Sunday Open Thread: Income Tax Edition
by PubliusToday, in 1916, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the income tax was constitutional. 3…2…1…Drink!
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
Today, in 1916, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the income tax was constitutional. 3…2…1…Drink!
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
84 Comments
"Today, in 1916, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the income tax was constitutional. 3…2…1…Drink!" What a "progressive" idea… redistribute the wealth after skimming off a little for Uncle Sam.
Wonderful 1916. Prior to this the country was doing just fine financially. As soon as SCOTUS ruled, Congress drooled. And we have been punished unmercifully ever since. If there is one "body" that has strived to diminish the freedoms of America it is the IRS as a result of Congressional lobbying.
Did Congress (at that time) limit the revenue generation for the sole purpose of border protection? Or military expansion to keep America safe? Nope….it was nearly an openhanded checkbook to steal the income stream and assets from hard working people. Nothing has changed. One day these corrupt bastards will get their comeuppance. One can only hope !
It's time to terminate the IRS!!! They have too much power over money THEY haven't earned!!!
Hey Team Obama- if you still expect to save your political butt: TAX CUTS NOW
And you can cancel the rest of your useless porkulus to pay for it, Big Shot…
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com...
Quite the "Progressive" concept, eh?
They have been coming up with exceptional and extraoradinary ideas ever since.
"They" wonder why WE don't take "them" seriously?
While we're busy repealing the 16th Amendment, let's not forget totrepeal the 17th, while we're at it.
Let's also make sure that we don't replace the income tax with some other silly idea like Huckabee's "Fair Tax".
Ah yes, that time honored tradition in every American household is near when people begin to open up boxes of receipts, buy do-it-yourself tax preparation software or hire a tax accountant to prepare their 'returns' and submit them to the IRS (aka imperial federal government) to be held accountable for what they've 'earned' in the previous calendar year.
I've just spent the last 2 weekends (46 hours within 4 days) to prepare my 'return'. Here's hoping I didn't make any errors (the software said I'm A-OK because it ran an error check and I was 'low risk' for audit) to warrant a $14 an hour 'tax specialist' in the IRS to give me a call or send me a letter telling me I need to 'pay more' because of the error(s). After all, they've taken 30% of what I 'earned' last year and that doesn't count the State taxes I had to pay for the privilege of driving on roads that have so many potholes in them that it resembles a lunar landscape. But fear not, I'll still be able to go to the Post Office to mail my return and stand in line for 45 minutes with 50 other people and 1 clerk working while the others are outside taking a smoke break.
Fair Tax!!!!!
Repeal Income Tax. Fire Bernake. Fire Rahm, Axelrod, Desiree, all Czars and Obama. I don't want to hear another, "Let me make this perfectly clear", "I, myself, me", "historic" or "unprecedented". Give me an Obama free zone on t.v. and radio. Shut up Obama!
AT first I thought Americans were stupid (some are can't fix stupid) but we are just lazy…..Go and look at 1910 onward…the left wanted to tax..companies that made "too much profit" then.They never stop..same old tricks time after time..As Hillary stated just months ago….Our government taxes us on everything…The reason they "TAKE' it from your check before you get it is because if you had to write a check to them they would go broke
Personally, I think we should audit the Federal Reserve, dump the IRS, and kick the UN out of the U.S.A……that's where I would start.
What, then, would you replace it with? And it's not Huckabee's idea, just a good idea he latched onto. Individuals being in control of how much tax they pay rather than the federal government stealing it monthly is compelling. I haven't seen any idea floated that is better or fairer than taxing consumption. Have you? I would be interested in hearing about it if you have the time and inclination.
OHH Before I forget…I love to hear people say what they are "Getting Back" this year……
1.If you pay no taxes the only thing your "Getting Back" is other peoples money…YOUR ON WELFARE
2.You pay $20,000 in taxes and your "Getting Back" $3000 …No idiot you paid $17000 in Taxes and gave Uncle Sam a $3000 interest free loan….DUH
3.If you dont pay them you pay penalties and interest..If they owe you…well they just owe you.
I've put a call in, to Tim Geitner, to come over and help me do my taxes
. No Reply!
The beatings will continue until we put a leash and muzzle on the progressives. This 100 year experiment has failed. Start over.
