily in favor of the FairTax for a whole variety of reasons. For one thing, it is a consumption tax only on new goods and services only at the retail level. Therefore it has a natural progressiveness to it: If you spend more extravagantly on new goods, you are taxed more. If you don't buy as much, or you choose to buy used goods, you are taxed less. For another thing, it specifically tries to be as light a burden on our economy as possible, which is something few taxes do.
@taoist
Consumption taxes sound nice in theory but in practice they are almost always ridden with problems, primarily among them fraud.
For said tax to work, one needs to define exactly what "consumption" is. This itself is a massive source of problems as people with their very-high-priced-lawyers will always try to game this. In contrast, income (at least individual income) is relatively easy to quantify.
Secondly, consumption taxes are generally regressive. That is because wealthy individuals spend a far smaller portion of their income on consumption and generally invest most of it. This is essentially what will happen with the carbon credits. They are effectively (in a very convoluted fashion) a consumption tax on carbon-based energy sources. Thus, while wealthy people will use far more gasoline and electricity, a far lower percentage of their paycheck will go towards these concerns resulting in an effective tax that hits the lower-income strata very very hard.
Thirdly, consumption taxes have the problem of straight out enforcement. Income moves in large amounts and thus is relatively easy to track. On the other hand, a significant consumption tax would require much more infrastructure to make work. The reason states do not have that much problem right now is because the amount taxed is relatively small -- less than ten percent. However, for the federal budget, we will need a percentage closer to 30, assuming that there is no fraud. At this level, there are very large incentives to gaming the tax and that is exactly what will happen.
@newt0311
The Fairtax specifically defines itself as only new goods and services, only at the retail level. It is universal, and so subject to as little gaming as possible. Besides, the way the system is currently gamed is absurd, not only in income taxes, but in corporate taxes as well. There have been twice as many changes to the tax code in the last 20 years as you have probably changed your underwear.
Second, the Fairtax gives every American household a tax up to the poverty level of their spending, thus refunding all of the money that would be spent if the members of the household are spending up to the poverty level on goods and food. There is no intrusive monitoring of what people's income actually is.
Third, I don't know what universe you're existing in, but currently we have illegal aliens, criminals, and just ordinary citizens constantly being paid under the table, or claiming various deductions they don't have. The Fairtax only needs to be applied and audited on companies, of which there are far, far fewer than individuals. Furthermore, the government already monitors companies to make sure they're operating legally, and the incentives for a businessman to cheat a sales tax on your behalf are far lower than the incentives for you to cheat on your own income tax. I'm not saying the Fairtax would be perfectly enforced, but it would be significantly better than just about any income tax you can think of.
@taoist
"The Fairtax specifically defines itself as only new goods and services, only at the retail level. It is universal, and so subject to as little gaming as possible."
You have never seen legal documents have you? To start with, the "only new goods" provision itself provides for plenty of gaming. What prevents two companies from setting up a quasi-retail store where incidentally the only customer is the other partner and said partner just happens to buy everything at bulk prices and pays the tax at that point. After that, the goods are no longer "new" as they have already passed hands and no more tax! Next you state that it is "universal." How is that possible when in the previous sentence, you listed two major restrictions on the classes of goods that the fair tax will be applied to?
"Besides, the way the system is currently gamed is absurd, not only in income taxes, but in corporate taxes as well. There have been twice as many changes to the tax code in the last 20 years as you have probably changed your underwear."
The current system is absurd but not because our tax code is based on taxing income. It is absurd because of the law making process in place today. Implement a fair tax and congress will waste no time in coming up with a million and one different exceptions and special cases to it as well. Perhaps they will exempt vegetables from the tax. Then they might decide that evil products like gas should be taxed more. Then they might decide that a family of two with a disabled child should pay lower taxes. The list goes on and on and on and on. If you want a reasonable tax code, you need to change congress, not change the tax structure.
"Second, the Fairtax gives every American household a tax up to the poverty level of their spending, thus refunding all of the money that would be spent if the members of the household are spending up to the poverty level on goods and food. There is no intrusive monitoring of what people's income actually is."
