I Have changed my mind on taxation, with a small caveat

[joelbc1]

I would support a move to a "flat tax rate" system....provided......
One rate could be arranged. The same rate for ALL taxpayers based on income and wages....and ALL income and wages be taxed at the same rate. I trust Congress can work out the details such as personal exemptions and tax rate. Also, the flat tax needs to get rid of most, if not all of the current exemptions. Home mortgage,charitable contributions, need to be gotten rid of...as well as there should be an adjustment made on retirement income investments.
Finally, my caveat would be the rates charged for MediCare and Social Secity need to be adjusted downwards....as long as the "caps" are removed from these programs taxations base.

 

[Nat Algren]

You lost me when you said, "I trust Congress can work out the details...." Please tell me what you see in your rear view mirror that would elicit such a twisted statement like that. Was it all of the wars that they have lied us into? I know you do not trust the R's, nor should you. You shouldn't trust anyone who lusts for power and control over your life.

 

[Pepperman]

Originally posted by joelbc1:
I would support a move to a "flat tax rate" system....provided......
One rate could be arranged. The same rate for ALL taxpayers based on income and wages....and ALL income and wages be taxed at the same rate. I trust Congress can work out the details such as personal exemptions and tax rate. Also, the flat tax needs to get rid of most, if not all of the current exemptions. Home mortgage,charitable contributions, need to be gotten rid of...as well as there should be an adjustment made on retirement income investments.
Finally, my caveat would be the rates charged for MediCare and Social Secity need to be adjusted downwards....as long as the "caps" are removed from these programs taxations base.

Some thoughts on your post:

1) You don't wish to give people an incentive to own a home?

2) Do you understand what this would do to charities?

3) The part about retirement income investments - are you suggesting we tax the SAVINGS part of it, or have a higher tax for the retired person that is drawing income off the nest egg?

 

[22*43*51]

Two guesses.

1) Joel just recently filed for 2014

2) Joel owes

 

[SCHawkFan]

I am a fair tax person, so I am with you. The current tax code bloated because it is used to reward and punish and manipulate people. That is a power that congress and the president need not have.

The arguments that this will hurt home ownership and charitable giving is not a good one. People own a home because they want the permanency of it. If they were buying a home for the tax benefit, then why would home sales go up when interest rates go low? The tax advantage of interest deduction is not the motivator.

People give to charities because that is in their heart. Why would anyone give a $1000 so that they can reduce their taxes by $300? They are out $700 dollars. People give to charities because they believe in the cause.

I agree with removing all deductions, loop holes, etc. I would simply go a step further and eliminate all income taxes completely and use a flat consumption tax.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Originally posted by Pepperman:

Some thoughts on your post:

1) You don't wish to give people an incentive to own a home?

2) Do you understand what this would do to charities?

3) The part about retirement income investments - are you suggesting we tax the SAVINGS part of it, or have a higher tax for the retired person that is drawing income off the nest egg?

1) Why do we need an incentive to own a home other than the pride of having your own home? This is actually just a subsidy for realtors and banks and a penalty for landlords.
2) If somebody wants to help a charity, why should they get a tax deduction. Isn't giving to something one believes in enough reason to give?
3) If we are going to a flat tax, it would make no difference whether one is retired and drawing from his retirement account or from his paycheck while working.
I personally would love to see a flat tax or at least a much flatter tax but first they need to redo the entire tax code. Having a flat tax and allowing a lot deductions would not make sense.

 

[naturalmwa]

Joel, why do you think any of this is a good idea or an improvement for society?

 

[Wendy79]

I assume you'd be okay with not using pre-tax dollars for daycare, no child tax credit, etc, as well then?

 

[Pepperman]

Originally posted by CarolinaHawkeye:
1) Why do we need an incentive to own a home other than the pride of having your own home? This is actually just a subsidy for realtors and banks and a penalty for landlords.
2) If somebody wants to help a charity, why should they get a tax deduction. Isn't giving to something one believes in enough reason to give?
3) If we are going to a flat tax, it would make no difference whether one is retired and drawing from his retirement account or from his paycheck while working.
I personally would love to see a flat tax or at least a much flatter tax but first they need to redo the entire tax code. Having a flat tax and allowing a lot deductions would not make sense.