Taxing consumption is potentially, slightly less bad than taxing income–but only slightly. As I understand Huck's concept of a flat tax, he would have all transactions at the consumer level taxed, and then allow people below the poverty line to qualify for some sort of "pre-bate" as he calls it. Can you imagine all the people bellying up to the bar, trying to prove their impoverished status? "Really, Mr. Fed, I AM poor. Can't you see how little money I make? Look at how many mouths I have to feed! Who says I have an 'off-the-books' job?" We would just be replacing one awful bureaucracy with another.
Besides, we all know that if any kind of consumption tax is ever put into effect, it will NEVER replace the income tax–it will merely "supplement" the existing structure. Just get that foot in the door, start off with a "Cadillac sales tax", taxing only transactions greater than, say, $50,000. Then government's ever-increasing needs coupled with inflation manifest in a sales tax that impacts us all, eventually.
First, we have to somehow return to a much more limited federal government, which will greatly diminish the need for revenues.
As for what I think might be a better tax structure: Have a look sometime at the writings of a nearly forgotten political economist of the 19th century–his name was Henry George. He advanced the idea of a single tax on raw land (not on the improvements made to it by the owners–just the land itself). In general, whatever you tax, you will have less of it. Tax income, people stop earning and investing. Tax consumption, and people will stop buying goods and services. Tax land,,, Hmm.. Won't end up with less land now, will we? Can't hide your land in an underground, black market economy, can you?
But this is all dreaming, and I know it. For now, we're stuck with the system we have, at least in the short run.
this says a bunch .
http://www.heritage.org/index/TopTen.aspx
IRS can bite my ass.
As with all things, d.c., this is a gigantic cancer on our economy. A tumor that must be excised if the patient is to survive…
The Best system that I read about is in the Old Testament. It was almost illegal to be poor or not have your needs met. Generally written about in the book of Leviticus. Lev 25:10 is inscribed on our Liberty Bell. This system will be implemented when Christ returns as King. Right now, we seem to under The Roman Democracy system, which branch is European Socialism.
The Federal Govt doesn't really need to tax us, when they own the Money Printing Press. Simply, continue to cut checks for the employees…and if the fed employee wants cash, print up some Fed Reserve Notes and give it to them. They don't need my Federal Reserve Notes, when they can just print their own.
Anyone see this article? It looks as though our illustrious president has a fan. Some very similar letters to the editor have appeared attributed to the same name but different cities in a number of newspapers recently.
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/01/l...
I believe it was Reagan that said-
"Republicans think everyday is July 4th, and Democrats think everyday is April 15th."
I like that "Obama Free Zone" idea…I sent an e-mail to O'Reilly the __other day saying, "Please stop begging in a round about way, for __Obama to come on your show, he gets enough air-time." Needless __to say, my e-mail wasn't one of those that O'Reilly would read on the__air….I'm so sick of Obama and all the liars that surround him and __his ideas….They all have s–t for brains!!
I'm not sure what you mean here. What ruling happened today? Brushaber v Union Pacific said the 16th Amendment extended NO NEW taxing authority to Congress.
You might want to start reading http://www.losthorizons.com and see if it applies to you.
and revisit the 14th and remove the anchor baby portion!! retro-active to 1986 when we were promised the country wouldn't be flooded with illegal aliens…..
or take a bite out of it if you don't pay up!!…lol
Not only that but SCOTUS ruled that blacks were only to be counted as 2/3 of a citizen when it came to votes. I think they made alcohol illegal, too – prohibition.
I don't believe SCOTUS had anything to do with prohibition. That was an amendment to the constitution that required passage by congress and adoption by vote of the states individually. We did prohibition to ourselves – probably seemed like a good idea at the time. Looking back it probably wasn't any more intelligent than the passage of our drug laws outlawing marijuana, cocaine or opium.
You remember those laws – because the Chinese coolies were opium addicts – we outlawed opium. Much the same reasons to make cocaine and marijuana illegal. Racist kneejerk reactions by society – probably progressives.
Sounds like a plan!!
While listening to Rush in the car one day, a caller mentioned an idea that I've discussed with my dad before. What if, en masse, people stopped paying taxes, and/or laid off half of their employees? This would flood the unemployment offices to such an extent that the gov't could not keep up. By not paying taxes, we cut off their access to out life's blood! They couldn't possibly arrest everybody, or even audit them, not if enough people participated. It could be a bloodless revolution.