Two obvious problems with that. First of, what is the "poverty level of their spending"? Secondly, this does not actually change the regressive nature of this tax. It mitigates some of the effect for genuinely poor households but they will still spend the lion's share of their income on food etc. and thus get hit by this tax big time. My primary concern with respect to this fact is that it makes the entire FairTax proposal a political impossibility.
"Third, I don't know what universe you're existing in, but currently we have illegal aliens, criminals, and just ordinary citizens constantly being paid under the table, or claiming various deductions they don't have."
Thus my use of the word relatively. What makes you think that this won't keep going on except with consumer goods. What makes you think that you won't get shops where something is ostensibly sold for $5 but the store clerk won't let you complete the sale until you "donate" $10 to that little jar by the counter?
"The Fairtax only needs to be applied and audited on companies, of which there are far, far fewer than individuals. Furthermore, the government already monitors companies to make sure they're operating legally, and the incentives for a businessman to cheat a sales tax on your behalf are far lower than the incentives for you to cheat on your own income tax."
First of, the IRS already gets information from companies and banks on income levels. Secondly, do you seriously think that the incentives for a businessman to cheat on this tax are low? As I mentioned before, this tax will have to be on the order of 30%+. That is a very sizable amount. Somebody who found an effective loophole could undercut their competition by 15% and still make a killing. They could specialize in this and do it on a mass scale. Right now, it is only the top ~1% that utilizes all the major holes in the tax-code to minimize their taxes. The FairTax will bring tax evasion to the masses!
'You have never seen legal documents have you? To start with, the "only new goods" provision itself provides for plenty of gaming.'
I'm not using the legal language of the bill, and it's pretty silly to think I would be. The legal language is much more along the lines of any good sold to an individual (rather than another company) that hasn't been subjected to the Fairtax must be.
'Next you state that it is "universal." How is that possible when in the previous sentence, you listed two major restrictions on the classes of goods that the fair tax will be applied to?'
What I mean by universal is that it is across all industries and organizations.
'The current system is absurd but not because our tax code is based on taxing income. It is absurd because of the law making process in place today. Implement a fair tax and congress will waste no time in coming up with a million and one different exceptions and special cases to it as well.'
I'm not going to argue for Congress: they will need to be watched regardless of what system we implement (although the writers of the bill have considered putting in a supermajority requirement for changes). However, the Fairtax will likely be lest subject to change than most tax codes because of a few reasons. It eliminates corporate taxes, which are the largest source of changes to the tax code (thanks to lobbyists), it is universal (so hopefully the first change, at least, will meet with considerable resistance), and it is relatively simple and comprehensible, so there is less room to hide changes in.
'Two obvious problems with that. First of, what is the "poverty level of their spending"? Secondly, this does not actually change the regressive nature of this tax. It mitigates some of the effect for genuinely poor households but they will still spend the lion's share of their income on food etc. and thus get hit by this tax big time.'
Again, you seem to be arguing that I haven't provided a legally sound definition, and I'm not disagreeing with you. The rebate is calculated as follows: For a given size household, what is the amount of income, that if spent 100% on basic necessities, would put them exactly at the poverty level? For that amount, if it was spent entirely on goods subject to the Fairtax, how much would they have paid in taxes? This second amount is the amount of the rebate the household will receive. Therefore they will not be spending any net amount on taxes until they start spending a gross amount on Fairtax subjected goods over the poverty level of income. And since the definition of poor is so closely related to the definition of the poverty line, this guarantees that most of their income will not be subjected to the Fairtax. Tangentially, this is also a big incentive for immigrants to legalize.
'What makes you think that this won't keep going on except with consumer goods. What makes you think that you won't get shops where something is ostensibly sold for $5 but the store clerk won't let you complete the sale until you "donate" $10 to that little jar by the counter?'
You may get some. However, the bulk of the tax will be collected on behalf of the government by larger companies, and businesses would lose their license to operate if caught cheating. In addition, the fact still remains that there are a lot fewer bodies to monitor if you're monitoring businesses instead of individuals.
'First of, the IRS already gets information from companies and banks on income levels.'
And the IRS is horribly bad at it, partially because there are so many individuals to monitor and try and enforce proper taxation on. The Fairtax ends the IRS' monitoring of individual's income, ends withholding (a horribly abusive process where you don't even get interest for your own money!) and reduces enforcement of the tax to only monitoring businesses to guarantee they're legit.
