|
General Comments:
from Organization, Association or Government Group
Back to List
| Posted: Feb 16, 2005 |
By: U.S. Senate, Comm on Finance |
File: 021605GrassleyCharles.pdf
|
| Posted: Feb 17, 2005 |
By: American Bar Association |
File: 021705AmerBarAss.pdf
|
| Posted: Feb 17, 2005 |
By: Cato Institute |
File: 021705CatoInst.pdf
|
| Posted: Feb 17, 2005 |
By: Lawman Group |
File: 021705LawmanGroup.pdf
|
| Posted: Feb 22, 2005 |
By: Lawman Group |
File: 022205LawmanGroup.pdf
|
| Posted: Feb 25, 2005 |
By: We The People Foundation |
File: 022505WeThePeople.pdf
|
| Posted: Feb 28, 2005 |
By: Give Me Liberty |
File: 022805GiveMeLiberty.pdf
|
| Posted: Mar 01, 2005 |
By: U.S. Senate, Comm on Finance |
File: 030105BaucusMax.pdf
|
| Posted: Mar 01, 2005 |
By: U.S. Senate |
File: 030105DomeniciPete.pdf
|
| Posted: Mar 08, 2005 |
By: Citizens For Responsible Government |
File: 030805CitizensForResponsibleGovt.doc
|
| Posted: Mar 17, 2005 |
By: Manzullo, Donald/Chairman |
File: 031705HouseofRepresentatives.pdf
|
| Posted: Mar 29, 2005 |
By: Give Me Liberty |
File: 032905GiveMeLiberty.doc
|
| Posted: Mar 29, 2005 |
By: State University of New Jersey Rutgers |
File: 032905UniversityofNewJerseyRutgers.pdf
|
| Posted: Mar 29, 2005 |
By: George Washington university |
File: 032905GeorgeWashingtonUni.pdf
|
| Posted: Mar 29, 2005 |
By: Americans for Fair Taxation |
File: 032905LinbeckLeo.pdf
|
| Posted: Mar 29, 2005 |
By: Florida State University |
File: 032905FloridaStateUniversity.pdf
|
| Posted: Mar 29, 2005 |
By: We The People Foundation |
File: 032905WeThePeopleFoundation.pdf
|
| Posted: Mar 29, 2005 |
By: Woodall, Robert Chief of Staff |
File: 032905HouseofRepresentatives.pdf
|
| Posted: Mar 30, 2005 |
By: American Society of Association Executives |
File: 033005ASAE.doc
|
| Posted: Apr 03, 2005 |
By: DeBoer, Jeffrey/President |
File: 040305DeloitteRER.pdf
|
| Posted: Apr 25, 2005 |
By: Kurt Nagle |
Subject: Incentives, short sea shipping
Comment: note - this was submitted and mailed but does not show up on your board.
File: AAPA letter to advisory panel on tax reform.doc
|
| Posted: Apr 26, 2005 |
By: David Zickefoose |
Subject: Tax Reform
Comment: It is time to return to a tax that is consistant with the views and beliefs of our Country's founders.
Our founders included the right of personal ownership in our constitution to limit governmental ownership. Ownership includes not only the right to own land, but the right to own the property receive from the fruits of their labor; namely, the earning for our efforts, salary. The 16th Ammendment took away individual ownership of our earnings, and granted the government the right to take from the people without limits. Additionally, much of my personal tax goes to support organization and entitlements with which I totally disagree, including the pork barrel.
We need a fair way of securing the financing necessary to support government, not one founded on the principle of taking from those based on ability and giving to those based on need.
A national sales tax on pruchases seem to be a fair answer.
In any event, tax reform is long over due. The estimate of 6 billion hours required to do the nations taxes is incredible, and indicitative of a process that has out-lived its value. The cost of maintaining the IRS in its present form continues to needlessly drain our treasury.
Dispite the lobby of tax attorneys and accounts that have established an entire industry, and inspite of those in business and public office that have the means to capitalize of tax loopholes that insure personal gain, it is time to fix something that is broken.
Sincerely
Dave Zickefoose
Omaha, NE
|
| Posted: Apr 26, 2005 |
By: Joseph Griggs |
Subject: 16th Amendment Must Go--Install Simple Fair Tax
Comment: Dear President Bush, and the Federal Tax Advisory Panel:
Both as an individual and as a business owner I encourage you to help make us all honest and fair taxpayers by eliminating the current Federal Income Tax Code and replace it with a National Sales Tax as proposed by the current HB/ 25 and SB/25. The new system would even solve the pending Social Security "crisis." This would make all of our citizens and non-citizens fund the best government and help spread it throughout the rest of the world. Do what is right for the average American, Mr. Bush, and you will go down as one of the greatest Presidents of all time. Money Matters!"
I am counting on you for myself, my family, and expecially my grandchildren who will not be able to live long enough to read the ammendments to the existing tax code.
Sincerely, Joseph Griggs, Traverse City, MI, USA
|
| Posted: Apr 26, 2005 |
By: J. Colby Wallace |
Subject: FW: First Request for Comments
Comment: I sent the below email with an organization's response to the Panel's first request for public comments. It is not listed on the website as having been submitted. This response was within the required deadline and was in an MS Word format as requested. Could you please list this response on the website? Thank you for your assistance.
J. Colby Wallace (cwallace@jbgh.com)
Jensen Baird Gardner & Henry
-----Original Message-----
From: J. Colby Wallace
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 3:53 PM
To: 'comments@taxreformpanel.gov'
Subject: First Request for Comments
Attached as an MS Word document please find the response of the Young Lawyers Section of the Maine State Bar Association to the Panel's first request for public comments.
<<2005.03.14 Letter to Tax Advisory Panel.doc>>
J. Colby Wallace
Jensen Baird Gardner & Henry
10 Free Street - P.O. Box 4510
Portland, Maine 04112-4510
207.775.7271 (voice)
207.775.7935 (fax)
www.jbgh.com
cwallace@jbgh.com
File: 20050314LettertoTaxAdvisoryPanel.doc
|
| Posted: Apr 26, 2005 |
By: Michael DiRienzo |
Subject: Submission of comments
Comment: Good afternoon. We furnished the attached comments sometime ago, but I don't see them on the web site. Did we do something wrong or is just taking a bit for them to be uploaded? Many, many thanks. Mike
--
Michael DiRienzo
Executive Director
The Silver Institute
1200 G Street, NW
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-835-0185 (P)
202-835-0155 (F)
File: taxpanelfinal.doc
|
| Posted: Apr 26, 2005 |
By: New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants |
Subject: Federal Tax Reform Proposal
Comment: Attached is a federal tax reform proposal submitted by the New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants. Contact information is included on the cover page, as requested.