Any thoughts?
Loans make debt go away, just ask the govt.
The Republican's are a party of NO!!!!!!
NO more tax increases….
NO more corrupt government…..
NO more "special deals"…….
NO more progressive agenda…..
YES we are the party of NO!!!!!
That's right RICK! Actually who ever says "NO" is in control of the situation.
INCOME TAX= The liberal ROBBING of the otherwise conservative industrious!!!! Forced (Labeled as voluntary, to make it sound Constitutional) transfer of wealth to the government, because an individual used his/her body/mind to receive monetary rewards for livelihood! A tax on body movement!!!!! Extra-Constitutional then, extra-Constitutional now, the pursuit of happiness is a God given right, you must now work extra to gain enough wealth not only for yourself and family,to pursue happiness, but also the government which has become a leech upon your existence!!!! The more the PARASITE (Government) grows, the more it will devour, it comes first, it must be fed before you receive a penny, if not, you will be punished by the taking of the remainder of the rewards of your labors!!!!!!
Post Office employees aren't concerned…as it turns out, they don't file taxes at all!
"The agency with the most tax scofflaws is the U.S. Postal Service, with 28,913 employees who owe $297,933,756. But that is still a dramatic improvement from 2007 when more than 54,000 employees owed more than $407 million."
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=428&sid=1838232
Anybody know the difference between a hooker and the IRS?
A hooker will stop screwing you after you're dead.
…yeah final solution, tell me more…not
Sites like Big Government could go a long way to prove what Bill Benson did on his own.. http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp
A complete explanation of the case, can be read at http://jeffdickstein.com/ ( Mr Benson attorney in the US vs Benson appeal )
There is no such thing as a "Fair tax", when an insatiable government is empowered. How much tax would be fair? The difference between what you believe and what they deem necessary would be enormous!!!! Please lets keep their hands out of our neighbors "Cookie jar", otherwise we'll soon find them in ours also!!!! To give someone Else's rights/money away, is to give your own away in the same Legislation!!! Tax on earnings, tax on purchases, tax on selling, tax on manufacturing, tax on transporting, tax on giving, tax on dying, tax on saving, tax on improving, etc., how many more taxes would make it fair?!!!!!!!! Empirical Power, has no boundaries.
The progressive income tax was the first big victory for progressives in this country. The legislation actually passed in 1913. And the country has been going downhill ever since. The original meaning of the word "income" was that it was only the profits derived from stock transactions, but gradually over time Congress and the courts changed the meaning of "income" to mean anything and everything that comes in. It was sold on the old liberal theme of "soak the rich" but as it always goes, liberal schemes eventually "soak" everybody.
Richard E. Byrd, (no relation to Senator Robert Byrd, I don't believe) Speaker of the House of Delegates for the State of Virginia, March 3, 1910, predicting what would happen if a federal income tax ever became law:
"A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business; the eye of the Federal inspector will be in every man's counting house. The law will of necessity have inquisitorial features, it will provide penalties, it will create a complicated machinery. Under it businessmen will be hauled into courts distant from their home. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the taxpayer. An army of Federal inspectors, spies, and detectives will descend upon the state. They will compel men of business to show their books and disclose the secrets of their affairs. They will dictate forms of bookkeeping. They will require statements and affidavits. On the other hand the inspector can blackmail the taxpayer and on the other, he can profit by selling his secret to his competitor."
It is time for the Fairtax
.
Obama stole 16% of everyone's money in the last year and most don't even know it. How's that for a tax increase?
Pelosi and Obama don't have to take your money to steal it. By printing and spending massive amounts of money they are stealing money you are socking away in a bank account by diluting it's value — 16% in 2009.
Cass Susstein, Obama's chief regulator Czar, calls this preferred type of hidden tax technique "Deceit before Receipt" — meaning, better for government to take your money in sneaky silent ways because it causes fewer political problems for those in power.
They know what they're doing redistributing your wealth, and you can't hide it in a bank account, we've all been had by the MSM and Obama.
.
.
[...] the original post: » Sunday Open Thread: Income Tax Edition – Big Government tags: better-or-fairer, debts-on-time, federal government, people-pay, the-present, [...]