'Secondly, do you seriously think that the incentives for a businessman to cheat on this tax are low? As I mentioned before, this tax will have to be on the order of 30%+.'
The Fairtax is 23% inclusive/30% exclusive. Our current income tax is ~30% inclusive, ~50% exclusive.
'That is a very sizable amount. Somebody who found an effective loophole could undercut their competition by 15% and still make a killing. They could specialize in this and do it on a mass scale. Right now, it is only the top ~1% that utilizes all the major holes in the tax-code to minimize their taxes.'
There are incentives to cheat in any taxation scheme. The Fairtax can't change that basic law of nature. However, the risks of a company getting caught get increasingly large as the business gets larger under the sort of situation you put forward. Think about it: right now an individual cheating on their taxes is essentially one instance of cheating that the IRS has to try and track down and catch. A business (especially as it gets larger) would have little incentive to cheat on behalf of individual customers, you're right in intuiting that they would want to try to cheat on a mass scale. But that would mean that they're cheating many many times, with just as many chances to be caught. Furthermore, the risk of losing their license as a business would be a huge risk, especially the larger and more corporate they are.
I'm not saying that their wouldn't be tax evasion. All I'm saying is that there's going to be tax evasion with any scheme you can think of, there always is. When you carefully think of where the incentives lie, and how the tax would be enforced (and specifically, how many bodies do you have to enforce the tax on?) the Fairtax probably does better than most, and in fact as good as I've ever seen.
I really appreciate the comments by newt0311 and taoist (great blog you have btw taoist) - I hope you keep up the back and forth because I am learning a lot. Fairtax is certainly interesting but I agree that tax evasion would go mainstream in a big way. Already for most home repair work it is common for people to ask the (plumber, electrician, lawn care whatever) what is the 'cash price' and that is to avoid the 8% or so state sales tax. For a 30% tax that would expand greatly. Unintentional benefits of this might be a growth in small businesses as they are able to skirt the laws easier than big corporations and also a smaller federal government as the revenue intake in taxes drops considerably. These may be good things though.
I'm glad to hear that you enjoy this conversation, Art. And that you like my blog. Like I said, I'm not saying that there wouldn't be tax evasion under the Fairtax. Just that we would see a lot less tax evasion then the current system, or most alternatives (such as the flat tax), that the Fairtax system would be easier to enforce than anything with an income tax, and that the tax evasion that would occur would be from the smaller companies, rather than the larger companies, and so not as important to enforce from the government's perspective. Meanwhile, under an income tax, the tax evasion that happens occurs with the largest payers, and so is a bigger relative loss to the government.
@taoist
"I'm not using the legal language of the bill, and it's pretty silly to think I would be. The legal language is much more along the lines of any good sold to an individual (rather than another company) that hasn't been subjected to the Fairtax must be."
Then...people will make individual companies to take care of the problem. Do not underestimate lawyers. They are paid to enlarge loopholes -- a comma here, a phrase there -- until it becomes possible to drive a truck through it... and they are good at it.
"What I mean by universal is that it is across all industries and organizations."
Same question. Quite a few industries have no direct retail connection whatsoever. Once again, imposing the restrictions of retail stores selling to individuals only makes this tax anything but universal.
Either way, this does not change the fact that the FairTax will be gamed to high heaven. The incentives to do so are just too high.
"However, the Fairtax will likely be lest subject to change than most tax codes because of a few reasons. It eliminates corporate taxes, which are the largest source of changes to the tax code (thanks to lobbyists), it is universal (so hopefully the first change, at least, will meet with considerable resistance), and it is relatively simple and comprehensible, so there is less room to hide changes in."
Corporate taxes may or may not be the largest sources of tax changes but corporations will still have plenty of incentive to lobby for tax changes, after all if they can get the tax on their retail products, they get a nice boost to their revenue stream without having to go through the painful process of actually innovating.
"[I]t [FairTax] is universal (so hopefully the first change, at least, will meet with considerable resistance), and it is relatively simple and comprehensible, so there is less room to hide changes in."
The universal attribute does nothing to change the appeal of tax-code exemptions. The fundamental force behind tax code changes is that a small minority is greatly benefited by the changes as the expense of the vast majority, just that the vast majority has better things to do than worry about every extra $5 the government pilfers away from them. This does not change under the FairTax regardless of its "universal" nature.