Please contact us should you need any additional information.
Joanne S. Barry
New York State Society of CPAs
3 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016
212-719-8354
jbarry@nysscpa.org
<>
File: NYSSCPA_TaxReform.doc
|
| Posted: Apr 27, 2005 |
By: David Jones |
Subject: FairTax Proposal
Comment: I'll be brief...
The FairTax Proposal, in my opinion does exactly what its title says. It makes the entire tax system in this nation FAIR. And after all, isn't that why you are here to study this effort, to make the national tax system FAIR TO EVERYONE involved? Please look at and review the FAIRTAX proposal in depth, and I feel confident if you keep the primary mission of this study in mind, that of recommending to the president the best most equitable national tax system concept proposed, you will have succeded in finding the most fair tax system available to the economy of America, and those who participate in it. The FairTax Proposal is by far the best option available. Remember, "The FairTax" proposal.... "It's the Fair thing to do."
|
| Posted: Apr 27, 2005 |
By: David Jones |
Subject: FairTax Proposal
Comment: I'll be brief...
The FairTax Proposal, in my opinion does exactly what its title says. It makes the entire tax system in this nation FAIR. And after all, isn't that why you are here to study this effort, to make the national tax system FAIR TO EVERYONE involved? Please look at and review the FAIRTAX proposal in depth, and I feel confident if you keep the primary mission of this study in mind, that of recommending to the president the best most equitable national tax system concept proposed, you will have succeded in finding the most fair tax system available to the economy of America, and those who participate in it. The FairTax Proposal is by far the best option available. Remember, "The FairTax" proposal.... "It's the Fair thing to do."
|
| Posted: Apr 27, 2005 |
By: Linda Heeney |
Subject: Simplifation of Taxes
Comment: As an Internal Revenue Agent for the Internal Revenue Service working small businesses, individuals and having prior experience working Taxpayer Service and problem cases simplification is urgently needed.
A few areas to start is to reduce all the credit for children. At this point you have exemptions, child tax credits, child care credits, earned income credit, additional child tax credit and advanced earned income credit. If you child is in college you also have two deductible education credits, a deduction for tuition and fees and other tax defered programs such as the Education Savings Accounts, Education of Savings Bonds, 529 programs, etc.
My suggestions is to allow the exemption, increase it if you have to. Delete all of the others.
Allow one education credit for all situations, and one type of Education Savings program.
Another major problem is the limitations on income. Everything is limited at a different amount. If you are going to allow a deduction, allow it to all, or not at all.
Alternative Minimum Tax and Alternative Minimum Tax Credit. Have you tried to explain that process to someone? Getting rid of the EITC will pay for it.
Getting rid of the EITC and letting the State manage the Welfare Program is the biggest benefit to the federal government. The States are set up to manage the Welfare System, let them. EITC encourages people to only work part time. They get to that majic number for maximum EITC and stop working. Or only work part time, so they can get 40% of their salary back for nothing, they do not see the long term results. EITC only encourages people not to work, not to marry and to have more children than they can afford. It is bad for the economy.
I beleive at this time you may only be looking at the individual income taxes, but if you look at Corporate, bring the rate down to 10%, get rid of the credits, with the exception of the Orphan Drug Credit. Limit the amount of compensation that can be deducted for the Board of Directors and highest Executive Staff (They can pay it, but not deduct it). They Annual Report should be required to have a copy of the 1120 Tax Return attached. Let the Company explain to the Share Holders and the IRS, how they made millions in the Annual Report and had a loss on the Taxes. The Annual report should be attached to the tax return. Simplify, simplify, simplify. The only ones who will loose out are the corporate attorneys and the accountants that help the corporations cheat on their taxes. If the tax rate is relatively small, and loop holes are reduced, it will not be worth their time.
Get rid of all the complicated computations for the Dividends and the Capital Gains. Long Term Capital Gains times 40% equals taxable amount. Done. Same with the Dividends. To encourage savings, just lump the Dividends and Interest together, times 40% and that amount is taxable. Done.
Social Security should be taxed at 50% regardless of income. The Taxpayer paid in 50%, his employer paid in 50%, so 50% should be taxed. This should be on the full amount. Increase the Standard Allowance to keep those with only Social Security from paying taxes.
Get rid of moving expenses.
Make 1 IRS, the Roth is the best, no deduction, earnings are tax free.
Make 1 pension program for the Self-Employed. Now they can do an IRA, Roth IRA, SEP, 401(k) Simple, Keogh, and other qualified plans. Keep the 401(k) Simple to mirror the employer plans and be done with it.
Get rid of the adoption credit. The amount of deduction on this is huge. I can see allowing a credit for special needs children, or hard to place children, but not others. People are on waiting lists for years to get children, there is no need for a tax deduction, they will pay what they have to.
Business Issues -
Simplify the Depreciation rules. Straight line is all you need. The other just make people greedy. They deduct 100% of their $50,000 SUV, then "forget" to report the sale.
Hobby Losses - put the Hobby on the Schedule C, expenses limited to Income. Yes, they get a little more deduction than putting the expenses on the Schedule A, limited to 2%, but will be more willing to report a Hobby Business as a Hobby Business and not just showing a large loss on little income. Simplify.
Day Traders - If someone is buying and selling stocks as a business, they should be subject to Self-Employment Taxes. Not allow all the expenses on the Schedule C, and the gains on Schedule D to avoid the SE Tax. Same with Sale of Business Property. They didn't pay SE Tax on the Depreciation, they should pay it on the gain up to the amount of depreciation.
Hopefully these are items you can think about and include in your studies. If you don't understand what I am talking about, go out and talk to the auditors. The Field Agents can tell you more where the mistakes are made due to ignorance, cheating and confusion than anyone else.
