TAXES

RICHARD YANCEY, author, March 8, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Is it true that lower income taxpayers actually are more likely to be audited than higher income taxpayers—despite the perception that the opposite is the case? Or was that recent news report stating that was the case inaccurate? If it is correct, why would a lower percentage of higher incomes not be subject to audits? YANCEY: The word inside the Service used to be that lower-income taxpayer’s were audited more, but I heard those reports second and third hand. A lot of press was generated when the Service stated a HUGE program to chase down cheats on the Earned Income Tax Credit, which tended to be lower-income people.
CZIKOWSKY: “First I fell in love with the power, then was overpowered by love.”
When were you overpowered by love?
YANCEY: Oh, that’s the best part of the book (“Confessions of a Tax Collector”)! Don’t make me give it away! It has to do with a dog…which, no matter what anybody else says, I DID NOT HIT.

CHARLES HAWKINS, Virginia State Senator, March 10, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Would you reconsider your opposition to a cigarette tax increase if the government would pay subsidies to tobacco farmers to switch to other products?
HAWKINS: As long as tobacco is legal in the U.S., I don’t think we should tax it out of existence. If in fact that we make a decision as a nation to pick products for adults to pick and choose—such as when alcohol was in prohibition—we need to consider the agricultural family structure.
If we lose the family farming structure, we lose the ecology on the farms—habitat for wildlife and green ways, etc. We’re talking about more than losing tobacco—losing an entire structure and we have to have to careful about how we approach this. Remember that Fairfax County used to be the number one dairy county in the state.

TED HALSTEAD, New American Foundation President and MAYA McGUINEAS, New American Foundation Fiscal Policy Program Director, May 25, 2004, May 25, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Assuming the Kerry Administration inherits a Federal government with major rebuilding needs in Iraq and Afghanistan and huge commitments to homeland security on top of existing government programs: what tax play would you best suggest that would meet the possible need for higher revenues? It seems most tax plans assume a level or stable amount of government growth. What if emergency needs require higher revenues: how would that affect your tax plan?
HALSTED and McGIUNEAS: If the government needs new revenue, which it may well, we support both reducing current spending (e.g. by eliminating all agricultural subsidies, or means-testing Social Security) and tapping new sources of revenue, such as pollution taxes.