"Again, you seem to be arguing that I haven't provided a legally sound definition, and I'm not disagreeing with you. The rebate is calculated as follows: For a given size household, what is the amount of income, that if spent 100% on basic necessities, would put them exactly at the poverty level? For that amount, if it was spent entirely on goods subject to the Fairtax, how much would they have paid in taxes? This second amount is the amount of the rebate the household will receive. Therefore they will not be spending any net amount on taxes until they start spending a gross amount on Fairtax subjected goods over the poverty level of income. And since the definition of poor is so closely related to the definition of the poverty line, this guarantees that most of their income will not be subjected to the Fairtax."
Useful but not sufficient. My question was not just a legal but a political one, namely, what to set FairTax rebates at and how to keep them there. With the rebates, you have setup what looks very much like an entitlement program and like all entitlement programs, there will be extreme political pressure to push it higher and higher still. If you managed to find a way to implement you rebate proposal as is, it would indeed nullify the tax for anybody below the poverty level. Now what about anybody over the poverty level? People will be pretty pissed when they find out that Mr, Filthy rich Joe is only paying in ~1% of his income in this tax because he only spends ~3% of his income on "retail items."
"And the IRS is horribly bad at it, partially because there are so many individuals to monitor and try and enforce proper taxation on. The Fairtax ends the IRS' monitoring of individual's income, ends withholding (a horribly abusive process where you don't even get interest for your own money!) and reduces enforcement of the tax to only monitoring businesses to guarantee they're legit."
There may be a lot of individuals but there are even more retail transactions. Even if transactions are grouped in some form, there will still have to be pervasive monitoring that companies don't use clever accounting tricks to hide their retail income. Furthermore, while I don't have direct information on the number of companies in retail, I do know that ~50% of the US workforce is employed by small businesses. Thus taking care of the FairTax is not simply a matter of going to a few massive conglomerates and waving a lawsuit over their heads. Furthermore, companies will cheat "many, many times" but these will be in the context of literally trillions of small transactions carried out between disparate parties. If you think the IRS is incapable of effectively policing 300 million individuals, how do you think they will deal with all this data?
There is a lot of tax evasion under the income tax but the FairTax will certainly make it much much worse.
@art
Glad you enjoy this conversation.
'Then...people will make individual companies to take care of the problem. Do not underestimate lawyers. They are paid to enlarge loopholes -- a comma here, a phrase there -- until it becomes possible to drive a truck through it... and they are good at it.'
Again - I'm not using the legal language of the bill. Lawyers on the Fairtax side of things have written the bill, and tried to make it as ironclad as possible. Apart from arguing with how I've worded things, I don't know why you think the fact that lawyers try to seek loopholes is worse with the Fairtax bill than with any other legislation. Unless you know something I don't, this is going to be an issue that any legislation to address taxes must face.
'Same question. Quite a few industries have no direct retail connection whatsoever. Once again, imposing the restrictions of retail stores selling to individuals only makes this tax anything but universal.'
Not to consumers. To companies, maybe - but companies aren't the ones paying the tax. In fact, companies NEVER pay taxes. By simple economics, corporate taxes always pass through to the shareholders, the employees, or (usually) the customers. The Fairtax is meant to tax any good a consumer (which is all of us) once and only once. This isn't like the VAT tax, or like the current corporate tax system that will tax an item multiple times (any number of times as a corporate tax like the VAT, and maybe once as a sales tax...). No, a good gets taxed once and only once, and a consumer pays the tax once for every good and service they buy - unless they're buying it used, because then someone else has paid the tax. No double taxation.
'Either way, this does not change the fact that the FairTax will be gamed to high heaven. The incentives to do so are just too high.'
I can't argue that the Fairtax won't be gamed - everything in politics and money can and will be by some people. And it is the responsibility of the American voters to keep an eye on their officials, something we've been doing a very poor job of. All I can say is that the Fairtax has at least some reasons, as I've already listed, why it may be a bit more resistant to gaming than most other tax schemes. I'll also point out that I would much rather have politicians playing around with sales tax numbers for various industries and companies than with money they've withheld from me.