Thank you for your time.
|
| Posted: Apr 27, 2005 |
By: Eugene Yu |
Subject: Fair Tax HR 25
Comment: Please take Rep. John Linder's HR 25 under serious consideration. More than enough of our nation's resources are tied up with complying to our tax codes. Eliminate loopholes, stop taxing savings, stop taxing income, and start taxing consumption.
|
| Posted: Apr 28, 2005 |
By: Rolaand Boucher |
Subject: Submital of proposal 04/27/05
Comment: Summary of our proposalsubmited on 04/27/05
A proposal to Reduce the top tax rate to 20%
by eliminating the personal exemption and the deduction for State and local taxes
United Californians for Tax Reform(UCTR) respectfully submits the following proposal for reforming the tax code using the Federal Tax Code as a base for reform. This proposal reduces the top tax rate from 35% to 20% by eliminating the deduction for all State and local income, sales, and property taxes while retaining all of the other itemized deductions including the deduction for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions
|
| Posted: Apr 28, 2005 |
By: Citizens for Tax Justice |
Subject: Tax Reform Recommendations
File: CTJBushTaxPanelTestimony.pdf
|
| Posted: Apr 28, 2005 |
By: UNITED CALIFORNIANS FOR TAX REFORM |
Subject: re submission of proposal sent on 27th
Comment: Dear Sirs we sent the panel the following our first proposal on the 27th it is not posted yet but our second one sent today is.so we are sending the first one again in case you lost it Roland Boucher
File: 20topratefinal1.pdf
|
| Posted: Apr 29, 2005 |
By: Information Technology Association of America |
Subject: Tax Reform for the IT Sector
File: ITAA Tax Reform Panel.final.doc
|
| Posted: Apr 29, 2005 |
By: D. JAMES GRAHAM |
Subject: FAIRTAX
Comment: FAIRTAX IS THE RIGHT ANSWER!!!
Our best chance right now for ending April Madness(EVERY APRIL 15) is the FAIRTAX, which is a consumption tax or national sales tax.It would stimulate economic growth, reward working people for working hard and saving, liberate the poor, and eliminate billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency.Everybody wins with the FAIRTAX.
The FAIRTAX represents our best chance for tax code replacement because legislation has been introduced in the House and the Senate (HR-25 & SB-25) with a great amount of co-sponsors and continues to grow on a daily basis. We have a PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH who is not afraid to tackle BIG ISSUES, and we have a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress. The FAIRTAX is the answer, so be vocal,be insistent, and persistent.BE PROACTIVE AND DIPLOMATICALLY REACTIVE. THE FAIRTAX IS THE BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS.The future stability of our economic infrastructure, and the future for our childrens,children, will forever be determined by the political will and courage in Congress to be aggressive with solving the big issues! WE NEED THE FAIRTAX, WE NEED THE LIBERTY THE FREEDOM THE FAIRTAX WILL ACCOMPLISH.
LET'S MAKE APRIL 15 JUST ANOTHER DAY WITH THE PASSAGE OF THE FAIRTAX, THIS IS THE PEOPLE'S BOSTON TEA PARTY, FAIRTAX NOW. D. JAMES GRAHAM CO-CHAIR VIRGINIA FAIR TAX...
|
| Posted: Apr 29, 2005 |
By: Pollack Family Foundation |
Subject: Impact of the FairTax on charitable giving
File: Impact of the FairTax on charitable giving-Pollack.doc
|
| Posted: Apr 29, 2005 |
By: National League of Cities |
Subject: State and local government comments
File: TaxReformComments.pdf
|
| Posted: Apr 29, 2005 |
By: Ryan Kingsly |
Subject: Fair Tax is NOT Fair
Comment: Tax Reform Panel,
Fair Tax is not fair. It does not exempt the necessities of life from being taxed.
It claims to avoid exemptions due so special interests don't get involved, yet Fair Tax exempts "qualified" families. The rest of America is obviously not qualified.
Furthermore, Fair Tax exempts business purchase trasactions. We can see why this is popular with business owners!
Everyone has a special interest in working, eating, housing, receiving medical care, and buying insurance. What is so hard about exempting the essentials of life?
To get around this, Fair Tax wants to add more government intrusion and bureucractic arbitrary judgments for "qualified families" in the form of a monthly rebate check? The very idea negates the very reasons reason Fair Tax wants to move from an income tax to a consumption tax!
We can do better. If there's going to be a national sales tax, then exempt the necessities of life from that tax! Anything less is regressive.
There are many other common sense objections to Fair Tax. Please read the following article regarding Fair Tax below or read the attached word document. This needs serious attention if Fair Tax is to ever be recommended by this panel.
- Ryan
====================
How Does NESARA at http://nesara.org Compare to Other Proposals?
The Fair Tax Act of 2003 (H.R. 25)
Although NESARA proposes replacing the income tax with a national retail sales tax, the NESARA and FairTax plans differ considerably.
FairTax taxes all retail sales events. That means all necessities of life—food, medicine and mandated expenses—all will be taxed. Such an approach is regressive. NESARA provides 20 classes of straightforward at-the-counter exemptions (NESARA, Part II, Section 5(C)).
To offset this violation of basic rights and regressive approach, FairTax proposes a monthly rebate to “qualified families” (FairTax, Title II, Sections 301–305). This action clearly voids some of the reasons for abolishing the income tax—the intrusion of government into our private lives and the continuation of the social welfare state. Americans have had enough of this administrative legal plunder mind set.
Qualified family eligibility is dependent upon an arbitrary administratively defined poverty level, with Health and Human Services defining that level (FairTax, Title II, Section 303). The government-by-administrative-agency nonsense continues. Worse yet, the Social Security Administration stays involved in the tax game because that agency has been delegated as the agency to mail the monthly rebate checks (FairTax, Title II, Section 304). No family member may be counted toward the rebate unless the family member applies for and receives a social security account number (FairTax, Title II, Section 302(b)(2)). So much for privacy and the end of that obnoxious number.
Furthermore, to remain qualified, families must register annually (FairTax, Title II, Section 302(d)). Fail to register every year and families lose their eligibility for receiving the rebates (FairTax, Title II, Section 302(f)).
Almost comically, if not so sad, FairTax excludes family members who are incarcerated, or will be incarcerated (FairTax, Title II, Section 302(l)). This is a strange concept. Apparently the entire reason for the rebate program is to negate the regressive effects of the tax on essentials of life, especially to those considered living below the so-called state-defined poverty level. Nobody needs to be a rocket scientist to know that many of the people who are incarcerated are people who live below the poverty level, and are often the breadwinners of the family. The same holds true for political prisoners—people who have been convicted of arbitrary statutory crimes.
Lastly, notice that the natural rights and essential purchases of only “qualified” families are acknowledged (FairTax, Title II, Section 302). The rest of America is evidently not qualified. Legal plunder continues.
Under FairTax, the federal government still will be in the social welfare business, handing out checks. Proponents of FairTax claim no exemptions are necessary because to do otherwise will promote special interests lobbying. Yet, those proponents turn right around and provide exemptions to so-called “qualified” families, instead of straightforward exemptions at the cash register. Such proposals allow for government noses to stay protruded into people’s lives. Everybody has a special interest in working, eating, housing, receiving medical care and buying insurance. What is so hard about exempting the essentials of life and simply getting government out of our private lives? The entire rebate process is repugnant and preposterous.
