What is your ideal Federal Income Tax structure?

[g5000]

Mine is:

15% flat tax on any income over $20,000 and a 1% FEDERAL SALES TAX ON ALL NON-FOOD ITEMS.

No exemptions. No deductions.

Simple..easy...fair.

No income tax, a national sales tax on all non-food/non-medical items and clothes over $250.00

The Fair Tax is a sales tax with a prebate. The purpose of the prebate is to offset the sales tax on food and other necessities.

If you start exempting anything from a tax, then you open the door for tens of thousands of exemptions. That's how we got where we are now with the current tax scheme.

NO exemptions. None. Zip. Nada.

The problem with a "pre-bate" is we get into the whole "government giving you money" thing, which i think is worse than exceptions for certain sales.

No, exemptions are far worse. They are exactly how we got in the mess we are in now.

A prebate is an advance refund of your own tax payments.

 

[Likkmee]

Flat 10% . Giant corporation or french fry " chef" at MCDonalbergz

 

[martybegan]

Mine is:

15% flat tax on any income over $20,000 and a 1% FEDERAL SALES TAX ON ALL NON-FOOD ITEMS.

No exemptions. No deductions.

Simple..easy...fair.

No income tax, a national sales tax on all non-food/non-medical items and clothes over $250.00

The Fair Tax is a sales tax with a prebate. The purpose of the prebate is to offset the sales tax on food and other necessities.

If you start exempting anything from a tax, then you open the door for tens of thousands of exemptions. That's how we got where we are now with the current tax scheme.

NO exemptions. None. Zip. Nada.

The problem with a "pre-bate" is we get into the whole "government giving you money" thing, which i think is worse than exceptions for certain sales.

No, exemptions are far worse. They are exactly how we got in the mess we are in now.

A prebate is an advance refund of your own tax payments.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Again, you now have a situation where EVERYONE will depend on a government deposit into their account every year/quarter/month/whatever. And what stops the government from changing the conditions of the prebate?

With exemptions everything is up front. Plus stores already know how to handle this as most State sales taxes already exclude most food, drugs and when it happens clothes under a certain amount of $$.

 

[NightFox]

If you start exempting anything from a tax, then you open the door for tens of thousands of exemptions. That's how we got where we are now with the current tax scheme.
.

You don't have to do it that way (i.e. "exemptions").

The way it could be done is to apply a baseline consumption tax across the board (same % for all goods).

Then add or subtract from the baseline depending on the existence of positive or negative externalities for the production or consumption of a given class of goods, after all one of the governments legitimate economic roles is to compensate for externalities (market failures). Moving the consumption tax up and down based on them is a transparent way to do it and has the most direct impact on production and consumption of any particular class of goods.

 

[rightwinger]

$0 to $50,000 No income tax
$50,000 to $150,000 25%
$150,00 to $1 million 35%
Over $1 million 50%

 

[Likkmee]

I live " elsewhere'. The employee pays 9% flat if he earns $300 a week or $50,000 a week. Then there is a 14% tax on everything you buy. Food and meds are exempt but it's a socialist system so meds/scrips/docs etc are free for all, as it should be

 

[g5000]

If you start exempting anything from a tax, then you open the door for tens of thousands of exemptions. That's how we got where we are now with the current tax scheme.
.

You don't have to do it that way (i.e. "exemptions").

The way it could be done is to apply a baseline consumption tax across the board (same % for all goods).

Then add or subtract from the baseline depending on the existence of positive or negative externalities for the production or consumption of a given class of goods, after all one of the governments legitimate economic roles is to compensate for externalities (market failures). Moving the consumption tax up and down based on them is a transparent way to do it and has the most direct impact on production and consumption of any particular class of goods.

"Compensating for externalities" is a deduction, which again is opening the door to corruption. If you give a congressman the power to change a tax rate, they will be bought and paid for by special interests to do just that.

The proof of that happens every single day.

 

[g5000]

Our politicians will NEVER give up the power to exempt, deduct, or credit. Providing this service to special interests is their main source of campaign income. And they absolutely depend on the ignorance of the herd of this scheme.

This makes a VAT (by any name) inevitable.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Mine is:

15% flat tax on any income over $20,000 and a 1% FEDERAL SALES TAX ON ALL NON-FOOD ITEMS.

No exemptions. No deductions.

Simple..easy...fair.

Zero Federal Income Tax. Amend the constitution to prohibit tax on incomes. Go to a national sales tax so people can feel the pain of government waste daily.

Earn as much money as you want, but when you spend it, you will pay a tax. Period. No punishment for earning. Incentives to save.

Or....