THIS IS A MUST READ: http://mises.org/etexts/rootofevil.asp____READ ABOUT THE REVOLUTION OF 1913 TOO! http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&a...
Everyone in America should prepare thier taxes on paper and skip the e-filing – which makes the job of the taxman easier.
Everyone in America should put their paper tax returns in an envelope and send it in on the 15th of April.
Last year a record 90 million of us voluntarily streamlined the taxmans efforts by filing electronically. Less than 50 million used paper.
Reverse those numbers and bog down the system with paper. Overload the offices with millions of paper returns.
Each year they make you work harder and harder to prepare your returns. Lets return the favor.
It's your choice… make it easier for them or make it more miserable for them.
File by mail – on April 15th in civil protest.
Absolutely true, you can hide your money in an impenetrable vault a mile under ground and the government can still steal it because they have the printing press.
We could as a majority send in checks postdated 364 days.
Or we could juat have them take our taxes out of the social security that they will owe us in 20 years.
Or we could just quit working as a nation, if we stop producing they will not have any income to tax.
It would need to be at least 80 % percent of the working population tho.
And the buisness owners and companies would have to go along with it.
The U.S. needs to do like France and not work for three months,all at the same time.
And when Obama resigns we just go back to work and being productive.
It would be a peaceful revolution.
I would suffer gladly .
We could all ask for extensions as well.
I am sick to death of class warfare. How many times have you read this – "Ninety percent of the wealth is CONTROLLED by 1% of the population…"? Controlled?
I am against the death tax and various other "leveling" taxes, but would be for them if EVERYONE had to pay the same percentage. We seriously need to level the playing field. Wealth is a relative term.
Forget that, read Brushaber V Union Pacific and there are a couple others. The SCOTUS ruled that the 16th did not enable a direct unapportioned tax. http://www.losthorizons.com will tell you who and what the "income" tax applies to.
the Supreme Court NEVER changed the meaning of income from what you describe above. Read Brushaber and not the wiki version.
Check out the new version of "Mmm Mmm Mmm Barack Hussein Obama" at: http://www.myspace.com/rogerweber
You'll feel better!
I hope some of the internet sleuths here at BG will help the boyz over at HillBuzz. The threats are astounding and appalling.
On THE INCOME TAX………..
Just wait until later this year…….
Oh say……….February…….
Do you remember how the Economic Stimulus Plan of 2009…….
let you keep an extra $13 (?) a week from being withheld from you withholding taxes?
Well all those people that are used to getting a big income tax return………
GUESS WHAT?………
Yeah you're going to get screwed……..
TurboTax, TaxSlayer, or what program that you use is going to give your back
about 50-60% of your last year return because……..
THE IRS DIDN'T WITHHOLD ENOUGH…..
AND YOU'LL BE ADVISED THAT YOUR RETURN MIGHT BE SMALLER
THAN EXPECTED BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILL OF 2009……..
HOPE AND CHANGE…….
i completely agree–a no more than 10% consumption tax should be implemented to pay the usa's bills and the income tax should be abolished–the system we have now taxes about 35-45%and most of that goes to the irs enforcing the tax codes on the people that cheat it–the consumtion tax would do away with the IRS-therefore shrinking government and freeing up thier salaries to go back into the economy, and because it is basically a federal sales tax near impossible to beat and everyone would pay–you spend $10 bucks you pay $1 buck tax, you spend $1,000,000 bucks you pay $100,000 bucks tax. the rich would pay accordingly and the poor would pay accordingly.
[...] View original post here: » Sunday Open Thread: Income Tax Edition – Big Government [...]
Well…I disagree. Often the person saying no does so because they don't have any real power.
In bureaucracies, most are only empowered to say 'no'. Think about it, most mid level government apparatchiks have no ability to authorize budget, and can only exercise their authority by saying 'no'. Think about your last trip through airport security. It's the little Napolean syndrome.
In reality, only a few in a large, monstrous, bureaucratic maze can actually say 'yes', particularly to budget. This is where the petty bureaucratic attitude comes from, the only way for someone to exercise power in those type of situations is to say no.
It must be noted that since our progressive government has been allowed to tax We The People, our government has acted in an unrestained manner to expand its demand for ever increasing taxation. Their incessent propaganda machine list a number of reasons, (providing for the poor, single payer health care, global warming, etc., etc.), to redistribute, out of our pocket, our hard earned monies.