The question must also be asked, what are the administrative costs of this complicated rebate process, as opposed to simple, straightforward at-the-counter exemptions? Additionally, what are the administrative costs associated with the complicated system of credits provided by the bill (FairTax, Title II, Sections 201–207)?
Although the working class pays the sales tax, purchases made for business/trade purposes are exempt from the sales tax (FairTax, Title II, Section 102, 103(g)). Perhaps people can see why so many businesses, corporations, and trade associations are in favor of the bill! Not only are big business, that is, big contributors, relieved of the corporate income tax, capital gains taxes, depreciation schedules, and paperwork on employee withholding, those companies also will be subject to no national sales taxes on any business investments. Who is left with the burden of the national sales tax? The working class of America. Surprise! Surprise!
FairTax attempts to tax barter transactions (FairTax, Title II, Section 103(f)). Barter is not a commercial retail event and is not taxable. Barter is a like-for-like trade action between private parties and is not an event in commerce. FairTax will convert an honest transaction into a crime. Shades of the current Internal Revenue Code.
FairTax requires sellers to establish bank accounts (FairTax, Title II, Section 501(e)). As with the income tax, we smell a few unlawful seizures around the corner, as well as a few fishing expeditions by the taxing authorities. Under NESARA, sellers are liable to pay the tax. Period. That is all that is needed. Numerous sellers could make their deposits directly into a single national sales tax bank account opened by the government at each local bank much more efficiently than forcing ever seller to open and maintain a separate commercial bank account for their sales tax deposits. It is rare for anyone to have problems depositing money into a bank account; getting the money out is the usual difficulty.
In any case, bank accounts are irrelevant, nor should any person be coerced into opening a bank account. Forcing people to open bank accounts is a violation of the fundamental right to contract and not contract. So much for financial privacy and protection of rights!
FairTax requires sellers to post bond (FairTax, Title II, Section 501(g)). There is no reason for such nonsense.
Worse, FairTax requires all sellers to register with Uncle Sam (FairTax, Title II, Section 502). FairTax states that any seller who fails to register is not allowed to sell (FairTax, Title II, Section 502(e)). In other words, failing to register converts the normal business of selling into a crime! Again, so much for privacy. Instead, we have nothing but a clever disguise for State control and monitoring. Resistance against registration likely will be just as belligerent as with the current income tax.
Of course, because FairTax will tax service contracts, that essentially means all laborers and contractors must register with the state. Furthermore, taxing labor is a time bomb waiting to explode (please read the following sections).
NESARA proposes a national sales tax rate of 14%, equal to $14 on a taxable purchase of $100 for a total cost of $114. This is the usual method of calculating a sales tax—as an add-on. The FairTax national sales tax rate is 30%. That is a total cost of $130 for buying a $100 item. FairTax proponents claim an initial rate of 23%, somewhat deceptive because that rate is calculated by dividing the $30 tax by the total cost of $130.
FairTax also eliminates all payroll taxes including Social Security and Medicare (FairTax, Title I, Section 102) making the initial FairTax sales tax rate (FairTax, Title II, Section 101(b)) necessarily that much higher than the rate proposed by NESARA (NESARA, Part II, Section 5(A)). Still the NESARA proposed base rate of 14%, is less than the general revenue rate of 14.91% proposed by FairTax (FairTax, Title II, Section 101(b)(3)).
Although neither bill attempts to resolve the Social Security and Medicare mess, NESARA leaves the payroll taxes untouched. FairTax eliminates the payroll taxes, but employers still will have to report wages paid in order for employees to receive Social Security credits (FairTax, Title II, Section 903).
There is a subtler problem with the FairTax sales tax rate. FairTax declares an initial rate of 23% (FairTax, Title II, Section 101(b)(1)), but after 2003 the sales tax rate will be the sum of the declared general revenue rate (14.91%); the old age, survivors and disability insurance rate; and the hospital insurance rate (FairTax, Title II, Section 101(b)(2)). The first rate is currently 6.2% and the latter is 1.45%. In other words, after 2003, the national sales tax rate would be 22.56%. But notice that with an increase in any of those rates, the national sales tax rate also increases. With the current Social Security and Medicare mess, which Congress has repeatedly failed to adequately address, what do you think will happen to future national sales tax rates?
FairTax essentially places the burden of proof on all accused (FairTax, Title II, Section 506). That is, any person merely accused of failing to pay a tax will be guilty until proven innocent. As with the income tax, here we go again! Burden of proof must be on the government. Period. Worse, FairTax maintains one of the most invasive features of the current tyrannical income tax: the authority to summons, and to conduct examinations and audits (FairTax, Title II, Section 508).
NESARA provides a simple, straightforward administrative process in tax disputes. Under NESARA, should the National Tax Service (NTS) believe a tax has not been paid, the NTS merely prepares a statement of the alleged taxable activity and issues an Assessment/Preliminary Notice of Deficiency (NESARA, Part II, Section 7). That’s all that is needed and the burden of proof stays where it belongs—on the government. Should an alleged taxpayer desire to dispute the alleged tax, the alleged taxpayer can certainly introduce their books and records as evidence to quash the allegations, but nowhere does NESARA authorize the tyrannical practice of continuing the madness of issuing summonses and conducting examinations, audits and fishing expeditions. Such practices are tyranny and invasions of privacy.
FairTax states that government purchases are subject to the sales tax (FairTax, Title II, Section 102(a)(3), Section 703). That makes no sense. Every time the government buys something, it taxes itself, and pays itself the revenue? Such a ploy is a facade, only circulating currency in and out of government coiffures. There is no net effect of such a maneuver except added administrative costs. Why pay the cost of all that extra accounting and paperwork? Isn’t the national sales tax supposed to reduce paperwork and administrative costs? NESARA exempts all sales to the United States government (NESARA, Part II, Section 5(C)(1)).
FairTax allows for withholding of income for non-resident aliens (FairTax, Title II, Section 905). So much for the so-called abolishment of the personal income tax. Expect the same confusing arguments about vague terms such as gross income.
FairTax, H.R. 25, is a terrible start, and we can do better. Much better. NESARA not only provides fiscal policy reform, but monetary policy reform (NESARA, Part I). With NESARA, the purchasing power of the currency will stabilize. FairTax has no such provisions.
FairTax also provides no relief from current banking laws (NESARA, Part I, Section 7).