Kill the Federal Reserve and go back to the gold standard. Then, 15% flat tax on EVERYONE, no exemptions, deductions or Tax Expenditures (I see you, g5000 )

Or....

Kill the Fed and spend all money into circulation (seriously limits government waste). No tax necessary. Government needs something? Spend it into circulation. No more loaning it into circulation with interest paid to the fucking Rothchilds, private banks, etc.

 

[NightFox]

If you start exempting anything from a tax, then you open the door for tens of thousands of exemptions. That's how we got where we are now with the current tax scheme.
.

You don't have to do it that way (i.e. "exemptions").

The way it could be done is to apply a baseline consumption tax across the board (same % for all goods).

Then add or subtract from the baseline depending on the existence of positive or negative externalities for the production or consumption of a given class of goods, after all one of the governments legitimate economic roles is to compensate for externalities (market failures). Moving the consumption tax up and down based on them is a transparent way to do it and has the most direct impact on production and consumption of any particular class of goods.

"Compensating for externalities" is a deduction, which again is opening the door to corruption. If you give a congressman the power to change a tax rate, they will be bought and paid for by special interests to do just that.

It's not a deduction, it's adjusting the price (up or down) for the ACTUAL cost of production or consumption (aka the social cost), the government is going to do it one way or the other, having it right there on the price sticker is the only way it's going to be transparent and thus the least subject to corruption (not that it still won't happen but it's less likely and it's easier to detect).

If production or consumption of a particular class of goods/services induces a negative externality (i.e. imposes a cost on somebody other than the consumer and/or the producer) you increase the consumption tax to compensate.

If production or consumption of a particular class of goods/services induces a positive externality (i.e. entails a benefit for somebody other than the consumer and/or the producer) you decrease the consumption tax to compensate.

By doing it this way you not only induce fairness you make the economy more efficient since production and consumption will end up more inline with social costs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A progressive flat tax. lol, what does that mean? it's a flat tax, bracket by bracket.

 

[Mac1958]

Due to the massive spread in incomes, I'd add four new margins. Shit-can the AMT and institute a META (my term, Minimum Effective Tax Rate), so that only so many deductions and credits can be claimed:

44.9%, 25% META
49.9%, 30% META
54.9%, 35% META
59.9%, 40% META

Drop corporate tax rates to 15% with a 5% META, institute a two-year tax moratorium on repatriated dollars.
.

 

[g5000]

Mine is:

15% flat tax on any income over $20,000 and a 1% FEDERAL SALES TAX ON ALL NON-FOOD ITEMS.

No exemptions. No deductions.

Simple..easy...fair.

Zero Federal Income Tax. Amend the constitution to prohibit tax on incomes. Go to a national sales tax so people can feel the pain of government waste daily.

Precisely. With the Fair Tax, everyone has skin in the game.

Every American has been saying for too long, "Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it." The people who whine about the poor being on food stamps are just as guilty. They want their exemptions, credits, and deductions, even though they add up to the greatest cost of $1.4 trillion a year, driving up tax rates on everyone. Their exemptions, credits, and deductions are "paid for by that guy over there."

It makes me sick to see someone who thinks they are a conservative whining about food stamps and then screaming like a welfare queen when I say their deductions, exemptions, and credits need to go.

This is why it is absolutely vital that NO exemptions be allowed for ANY tax scheme, no matter what kind we have. Sales tax, income tax, whatever. We cannot allow exemptions which must be paid for by higher tax rates.

Another critical component of a tax scheme is that any increase in government spending must be attached to an increase in taxes. We actually had that for a while. PAYGO. But the GOP scuttled it as soon as they gained the White House and Congress last time.

The GOP is also the biggest abuser of tax expenditures, by far. That's because it is a way to increase spending and deficits without the idiot herd catching on.

So don't let anyone ever tell you the modern Republican Party is fiscally conservative. That's a total lie.

 

[sartre play]

So far nothing offered seems to be a workable solution, that's why its such a huge mess. what ever they decide it wont be better for most of us.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Mine is:

15% flat tax on any income over $20,000 and a 1% FEDERAL SALES TAX ON ALL NON-FOOD ITEMS.

No exemptions. No deductions.

Simple..easy...fair.

And how much revenue per year does that get us?

 

[oldsoul]

$0 to $50,000 No income tax
$50,000 to $150,000 25%
$150,00 to $1 million 35%
Over $1 million 50%

I see some immediate flaws here:

1. Someone making $150,000 would have $112,500 after taxes, while someone making just a dollar more would only have $97,500.65.
2. Someone making $1 million would have $650,000 after taxes, while someone making just a dollar more would only have $500,000.
3. One would have to "jump" from making 150,000 to over 173,000 to see an after tax increase.
4. One would have to "jump" from making 1 million to over 1.3 million to see even one more dollar after taxes.
5. One making a "jump" from 50,000 to 67,000 would only see an increase of $250 after taxes.