Our progressive representatives deliberately pass laws (the Comminity Reinvestment Act), which is now the cause of the current financial meltdown, and of course, a shortfall in monies flowing into the government coffers
. And if taxes cannot be increased, the progessives simply spend us into oblivion and then justify a demand for an increase in taxation to pay for their fiscal mismanagement of unrestrained deficit spending. Now with the ever tightening hand of government permanently and deeply ensconsed in our pockets, we can only hope that it will not try to go deeper.
I agree, but hardly anyone knows that. I've read Brushaber, I've got a copy of it around her somewhere. It addresses the "income tax" but I don't recall what it says about "income." I know that the appeals court addressed it in — Southern Pacific v. Lowe, 238 Federal Reporter 850 (1917). They said the following:
"I do not think that "income," as used in the statute, should be given a meaning so as to include everything that comes in. The true function of the words "gains" and "profits" is to limit the meaning of the word "income" and to show its use only in the sense of receipts which constituted an accretion to capital. So the function of the word "income" should be to limit the meaning of the words "gains" and "profits." The increase value of capital as such constitutes in one sense a gain or profit, but not income. Hence such gain or profit is not taxable, but only such profits and gains as constitute income are taxable… "
U.N. first, and we disconnect their phones to us.
You won't have less land, but you may have fewer land holders. I can't predict the consequenes, but you can't tax without consequences. It's not possible. Taxation influences behavior.
However since in my state I already am taxed in perpetuity on my land, it already feels like I don't own it. Think about it. If you really own something — you bought it and paid for it — it's yours and nobody can come take it away, from the loaf of bread or your shelf to the car in your driveway. If you have to keep paying on an item or lose possession of it, we call that renting or leasing.
Because my state government is allowed to tax me in perpetuity on my land (unlike other property I own), with forfeiture of the land being the result of my failing to pay my tax/rent, I don't fully own my land any more, and that's kind of sad. I will forever have to fork over my payment to my feudal master, the state, in the form of property taxes. That doesn't seem right to me in a free country.
I hear about sites like this all the time, but if the information they gave was really valid, every tax preparer in the country would know about it and nobody would pay any federal income tax.
I've never known of a site that that made you pay for their super secret method to do anything that actually had information worth what they want your to pay for it.
I'm not keen on being the guy on point marching out to do battle with the IRS over their assertions.
It's not Huck's idea. http://www.fairtax.org, or tune into Neal Boortz's show from time to time. Boortz has also written two books with John Linder (R-GA) about the Fair Tax.
there's an entire article and discussion on 'Ellie Light" over at Big Journalism
Can Big Government start a continuing thread on candidates to support? I know there won't be complete uniform agreement but getting people known nationwide a la Scott Brown could give some better candidates momentum.
How about Bill Randall for Congress. http://www.randallforcongress.com/
"Taxing consumption is potentially, slightly less bad than taxing income–but only slightly. As I understand Huck's concept of a flat tax, he would have all transactions at the consumer level taxed, and then allow people below the poverty line to qualify for some sort of "pre-bate" as he calls it. Can you imagine all the people bellying up to the bar, trying to prove their impoverished status? "Really, Mr. Fed, I AM poor. Can't you see how little money I make? Look at how many mouths I have to feed! Who says I have an 'off-the-books' job?" We would just be replacing one awful bureaucracy with another."
As I understand it, that's not how the Fair Tax works. Everyone gets the pre-bate, which is calculated on the taxes paid on basic necessities. The point is that the pre-bate would negate the taxes paid by the poorest, but have less impact for everyone else.
Who pays taxes? Just stop. That was the first thing the People did. Taxation is nothing but a euphemism for armed robbery. The I.R.S. has no jurisdiction over the People. The I.R.S. DOES have jurisdiction over a citizen of the United States of America. If you claim to be a citizen, you have just given them jurisdiction. The end.
They'd declair us to be domestic terrorists and just send us all to Gitmo, while they ship the terrorists to the states.
Also a hooker will also refuse service
Internal Revenue SERVICE <- There's an oxymoron
That would be a Saul Alinsky move, overwhelm the system. And since most conservatives are law abiding citizens, it may not happen. I have thought about this too, or how about if we all got extensions on our taxes this year?