Both FairTax and NESARA are designed to be revenue neutral. That means neither bill changes the current income and outgo of revenues collected. Other than that similarity, the differences between NESARA and FairTax are obvious.
FairTax addresses only symptoms, not root causes. The bill continues the intrusion of government into our private lives. FairTax is regressive in nature because not all households will qualify for rebates, and the bill contains no provisions to resolve the root problem, an unsound monetary system (NESARA, Part I). Tax reform is a good start, but ultimately futile without monetary reform. NESARA solves both problems.
NESARA is built upon the foundations of life, liberty and property, does not unduly tax the necessities of life and does not support intrusions into private lives. NESARA was written from within the grass roots of America, not by special interests. That’s why NESARA will work. FairTax is not the answer.
File: FairTaxisNOTFair0.doc
|
| Posted: Apr 29, 2005 |
By: Noelle Hawley |
Subject: S-CORP Letter
File: PresTaxReformPanelSubmission.doc
|
| Posted: Apr 30, 2005 |
By: Roland Boucher |
Subject: please add comment to april 29 posting
Comment: This proposal reduces the top tax rate from 35% to 20% by eliminating the deduction for all State and local income, sales, and property taxes while retaining all of the other itemized deductions including the deduction for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions.
|
| Posted: May 01, 2005 |
By: Lawrence J. Ainslie |
Subject: Tax free combat pay for D.O.D. civilians
Comment: I hear that there was a" Bill " that would also include Dept. of Defence Civilians with Military as tax excempt for combat pay while oversas, is it true ? and if so what happened with it.
|
| Posted: May 02, 2005 |
By: Heidi Blumenthal |
Subject: tried to send friday
File: taxpaneltestimony.doc
|
| Posted: May 02, 2005 |
By: Computer & Communications Industry Association |
Subject: Submission of Tax Reform Comments
File: CCIALtrtoTaxReform.pdf
|
| Posted: May 02, 2005 |
By: Philip D. DeHart |
Subject: Tax Reform
Comment: I think we need to go to a flat tax or national sales tax system. Our government puts a heavy burden onto the taxpayers in this country by criminally overtaxing the citizens. Our government is the one that needs to learn fiscal responsibilityn and learn that they work for the people, not to enslave them.
|
| Posted: May 03, 2005 |
By: Leo Hamel |
Subject: Submission
File: Leo.pdf
|
| Posted: May 04, 2005 |
By: Ken Wasch |
Subject: Comments regarding the Panel's consideration of proposals to reform the Federal tax system
File: SIIATaxReformPanel29April2005.pdf
|
| Posted: May 04, 2005 |
By: Progress and Freedom |
File: ProgressandFreedom.pdf
|
| Posted: May 04, 2005 |
By: National Association of State and Local Equity Funds |
Subject: Preservation of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
File: TaxReformPanelNASLEFSubmission5_5.pdf
|
| Posted: May 04, 2005 |
By: US Freedom Advocates |
Subject: Submission
File: USFreedomAdvocates.pdf
|
| Posted: May 05, 2005 |
By: Unknown |
File: unknown2.pdf
|
| Posted: May 06, 2005 |
By: Unknown |
File: Unknown3.pdf
|
| Posted: May 06, 2005 |
By: Unknown |
File: Unknown21.pdf
|
| Posted: May 06, 2005 |
By: National Architectural Trust |
File: NationalArcitecturalTrust.pdf
|
| Posted: May 17, 2005 |
By: National Council for Advanced Manufacturing |
Subject: Tax Base Reforms for Manufacturers
|
| Posted: May 17, 2005 |
By: National Council for Advanced Manufacturing |
Subject: Tax Base Reforms for Manufacturers
File: TaxPanelLtr30.rtf
|
| Posted: May 17, 2005 |
By: National Council for Advanced Manufacturing |
Subject: Tax Base Reforms for Manufacturers
File: TaxPanelLtr4.rtf
|
| Posted: May 17, 2005 |
By: Teresa T. Bloom |
Subject: Tax Reform May Prove Hazardous To Retirement Savings
File: TaxReformReportfordistribution.pdf
|
| Posted: May 19, 2005 |
By: National Association for the Self-Employed |
Subject: Federal Tax Reform and the Self-Employed
File: NASESubmissionPresidentsTaxReformAdvisoryPanel.doc
|
| Posted: May 23, 2005 |
By: Credit Union National Association (CUNA) |
Subject: Credit union tax status
File: CUNAcommentstoTaxAdvisoryPanel.pdf
|
| Posted: Jun 06, 2005 |
By: ERISA Industry Committee |
File: ERISAIndustryComm.pdf
|
| Posted: Jun 07, 2005 |
By: Steven Hargett |
Subject: Fairtax
Comment: I agree with the Fairtax and would like to see the President back it and put into law. Thank you.
|
| Posted: Jun 07, 2005 |
By: Jeannine Markoe Raymond |
Subject: Comments on Behalf of the Following Organizations and Associations: NCSL, NASACT, NACo, USCM, NLC, IAFF, FOP, NAPO, IUPA, IBPO, IBCO, IAEP, AFT, NEA, AFSCME, SEIU, NAGE, NAN, NASRA, NCPERS, NCTR, NAGDCA GFOA, IPMA-HR, NPELRA
File: PPNTestimonytoTaxReformPanelFinal.doc
|
| Posted: Jun 08, 2005 |
By: Don Morrison |
Subject: income tax
Comment: I would favor a flat tax or consumption tax to minimize loopholes and maximize tax collection efficiency.
|
| Posted: Jun 08, 2005 |
By: Don Morrison |
Subject: income tax
Comment: I would favor a flat tax or consumption tax to minimize loopholes and maximize tax collection efficiency.
|
| Posted: Jun 09, 2005 |
By: Stockton Williams |
Subject: Low Income Housing Tax Credit
File: TaxReformComment.pdf
|
| Posted: Jun 09, 2005 |
By: John R. Vogt |
Subject: Municipal Finance
File: Testimony_Tax_Reform_Panel_060905.DOC
|
| Posted: Jun 10, 2005 |
By: J. Podesta, J. Irons; Center for American Progress |
Subject: Preferential Treatment of Capital Income Taxation and Human Capital Formation
File: tax_reform_panel_followup_Podesta.pdf
|
| Posted: Jun 10, 2005 |
By: BARONESS BILLINGHAM |
Subject: TAX REFORM
Comment: Please be advised that a hard copy of this submission will be with you on Monday.