Is this not one the major flaws of any "progressive" tax plan? There is a major disincentive to move only slightly into a higher tax bracket. Whereas, in a flat, or a spending plan, there is no disincentive to anyone who wishes to incrementally increase their income. I see several manifestations of this:

1. People refusing wage increases.
2. People closing their businesses/adjusting pricing for periods of time to ensure they would be in a tax advantageous position.
3. People seeing certain career paths as poor choices based on taxes.

I am sure there are others I am not thinking of.

 

[NightFox]

Mine is:

15% flat tax on any income over $20,000 and a 1% FEDERAL SALES TAX ON ALL NON-FOOD ITEMS.

No exemptions. No deductions.

Simple..easy...fair.

Zero Federal Income Tax. Amend the constitution to prohibit tax on incomes. Go to a national sales tax so people can feel the pain of government waste daily.

Precisely. With the Fair Tax, everyone has skin in the game.

the problem with the "fair tax" is that isn't anything close to "fair" ....

It in effect grants tax breaks to production and consumption that imposes costs on the rest of society (e.g. pollution) thus incentivizing "the bad"
It in effect imposes excessive taxes on production and consumption that grants benefits to the rest of society (e.g. landscaping) thus penalizing "the good".

 

[rightwinger]

$0 to $50,000 No income tax
$50,000 to $150,000 25%
$150,00 to $1 million 35%
Over $1 million 50%

I see some immediate flaws here:

1. Someone making $150,000 would have $112,500 after taxes, while someone making just a dollar more would only have $97,500.65.
2. Someone making $1 million would have $650,000 after taxes, while someone making just a dollar more would only have $500,000.
3. One would have to "jump" from making 150,000 to over 173,000 to see an after tax increase.
4. One would have to "jump" from making 1 million to over 1.3 million to see even one more dollar after taxes.
5. One making a "jump" from 50,000 to 67,000 would only see an increase of $250 after taxes.

Is this not one the major flaws of any "progressive" tax plan? There is a major disincentive to move only slightly into a higher tax bracket. Whereas, in a flat, or a spending plan, there is no disincentive to anyone who wishes to incrementally increase their income. I see several manifestations of this:

1. People refusing wage increases.
2. People closing their businesses/adjusting pricing for periods of time to ensure they would be in a tax advantageous position.
3. People seeing certain career paths as poor choices based on taxes.

I am sure there are others I am not thinking of.

You do not understand how a progressive tax rate works. Don't you pay taxes now?

A person making $1 million would pay no taxes on his first $50,000, 25% on the amount $50-150,000, 35% on the amount $150,000 to $1 mil

If you make $1 over a million dollars, you only pay 50 cents in additional tax

 

[oldsoul]

$0 to $50,000 No income tax
$50,000 to $150,000 25%
$150,00 to $1 million 35%
Over $1 million 50%

I see some immediate flaws here:

1. Someone making $150,000 would have $112,500 after taxes, while someone making just a dollar more would only have $97,500.65.
2. Someone making $1 million would have $650,000 after taxes, while someone making just a dollar more would only have $500,000.
3. One would have to "jump" from making 150,000 to over 173,000 to see an after tax increase.
4. One would have to "jump" from making 1 million to over 1.3 million to see even one more dollar after taxes.
5. One making a "jump" from 50,000 to 67,000 would only see an increase of $250 after taxes.

Is this not one the major flaws of any "progressive" tax plan? There is a major disincentive to move only slightly into a higher tax bracket. Whereas, in a flat, or a spending plan, there is no disincentive to anyone who wishes to incrementally increase their income. I see several manifestations of this:

1. People refusing wage increases.
2. People closing their businesses/adjusting pricing for periods of time to ensure they would be in a tax advantageous position.
3. People seeing certain career paths as poor choices based on taxes.

I am sure there are others I am not thinking of.

You do not understand how a progressive tax rate works. Don't you pay taxes now?

A person making $1 million would pay no taxes on his first $50,000, 25% on the amount $50-150,000, 35% on the amount $150,000 to $1 mil

If you make $1 over a million dollars, you only pay 50 cents in additional tax

So, then, I misunderstood your proposal, I assure you it was merely because of its incompleteness.

 

[Brain357]

Taxes are not the problem, borrowing and spending is the problem. If your house is on fire you don't try to fix the bad wiring you put the fire out first.

They are a problem. Filled with expenditures. Shouldn't need an accountant to do your taxes.