The 16th Amendment was never properly ratified. We have been conned that being forced to pay income tax is legal. The life blood for Washington politicians is tax revenue. If we can somehow manage to unite and force this to be changed our economic issues would be solved forever. Some type of fair tax or flat tax would allow us to keep more of our hard earned money to use at our sole discretion. Nothing but good would come from this type of change, including: job creation, higher savings rates, lower personal debt, more cash being injected into the real economy via higher purchasing power from consumers. I could go on and on, but the real benefit would be that the government would have it's credit line cut.
This is the 1st time in a decade where I am getting money back.
I had to modify my W-4 and take 3 exemptions AND pay $100 per month extra to be sure I would get money back.
Here is the IRS calculator to check your own.
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=9619...
I found I can stop the $100 a month since I overpaid and who wants to give too much to the IRS……..
where did you all get this from ?if the court made any thing like that, where is it i havent seen it ? they did rual that corporations had to pay a income tax but not an indiva. your income tax came to light in 1941 during world war ii. but for only two years under the constitution,but the people being stupid to the fact keep paying and we still are today
ever try to stop withholding on paycheck. I did and everyone is in on taking your money. Your employer is the first, then the state, the feds, social security protects the fraudsters, and all the while you are being prosecuted for underpayment. We tried to stop paying all at once and what happened. The justice department banned our books, through our leaders in jail and made life hell for those who work for a living. It's all or nothing. We need a state government willing to say they will protect it's citizens who stop withholding and keep the feds and the irs and the justice department out of the state. Then thee state could increase taxes to make up for the zero fed rates. what the hell, lets just all not go to work until congress gets the message. http://www.givemeliberty.org
Bob
Actually the U.S. Supreme Court said the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new taxing authority that it didn't have before. And the Supreme court had previously ruled that the Congress couldn't tax iwages and pay basically because it was exempt because of the Constitution under the direct and indirect taxation clauses. See the U.S. Supreme Court cases Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Railroad, Baltic vs. Stanton mining and Pollack vs. Farmers Trust.
Right on, including Baltic vs. Stanton mining and Pollack vs. Farmers Trust also in the questions of direct and indirect taxation.
That is true, Ronald Reagan had the Grace commission which found that out of taxes paid – 1/3 is never collected, 1/3 is wasted, and 1/3 goes to paying just towards the national debt and interest. None of tax money pays for any functioning of Govt.
Ever notice that if you put the words "the" and "IRS" together it spells "theirs"?
Ken Lewis: If I’m Going Down, Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke Are Coming Down With Me
2/4/10 at 5:18 PM Comment 8Comment 8Comments
Photo: Getty Images
No WAY is Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis going to be the only one to answer for the acquisition of crappy Merrill Lynch and its crappy bonuses, "a person close to Lewis's defense team" (who may or may not be Ken Lewis himself) tells Charlie Gasparino today on the Daily Beast. NO WAY will he be a scapegoat, alone, for the people who twisted his arm to go through with the Merrill deal by telling him he would be fired if he didn't. "If this thing goes to trial you can expect both Paulson and Bernanke to be on the witness list." If he's going down, he's bringing them down, too. Bringing them down to Chinatown. Order in the court!
Ken Lewis' A-List Witness List [Daily Beast]
Earlier: Bonus Buster: Bank of America Execs Acted Out of Self-Interest, Greed, and Hubris
By: Jessica Pressler
Filed Under: drama queens, bank of america, ken lewis
Read more: Ken Lewis: If I’m Going Down, Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke Are Coming Down With Me — Daily Intel http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/02/ken_lewis_al...
The "Flat Tax" was supported by Steve Forbes in his run up to Presidential candidacy and was introduced secondly by Laffer's support of the "Moon Man" Jerry Brown in his run up for his Presidential candidacy.
Some claim[who?] the flat tax will increase tax revenues, by simplifying the tax code and removing the many loopholes currently exploit to pay less tax. The Russian Federation is a claimed case in point; the real revenues from its Personal Income Tax rose by 25.2% in the first year after the Federation introduced a flat tax, followed by a 24.6% increase in the second year, and a 15.2% increase in the third year. The Laffer curve predicts such an outcome, but attributes the primary reason for the greater revenue to higher levels of economic growth.
Source: Wikipedia