File: USTAXREFORM.doc
|
| Posted: Jun 10, 2005 |
By: United States Council for International Business |
Subject: United States Council for International Business Submission
File: FinalUSCIBCommentstoPresidentsAdvisoryPanelonTaxReform61005.doc
|
| Posted: Jun 10, 2005 |
By: Richard Godfrey |
Subject: Housing Credits and Bonds
File: RIHousingTaxRefomcomment.doc
|
| Posted: Jun 10, 2005 |
By: Thomas A. Schatz |
Comment: To The Hon. Connie Mack and The Hon. John Breaux:
We are writing today to comment on testimony that the Tax Reform Panel has heard in the process of determining the recommendations for reform that you are submitting to the Secretary of the Treasury. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is a private, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization representing more than one million members and supporters nationwide.
At the May 17 public meeting, the third panel discussed the perceived benefits and disadvantages of pursuing a “Return Free” tax model. CAGW has been watching a pilot “Return Free” program move forward in California and have strong concerns about such a program being pursued on a broader scale. Programs like “Return Free” represent major conflicts of interest within government agencies. The same agency that collects taxes, writes tax regulations, performs audits, and enforces compliance should not also serve as tax preparer. While program proponents point to it as an example of government facilitating and streamlining a process for taxpayers, it is clear that the taxpayers’ interests and the agency’s interest are not the same. The government’s interest in maximizing revenue will completely override citizens’ interest in minimizing their tax liability.
The “Return Free” model threatens the American tax system, which was built on and continues to rely upon the concept of voluntary compliance. Direct, hands-on involvement in the preparation of one’s taxes encourages basic awareness of the cost of government and stimulates accountability, both for the taxpayer and the tax collector.
A “Return Free” system is not “reform.” In order not to be held liable for any mistakes made by the government, taxpayers must still calculate their taxes in order to compare them to the government’s calculations and ensure an accurate return. After all, the sole responsibility for accuracy and completeness, not to mention the potential liabilities associated with inaccuracy, continue to rest with the taxpayer. “Return Free” does not ease that burden.
In addition, some taxpayers will overpay by missing out on credits or deductions because they will feel compelled to accept the government’s calculations. Others who earn non-wage income or had a recent life change, such as a home purchase or birth in the family, may use the government-sent form, and inadvertently underpay, or even open themselves up to accusations of tax evasion. The system is likely to be riddled with inaccuracies, and since the onus is on taxpayers, these inaccuracies will only be corrected if taxpayers take the unprecedented step of turning over large amounts of sensitive, financial information to the government. That is not an acceptable option.
There are no compelling reasons for the government to insinuate itself into the tax preparation business. A “Return Free” model will generate unnecessary expenditures and new expansion of government bureaucracy. “Return Free” does not ease the burden on taxpayers, nor does it address any discernible crisis in tax preparation. Instead, it gives the government increased control over every level of the taxation process, where its interests will trump taxpayers’ interests.
We respectfully urge the Commission to reject the “Return Free” model.
Sincerely,
Tom Schatz
President
Citizens Against Government Waste
|
| Posted: Jun 10, 2005 |
By: National Association of Home Builders |
Subject: Comment On Tax Reform Proposals
File: NAHBThirdFiledTaxReformStatement.doc
|
| Posted: Jun 10, 2005 |
By: National Association of Home Builders |
Subject: Comment On Tax Reform Proposals
File: NAHBThirdFiledTaxReformStatement0.doc
|
| Posted: Jun 13, 2005 |
By: National Retail Federation |
Subject: National Retail Federation Submission to President's Advisory Panel
File: NRFSubmissiontoPresidentsAdvisoryPanel0.doc
|
| Posted: Jun 14, 2005 |
By: port of tacoma |
Subject: harbor maintenance tax
File: HMTlettertoMackBreauxPanel0.doc
|
| Posted: Jun 14, 2005 |
By: World Resources Institute |
Subject: Environmental Tax Reform
Comment: Please see attached file.
File: EnvironmentalTaxReforms.pdf
|
| Posted: Jun 16, 2005 |
By: William Batt |
Subject: thinking outside the box
Comment: Dear Panel: Earlier I submitted a monograph for your review entitled "Painless Taxation." I provide you with a study by an Australian Economist named Terry Dwyer who has calculated that the economic rent (resources rent) in that economy is 27 percent of its GDP. See http://www.taxreform.com.au/Documents/TaxableCapacity.pdf#search='Terry%20Dwyer%20Australia%20land%20rent' Our NIPA accounts given a farcical estimate of 2 percent. Dr. Dwyer's work gives credence to the approach I have advocated.
|
| Posted: Jun 22, 2005 |
By: GEORGE M. DRYSDALE |
Subject: Letter to the Advisory Panel
Comment: Sending the following in three batch.
1. Letter to Chairman Mack.
2. 1995 Study.
3. APCAC Directory
File: FinallettertoAdvisoryPanelJune05doc.pdf
|
| Posted: Jun 22, 2005 |
By: GEORGE M. DRYSDALE |
Subject: Letter to the Advisory Panel
Comment: Sending the following in three batch.
1. Letter to Chairman Mack.
2. 1995 Study.
3. APCAC Directory
File: Report_Oct1995.pdf
|
| Posted: Jun 22, 2005 |
By: GEORGE M. DRYSDALE |
Subject: Letter to the Advisory Panel
Comment: Sending the following in three batch.
1. Letter to Chairman Mack.
2. 1995 Study.
3. APCAC Directory
File: 2005DirectoryasofJune05.doc
|
| Posted: Jun 23, 2005 |
By: GEORGE M. DRYSDALE |
Subject: Letter to the Advisory Panel
Comment: Resending the attached letter.
Attachments were sent earlier entitled 1995 Study and APCAC Directory.
File: FinallettertoAdvisoryPanelJune2305.pdf
|
| Posted: Jun 24, 2005 |
By: United States Council for International Business |
Subject: Addendum to the United States Council for International Business (USCIB) comments sent on June 10, 2005
File: AddendumtoFinalUSCIBCommentstoPresidentsAdvisoryPanelonTaxReform62405.doc
|
| Posted: Jun 28, 2005 |
By: Tax and Health Reform Coalition |
Subject: The tax treatment of health insurance
File: TaxReformPanelsubmission0.DOC
|
| Posted: Jul 03, 2005 |
By: Second Opinion |
Subject: Worship of a Golden Calf
Comment: The Truth is, if we do not ask the right questions we shall not obtain the right answers. What laws do you... worship? History repeats itself and hope remands in itself, not to the inevitable however to the "Moral Momentum of Destiny". Today the real problem is "Your law is your... religion", and your demands make everyone worship your "Golden Calf", aka The Tax Code. Please make no mistake about what I am saying, for if you do, the Lord of host will do battle for us.... behold his mighty hand. We are to hold with The Rule of Law, the first being written by God in The Ten Commandments and his law shall overcome mankind's laws created by "The Rule of Men." The truth is, your Tax code rulings are nothing more than arbitrary and capricious, with enforcement powers and laws created to serve evil's ways and protect only those whose opinions are of the majority. The Holy cause of mankind's liberty is knowing the difference between the "Tyranny over the minds of men" with the evil few who seek to play god over the hearts and minds of the people, and a Constitution designed to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of our happiness by denying the good faith offered in the Declaration of Independence and insisting that there is no true right principle of action but self interest.
