Matt \[suppersready@buckeye-express.com\]

Fri 3/11/2005 4:16 PM

Comments & Suggestions for the President\'s Tax Advisory Panel

This letter sets forth some ideas concerning what a tax system should be
and reminds the tax advisory panel of things that need to be considered
if the present system is dramatically altered.

You are wrong in thinking that by switching from one tax system to
another you have resolved the problems of revenue and deficits and
fairness. Deficits are caused by too much spending AND not enough
revenue. Whatever the tax system it will still have those problems. The
proper amount of spending is determined by the representatives of the
people through debates and the political process. Rather we agree or
disagree with their decisions, we taxpayers must then pay those expenses
through taxes. The level of spending, coupled with unforeseen events,
then determines how much revenue is needed to balance that budget. The
way you can determine if the right amount of taxes are being levied is
whether enough money is brought in to keep from borrowing.

Those who advocate or cause taxes to be reduced to the point that
borrowing becomes necessary have embarked on a path that goes in the
wrong direction. Like the commercial says - You can pay me now or pay me
later. Borrowing money puts us in debt upon which we then needlessly pay
interest. You should take the time to put some numbers on paper. It
takes over 30 years and a minimum of 80,000 new jobs each paying at
least \$50,000 a year to pay for the tax cuts of the last four years.
Has our economy ever done that good in the past.

There is no perfect tax system. Whatever system is chosen will
eventually succumb to special interests provisions.

And, there is also the costs of phasing out the present tax code. Have
you thought about 401ks. Many taxpayers have received special treatment
by having their salaries deferred and not paying tax while others making
the same income paid tax. Many taxpayers are salivating at the prospect
of never having to pay tax on those IRAs. And many with very large
retirements. That is why they are really supporting getting rid of the
Income Tax. If you do away with the present tax code you must then
collect the money that would have been paid originally on that deferred
income or determine a way to collect the tax those individuals would
have paid at retirement should this system have continued. Maybe offer
some kind of option. It would be absolutely unfair to ignore this. And
ethically wrong.

Under the consumption tax, there would be a great amount of increased
paperwork and record keeping for the Social Security Department. And a
new dependency class of poor waiting for their monthly allotment checks

A National Sales tax would only depress sales. I have heard some say,
\"If you want more of something, tax it less.\" Well, obviously, with
that logic if you increase the tax on sales you would have less sales.
Here in Ohio we already have a state sales tax which is seven and a
quarter percent in this county. That coupled with a 23% federal sales
tax would mean we would be paying over 30% in addition to the purchase
cost of an item. A \$30,000 car would cost another \$9,000. that alone
would cause a person to take a second look when making large purchases.
Especially if financing is involved. This would dampen sales of large
ticket items. Less sales would produces job layoffs. More unemployed. Or
underemployed. Companies cutting back on production and costs.

Getting more money into the stock market is Not what stimulates an
economy. Demand for product is what produces jobs. NOT investors.
Consumers are the fuel that drives an economy. Getting more money into
the hands of wealthy investors is not, as many believe, what produces
jobs. Consumers should be appreciated, not penalized for helping the
economy. If you tax consumers through the sales tax and at the same time
increase the bank accounts of those who already have enough, you will
actually put the American economy in reverse.

My personal preference would be continue the income tax. Make ALL income
taxable at one flat rate with no deductions or exemptions. I repeat ALL
income. It would grossly unfair to tax wages and pensions only. We need
a flat rate income tax. Including inheritance income on the same return
also at the same rate as all other income. Not a special rate. There
should not be two tier rates for dividends or capital gains. Everything
taxed the same. Ever hear of the tithe? Would God have taxed different
incomes or different people at different rates? What causes class envy?
Is it not special treatment?

One rate tax makes figuring the tax much simpler. This would eliminate
the marriage penalty and many other problems. No longer any need to have
a selection for filing status on a tax return. Less audits necessary.
And actually, a person who only has wages would no longer need to file a
tax return. Tax is already paid through withholding. And less paperwork
for IRS. Also, no more subsidizing mortgage interest for wealthy people.

Revenue can be adjusted by merely increasing or decreasing the tax rate.
No need to take in to account cost of living to adjust brackets

Matthew Perkins - Toledo Ohio