How many pages are in the current US tax laws, (or as it should be known, the CPA, Book Keeper and Lawyer's Employment Act) within 1000 pages? (caveat: I got this number from a source I consider to be reliable but it is secondary)
45,000
(Yep, pulled it right out of my ass. If I'm right it will be another sign that miracles do happen)
Nope, but a very good guess.
Do not know why but 53,000 comes to mind. TM
IIFID--don't have a clue but the number would depend on how you count. Do you just mean the tax code itself, or do you include the IRS regulations, Revenue rulings, Tax Court opinions, Private Letter rulings, etc etc. It's an absurdly large number however you count. And the founders went to war over a two penny tax on their freaking tea!
Steve:
I think (but it wasn't specified) that this number includes the regs, rulings, etc since they are necessary for anyone to attempt to interpret the tax code. Which is more art than science since the IRS is simply trying to gather as much revenue as they can, and their attorneys are not as highly paid and rarely as smart as the ones hired by those looking for ways to reduce the load. One ruling that used to gripe my butt was, which has probably been changed by now with the new "home" ownership breaks. But if you sold your home and made a profit, you owed tax, but if you sold it and lost money you couldn't deduct it.
123,649 ..............Boots
I'm going to award the free lunch, cheap beer and better whisky along with the dancing girls he has to provide if he ever gets to Texas to Travelingman. The total I had was 55,000 !!!! Ridiculous.
Flat tax anyone? Can you imagine how many billions of dollars and labor hours are spent each year complying with our tax code?
Blush! I am so honored. There are so many I need to thank!
Now where did I leave that pickup truck full of thank you notes. Bet you guys are going to be glad I used the new "reduced paperwork" set of thank you notes, before I am through! TM
Flat tax!! I thought you wanted the Government to create jobs instead of eliminating them. miles
Taxation Is Theft!
(sorry...couldn't resist)
Can I at least join in for a beer for getting a close second?
Flat tax? Is that not where every citizen with the franchise pays the same amount? Or are we all not really equal under the law?
Cheers from Darkest California,
Ross
Being a CPA myself, at least by education, I say bring on the flat tax. Certainly would put a lot of people, deservedly so, out of work. My fear is that those lawyers now with "real jobs" would have to run for elected office to feed their families and that would be retro for certain. Problem with flat tax is that the period allowed for the flat tax to become effective would be so long that most of us would not live to see the benefits on thousand upon thousans of unemployed attorneys, cpa's and govt employees! My vote is still FOR the flat tax.
muygrande1:
True, it would be extremely difficult at first, but after all, we now have the AMT. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> There would have to be a long lead time to fully convert. However, I'd suggest something on the order of 10 years where would we have a dual tax system, but after, say, 3 years (allowing for major projects currently on in the planning/drawing board stage to be started) you could not elect any new depreciation schedules, benefits, etc. under the present system. Each taxpayer would elect to pay under the flat tax with no deductions, starting at the first dollar earned or the current system, with built in phase out periods. You would have to elect one or the other and, if you used the current system, figure the flat tax, as soon as the flat tax due became less than the old system or after the 10 year changeover period, you would be converted to a flat taxpayer. Once a taxpayer elected to use the flat tax or got converted by owing less, that would be that. The obviously sticky part is the long term depreciation schedules currently in place on buildings and corporate taxes. There would be some huge glitches but the savings in tax prep time alone would likely offset them. With a little bit of luck, and the Congress staying out of it (yeah right, wonder how we got to 55K pages now <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />), the flat tax code, once fully implemented, would take less than a page of regulations. I don't even have a problem with a dual level unflat tax, just keep it in percentages of all income and go from there. No deductions, no IRAs, no Roths, no 401Ks, no deductions for the corporation paying your medical insurance, etc. If it is renumeration or profit of any kind, you pay tax on it. This is a gross simplification, but it would work, if the Congress could stay out of it, once it got rolling. Which is extremely unlikely. So.......National sales tax anyone? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Spike:
You can have the free beer, bring more girls... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Laughing here.
Sister-in-law will be in tow. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
[quote]Flat tax anyone? Can you imagine how many billions of dollars and labor hours are spent each year complying with our tax code? [quote]
Just for fun . . . . .
The Flat tax is on income, right?
So define income . . . . . . .
Oops, we are at 55,000 pages again.
As an example, if RickBin spent $10,000 to make 2,000 Swirly Rifle Stocks and sold the stocks for ten dollars each ($20,000), how much did I make?
Most would say $20,000 (gross income) minus $10,000 (cost of production) equals $10,000 (net income). The $10,000 net income is Flat taxable.
That's fine with me, but things get complicated quickly. If RickBin spent $15,000 researching a better way to apply the paint to stocks, and he creates a dramatic improvement in quality, does he get to deduct the $15,000? If yes, then he has not made any moey yet ($10,000 minus $15,000 = -$5,000).
But, under normal accounting procedures, we would charge that $15,000 equally to 15,000 rifle stocks (or $1 per stock). Thus, Rick deducts $2,000 from his $10,000 net income and pays tax on $8,000. He still gets to keep $13,000 in research costs to be allocated in future years
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!! . . . . . . . .
They Scream! . . . . . . .
They all go running from the building . . . . . .. . .
The point here is that Income Accounting is very difficult. Many of the concepts that you see in the tax code are ACCOUNTING concepts. The IRS Simply applies these concepts to income taxation.
Many of these accounting principles have been established for 100's of years. The reason that 300 year old principles still survive is that such principles make sense.
Secondly, as long as we have a Congress that make social policy through the tax code, it will be complicated. For example, most of us still want employer provided health incurance to be tax free. Of course, we want the benefits paid by the health insurer to be tax free. Those two provisions alone get about 500 pages of the tax code.
I say, bring on the flat tax! I will make a killing for the next 20 years as we work out the details . . . . . . .
Of course, it will stink for everyone else . . . . . .
The truth is that raising the standard deduction will get rid of most of the taxpayer nightmares much more easily. This is simply because under current conditions, very few Americans have enough deductions to itmeize.
THIS IS GOOD!
It means that the gov't is reducing the filing and record keeping burdens on most Americans and giving them MORE TAX BENEFITS than they are otherwise entitled to.
Just my 2 cents . . . . . .
BMT