Sincerely
Terry Lee Hinds
438 Leicester Sq Drive Ballwin, Missouri 63021
File: FORGODANDCOUNTRY.pdf
|
| Posted: Jul 08, 2005 |
By: Douglas A. Garver/Ohio Department of Development |
Subject: Submission
File: Ohio.pdf
|
| Posted: Jul 08, 2005 |
By: California Tax Payers' Association |
Subject: Submission
File: CalTax.pdf
|
| Posted: Jul 08, 2005 |
By: Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority |
Subject: Submission
File: WHEDA.pdf
|
| Posted: Jul 08, 2005 |
By: Governor Bill Richardson, State fo New Mexico |
Subject: Submission
File: BillRichardson.pdf
|
| Posted: Jul 08, 2005 |
By: Countrywide Home Loans |
Subject: Submission
File: TriciaClay.pdf
|
| Posted: Jul 20, 2005 |
By: Marie Lee |
Subject: Comment Letter
Comment: The attached comment letter was originally sent on March 18, 2005.
File: CommentlettertoPresidentsAdvisoryPanelonTaxReform.pdf
|
| Posted: Aug 02, 2005 |
By: Frank Salvato |
Subject: Your Final Report
Comment: It is incredibly important that the advisory panel come up with a new tax system, not just a set of suggestions meant to "patch" the broken system we are now infected with.
If all the panel does is try to patch this system they will have not only failed to achieve the goal set out for them by the president, they will have squandered an incredible opportunity to capitalize on a moment in time that may never come again.
Please don't let that be the case. Please don't offer just another status quo report that does nothing for the American people and our nation.
|
| Posted: Aug 15, 2005 |
By: Steve |
Subject: AMT
Comment: I don't have sympathy for people who complain about the AMT. As someone who doesn't own a house and has no children, I have to pay taxes on nearly every dollar I earn. I shouldn't have to subsidize someone else's mortgage on their luxury home, or their kids. How much income to people expect to make and not have to pay taxes on it? The tax structure should enourage savings, investment, and efficiency instead of big houses.
|
| Posted: Sep 22, 2005 |
By: Joe Luby |
Subject: Territorial Taxation
File: TerritorialityPaper.doc
|
| Posted: Sep 29, 2005 |
By: Michael Bodaken |
Subject: Preservation of Affordable Housing with the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
File: taxreformandaffordalbehousing.pdf
|
| Posted: Oct 01, 2005 |
By: Lisa Winne-Clark and Fred Clark |
Subject: Election Year Issue
Comment: Given that the Tax Panel's decision on the Fair Tax vs. Flat Tax, is postponed until November 30th, 2005 and that by then, all of Congress will be taking their Christmas vacations, we would like you to consider this. Since we both are members of the Pennsylvania Chapter of the Americans For Fair Taxation, we are well-educated on the pros and cons of both the Fair Tax and Flat Tax plans. However, the cons of the Flat Tax plan well-exceed those of the Fair Tax. Although Neal Boortz's book did open up a can of worms with the wage issue, it is plain that the statement that has been made about wage deductions in regard to the Fair Tax Plan is not true, because the intention of this tax plan is to boost the economy and everyone well knows that the economy cannot possibly be boosted, if there were such unconscionable deductions in the average working person's wages. Why knock a good thing? The Fair Tax Plan consists of taxes on large purchases such as homes and cars only being assessed the first time that they are purchased, a 23% consumption tax only assessed to perishable goods, no income taxes taken out of the working person's pay (resulting in a 25% increase in net income and therefore, giving them more purchasing power)and the law of supply and demand will be applicable to many items which will result in deflation (whether on a small or large scale, there will be some amount of deflation). Whether you realize it or not, this is a win-win situation and if whoever is going up for election (either in 2006 or 2008) makes this one of the main issues that they are running on, you can be sure that person will receive a lot of votes. Not only because of the benefits that the working class person will receive, but also that the illegal immigrants and those making money "under-the-table", will be paying their equal share of the tax burden, everytime they purchase goods here in America. This will force them to become legal American citizens, like the rest of us. The Flat Tax Plan does not do all of these things. Think about it...hard. http://fairtaxcalculator.org
File: FlatTaxFairTaxComparison.pdf
|
| Posted: Oct 07, 2005 |
By: Association of Oregon Housing Authorities |
Subject: Letter
File: AOHA.pdf
|
| Posted: Oct 07, 2005 |
By: Affordable Housing Tax Credit Coalition |
Subject: Tax Reform and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
File: AffordableHousingTaxCreditCoalition.pdf
|
| Posted: Oct 07, 2005 |
By: Home Builders Association of Alabama |
Subject: Letter
File: HomeBuildersAssociationofAlabama.pdf
|
| Posted: Oct 07, 2005 |
By: Home Builders Association of Mississippi |
Subject: Letter
File: HomeBuildersAssociationofMississippi.pdf
|
| Posted: Oct 07, 2005 |
By: Mississippi Association of Realtors |
Subject: Letter
File: MississippiAssociationofRealtors.pdf
|
| Posted: Oct 07, 2005 |
By: Kansas Housing Resources corporation |
Subject: Letter
File: KansasHousing.pdf
|
| Posted: Oct 10, 2005 |
By: Mortgage Bankers Association |
Subject: Mortgage Bankers Association General Comments
File: MortgageBankersAssociation.pdf
|
| Posted: Oct 12, 2005 |
By: Victor Dorff |
Subject: charitable donation tax deduction
Comment: 10/12/2005
Greetings.
Today's New York Times says you are looking for ways to extend the tax deduction for charitable donations to taxpayers who do not itemize (see below). One way would be to allow pre-tax payroll deductions in exchange for Giving Certificates that can only be used for making donations. [It just so happens that our nonprofit organization offers such Giving Certificates.] Employers could distribute the Giving Certificates the way workers in the NYC Metropolitan Area are able to purchase Transit Chex, which allow pretax money to be used on mass transportation. It's clean and simple.