'Corporate taxes may or may not be the largest sources of tax changes but corporations will still have plenty of incentive to lobby for tax changes, after all if they can get the tax on their retail products, they get a nice boost to their revenue stream without having to go through the painful process of actually innovating.'
I'm not going to argue that lobbyists will be eliminated entirely. However, the lobbying and tax accounting industries will likely get downsized by quite a bit. Also, all of the honest studies of the Fairtax (there were several where they modified the bill before projecting what it did) have expected that business and the economy would take off. Especially as the lack of corporate taxes would turn the U.S. into a tax haven.
'The universal attribute does nothing to change the appeal of tax-code exemptions. The fundamental force behind tax code changes is that a small minority is greatly benefited by the changes as the expense of the vast majority...'
My point is that since the Fairtax makes no mention of any industry or company, and applies to all products offered to all consumers, there's less incentive for it to be changed. Most changes in the tax code, as you point out, are to benefit a specific group, but you forget that that's against their competitors. Since there aren't any exceptions, we at least shouldn't have, for example, the fight to classify something as a vitamin supplement vs. a health care good (for tax purposes, at least), because both categories will be taxed the same. You still might have specific lobbyists for companies, but you probably wouldn't have as many industry wide lobbyists. Who needs a lobbying organization to preserve mortgage deductions when you're not taxed on your mortgage? Or to adjust corporate taxes when there are no corporate taxes?
I don't expect the Fairtax to stay pure forever. Did you know that the tax system we have right now is what a flat income tax looks like after politicians have been hacking at it for what, 80 years? All I'm saying is that the Fairtax starts with a clean slate and avoids at least a couple of the pitfalls that are causing trouble in our current system. If you know of anything better, please tell me.
'If you managed to find a way to implement you rebate proposal as is, it would indeed nullify the tax for anybody below the poverty level. Now what about anybody over the poverty level? People will be pretty pissed when they find out that Mr, Filthy rich Joe is only paying in ~1% of his income in this tax because he only spends ~3% of his income on "retail items."'
I think you maybe misunderstand the rebate a little bit: Everybody gets it. It's a basic monetary statement of fairness that says that nobody is taxed except for when they live above a poverty level lifestyle. Even the rich people will get it, because we won't be keeping tabs on anyone's income. The amount of the rebate check is calculated by economists every so often (I believe yearly) and updated. There will still be people jealous of rich people, but I think they'll be less jealous based on taxes because of several things. 1: Most people won't know the income breakdown as you just pointed out, because we're not tracking income. 2: Any rich person who's not paying more into the system than your average Joe isn't buying more (or at least, not new goods), so they're probably not living a lifestyle that seems very rich. The type of Hollywood celebrity that people get jealous of is going to be living the high life, which means they'll be buying a lot more new goods and paying a lot more taxes.
'There may be a lot of individuals but there are even more retail transactions... Furthermore, while I don't have direct information on the number of companies in retail, I do know that ~50% of the US workforce is employed by small businesses... Furthermore, companies will cheat "many, many times" but these will be in the context of literally trillions of small transactions carried out between disparate parties. If you think the IRS is incapable of effectively policing 300 million individuals, how do you think they will deal with all this data?'
You're kind of comparing apples to oranges. Talking about the number of transactions a company makes is more akin to talking about each and every deduction an individual makes, than about the number of individuals the IRS keeps tabs on. Also, companies keep pretty good records (and policies on record keeping can certainly be refined as well), and the only thing the Fairtax needs to monitor is retail level (as I've outlined it before, of course) transactions, not a dozen different ways to earn income and hundreds of different types of deductions - Simply number of sales, amount of those sales, and what 23% inclusive of that amount is. It's a simpler process, an easier process to audit, and there are fewer bodies to monitor with these processes. My point about the larger companies was that most Americans do most of their shopping at only a few places, so even if a few companies do cheat, the bulk of the taxes will be collected by making sure companies like Walmart are compliant. One advantage, as I pointed out, is that as a company gets bigger, its incentive to comply with the tax code goes down, pretty much the opposite of the current system.
I should also mention that the Fairtax contains a provision on how monitoring will be enforced. The Fairtax intends for the IRS to be pretty downsized, and for state business monitoring agencies to carry out the monitoring in a more decentralized manner, on businesses within their own jurisdiction. This reorganization should also make enforcement easier.