We would love to talk to anyone who is interested in exploring more ways Charity Checks can help make more money available for the nonprofit world.
Thanks.
Victor Dorff
Co-Founder, Charity Checks
818.706.8686
From the NYTimes Website:
Tax Panel Says Popular Breaks Should Be Cut
By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM
Published: October 12, 2005
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 - President Bush's tax advisory commission indicated on Tuesday...
...The commission members decided that another popular deduction, for charitable contributions, should be expanded rather than cut back. They are looking at how to give the tax break to taxpayers who do not itemize deductions. ...
File: commentstaxreformpanelgov.doc
|
| Posted: Oct 12, 2005 |
By: Victor Dorff |
Subject: charitable donation tax deduction
Comment: 10/12/2005
Greetings.
Today's New York Times says you are looking for ways to extend the tax deduction for charitable donations to taxpayers who do not itemize (see below). One way would be to allow pre-tax payroll deductions in exchange for Giving Certificates that can only be used for making donations. [It just so happens that our nonprofit organization offers such Giving Certificates.] Employers could distribute the Giving Certificates the way workers in the NYC Metropolitan Area are able to purchase Transit Chex, which allow pretax money to be used on mass transportation. It's clean and simple.
We would love to talk to anyone who is interested in exploring more ways Charity Checks can help make more money available for the nonprofit world.
Thanks.
Victor Dorff
Co-Founder, Charity Checks
818.706.8686
From the NYTimes Website:
Tax Panel Says Popular Breaks Should Be Cut
By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM
Published: October 12, 2005
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 - President Bush's tax advisory commission indicated on Tuesday...
...The commission members decided that another popular deduction, for charitable contributions, should be expanded rather than cut back. They are looking at how to give the tax break to taxpayers who do not itemize deductions. ...
File: commentstaxreformpanelgov0.doc
|
| Posted: Oct 12, 2005 |
By: Allatoona Community Association. |
Subject: Presidents Executive Order to the Tax Panel
Comment: We expect the panel to adhere to the instructiions issued by the President to the panel in his Executive Order which created the panel. Nothing more, nothing less. We don't want their opinions on raiseing taxes. We want them to address the "Fair Consumption Tax" and recommend enactment into law at an early date.
Additionally, the panel membership is not an accurate cross section of this nation, i.e. business, government, citizens.
The President should disolve this panel and create another with adequete and proper representation.
|
| Posted: Oct 12, 2005 |
By: Michael D. Warlick, Sr. |
Subject: Tax Reform
Comment: Hi
How much are you guys getting paid for doing nothing? What a joke, but then,what did we expect from you. I will be back, but first let me write Rep. Norwood.
|
| Posted: Oct 13, 2005 |
By: Roger & Carolyn Hart |
Subject: Support the fair tax!
Comment: Your tax reform panel has not come up with any tax reform. Instead, it appears to be the same old plan: tax the rich more and lower the mortgage interest deduction. There is a much better way and you need to seriously consider the fair tax plan as it is written. You reportedly dismissed it but only after you had revised portions of it and then said it wouldn't work. Please give it an honest consideration.
Roger & Carolyn Hart
Versailles, MO
|
| Posted: Oct 13, 2005 |
By: Alan Lisitz |
Subject: Mortgage Interest Deduction
Comment: If you wish to eliminate the alternative minimum tax- then maybe a raise in taxes for upper income Americans is in order. They are the ones who can afford it- not the middle class who have got into the alternative minimum tax because of continued raising pay to cover for inflation. The cut off rate for falling into the alternative minumum tax should be raised to $200,000 a year so middle class taxpayers would not fall into this trap. Leave the Mortgage Interest Deductions alone- or you will end up ruining the Real Estate market and cause middle class taxpayers to reconsider buying homes. Home values may also fall if the mortgage deductions are changed or eliminated!
|
| Posted: Oct 13, 2005 |
By: Alan Lisitz |
Subject: Mortgage Interest Deduction
Comment: If you wish to eliminate the alternative minimum tax- then maybe a raise in taxes for upper income Americans is in order. They are the ones who can afford it- not the middle class who have got into the alternative minimum tax because of continued raising pay to cover for inflation. The cut off rate for falling into the alternative minumum tax should be raised to $200,000 a year so middle class taxpayers would not fall into this trap. Leave the Mortgage Interest Deductions alone- or you will end up ruining the Real Estate market and cause middle class taxpayers to reconsider buying homes. Home values may also fall if the mortgage deductions are changed or eliminated!
|
| Posted: Oct 14, 2005 |
By: Phyllis Stadler |
Subject: Proposal To Tax Employer-Provided health Benefits
Comment: This idea to begin taxing employer-provided employee health benefits in order to lower their alternative minimum tax burden is just about the worst idea I've heard in a long time! When both employers and employees are struggling to continue to afford health insurance, the incentive should be to make that easier, not harder. Go tax something else for heaven's sake!
|
| Posted: Oct 14, 2005 |
By: Ann Marie Shandley |
Subject: Health Benefit Tax
Comment: I am the Human Resources Director for a municipality, and am strongly opposed to taxing employee health insurance benefits. We have worked extremely hard to do our part in helping to reduce healthcare costs by implementing a comprehensive wellness program and have been very successful in that effort. Now, for the government to come along and begin taxing this benefit at a time when employees are learning to manage their own health and be more educated consumers, rather than continuing the incentive of the pre-tax benefit, the government will punish them for their good efforts. It makes no sense. This tax will only serve to cause more Americans to be uninsured, as both employers and employees will no longer be able to afford healthcare. Then where are we and what have we gained? If anything, the government needs to rethink all of the complicated rules and regulations tied to HRAs, HSAs, FSAs, etc, and focus on one method that addresses the ultimate objective of providing a pre-tax mechanism for employees to save for healthcare expenses. Make it simpler, and use the FSA as the template, only allow this benefit to rollover year after year, rather than the 2.5 month extension, which just served to complicate the administration of this benefit. Also allow the employee to take the monies with them when they leave employment to be used for healthcare expenses, and eliminate the HRAs, and the HSAs which have just served to confuse everyone. Instead, make it mandatory that all employers engage in some sort of effort to promote healthier lifestyles and educate their employees on reducing their at risk health behaviors. Perhaps require that every employer in order for their employees to receive the pre-tax benefit, must have their employees complete a health risk assessment tool, which is a step in the right direction of trying to manage at risk behaviors and making employees more aware of what they need to do to help themselves live healthier lifestyles. This is the goal we need to focus on, rather than to take away th | |