Whoops, I meant to say, "As a company gets bigger, its incentive not to comply with the tax code goes down"
喝花酒
酒店喝酒
暑假打工
寒假打工
酒店小姐
酒店兼職
禮服店
酒店經紀
酒店兼差
酒店
酒店經紀人
酒店現領
酒店經紀爆米花
酒店經紀
酒店打工
酒店上班
假日打工
台北酒店經紀
酒店pt
酒店pt
酒店應酬
粉味
酒店經紀PRETTY GIRL
酒店經濟
酒店經濟
打工兼差
‧租辦公室‧租店面‧買辦公室‧店面租賃‧店面出租‧店面出售‧花茶‧花草茶‧養生茶‧招牌‧led招牌‧招牌製作‧美國月子中心‧保養‧美國月子中心‧OBU‧投審會‧會計師事務所‧會計師‧工商登記‧公司登記‧包子‧肉粽‧宅配美食‧四神湯‧搬家公司‧訂房‧訂房網‧花東旅遊‧桃園土地‧桃園房屋仲介‧桃園房屋‧桃園房屋網‧桃園房屋買賣‧漆彈‧搬家公司‧會場設計‧展場設計‧會場設計‧展場設計‧展覽設計‧消防設備‧消防設備‧機電‧崴立機電‧消防公司‧地板施工‧超耐磨地板‧店面出租‧乳癌‧全身健康檢查‧肝癌‧健康檢查‧身體檢查‧飛梭雷射‧雷射溶脂‧直航機票‧自由行‧三久‧太陽能‧三久太陽能‧太陽能熱水器‧別墅外觀設計‧環保袋‧別墅外觀設計‧室內裝修‧電波拉皮‧hand dryer‧電波拉皮‧雷射溶脂‧肉毒桿菌‧系統家具‧台中漆彈場‧漆彈‧團體服‧美國月子中心‧團體服
‧團體服‧團體服‧T恤‧圍裙‧POLO衫‧班服‧團體服創意‧熱轉印‧團體服訂做‧宜蘭民宿‧關鍵字廣告‧seo‧網路廣告‧網路行銷‧seo‧網站設計‧seo‧線上客服‧seo‧網頁設計‧seo‧網頁設計公司‧網路行銷 ‧網路行銷‧桃園室內設計‧室內設計作品‧室內裝潢‧裝潢‧室內設計‧室內設計公司‧裝潢設計‧豪宅空間設計‧店面設計‧豪宅設計 ‧桃園室內設計公司‧別墅外觀設計‧室內裝潢設計‧台北室內設計‧新竹室內設計‧法拍屋‧中古車‧二手車‧環保袋‧環保袋‧肉毒桿菌‧健檢‧醫學美容‧淨膚雷射‧汽車美容‧法拍屋‧水餃‧清潔公司‧實驗動物‧到府坐月子‧坐月子‧坐月子中心‧坐月子餐‧孕婦‧月子餐‧到府坐月子‧坐月子‧坐月子中心‧坐月子中心台中‧坐月子中心台北‧月子餐‧月子中心‧坐月子餐‧月子餐外送
‧月子餐食譜‧找工作‧統一發票7 8月‧求職‧1111求職人力銀行‧104求職人力銀行‧104人力銀行‧統一發票5 6月‧104人力銀行‧104求職人力銀行塑膠袋‧統一發票1 2月‧塑膠袋批發‧塑膠袋工廠‧金價‧黃金價格‧統一發票3 4月‧1111人力銀行‧1111人力銀行求職‧黃金價格查詢‧中古車買賣塑膠袋 ‧統一發票3 4月 ‧塑膠袋批發 ‧中古車 ‧中古車買賣‧台北人力銀行‧金價查詢‧sum中古車‧中古車‧貸款‧信用貸款‧房屋貸款剖腹生產 命理網 姓名學 姓名配對 星座 星座運勢 算命 開運印章 風水 外遇 徵信 徵信社 外遇 徵信 徵信社 外遇 徵信 徵信社 外遇 徵信 徵信社 外遇 徵信 徵信社 外遇 徵信 徵信社 搬家公司 搬家公司 台北搬家公司 新竹搬家公司
Post a Comment