Regarding point 2, I can see why people would say this... but then I'm also smart enough to know that my $100 donation is really just a $70 donation (for my impact). Take away the tax benefit, and I don't think it is crazy to envision a world where contributions to charities go down by the same amount. People, especially people giving large amounts, understand how the system currently works.

On point 3, it wouldn't matter except people like me have saved a boat-load for retirement on the grounds that my tax rate will be lower then. You cannot go and change the system all of the sudden.

 

[joelbc1]

Originally posted by 22*43*51:
Two guesses.

1) Joel just recently filed for 2014

2) Joel owes

22...I wouldn't buy a lottery ticket today. You couldn't be more incorrect. But then, you know me not and you are speaking of something/someone you know nothing about.
But for the record.......I have just filed my 2014 tax (federal) return......For the first time in my 23 years of filing "jointly" we are receiving a refund from Uncle Sam.
For the past 22 returns my bride and I file and usually end up "about even" after Federal and State taxes are filed....But this year we are getting a refund from BOTH Federal and State.
What a country!

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Originally posted by Pepperman:

Originally posted by CarolinaHawkeye:

1) Why do we need an incentive to own a home other than the pride of having your own home? This is actually just a subsidy for realtors and banks and a penalty for landlords.
2) If somebody wants to help a charity, why should they get a tax deduction. Isn't giving to something one believes in enough reason to give?
3) If we are going to a flat tax, it would make no difference whether one is retired and drawing from his retirement account or from his paycheck while working.
I personally would love to see a flat tax or at least a much flatter tax but first they need to redo the entire tax code. Having a flat tax and allowing a lot deductions would not make sense.

Regarding point 2, I can see why people would say this... but then I'm also smart enough to know that my $100 donation is really just a $70 donation (for my impact). Take away the tax benefit, and I don't think it is crazy to envision a world where contributions to charities go down by the same amount. People, especially people giving large amounts, understand how the system currently works.

On point 3, it wouldn't matter except people like me have saved a boat-load for retirement on the grounds that my tax rate will be lower then. You cannot go and change the system all of the sudden.

I do believe that people giving large amounts do it as much for the recognition as they do it for tax advantages. I think there are too many charities as it is. And many really do no charitable work. Also what is a charity? Is it the U of I athletic department?
I would assume that the retirement portion would have to be phased in somehow. I know I am in the same boat as you on that item.
Also while I am at it, I have always thought the exemptions for dependents was kind of unfair to those who chose to have fewer children. It seems like it is encouraging large families. But that is my opinion.

 

[IMCC965]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Joel, why do you think any of this is a good idea or an improvement for society?

PROGRESSIVE FIGHT !!! PROGRESSIVE FIGHT !!!

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by IMCC965:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Joel, why do you think any of this is a good idea or an improvement for society?

PROGRESSIVE FIGHT !!! PROGRESSIVE FIGHT !!!

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Originally posted by joelbc1:

Originally posted by 22*43*51:
Two guesses.

1) Joel just recently filed for 2014

2) Joel owes

22...I wouldn't buy a lottery ticket today. You couldn't be more incorrect. But then, you know me not and you are speaking of something/someone you know nothing about.
But for the record.......I have just filed my 2014 tax (federal) return......For the first time in my 23 years of filing "jointly" we are receiving a refund from Uncle Sam.
For the past 22 returns my bride and I file and usually end up "about even" after Federal and State taxes are filed....But this year we are getting a refund from BOTH Federal and State.
What a country!

I try to end up even. I do not like a big tax bill at the end of the year and I do not like the government using my money during the year.

 

[jthawk]

Originally posted by 22*43*51:
Two guesses.

1)  Joel just recently filed for 2014

2)  Joel owes

+1
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[joelbc1]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by IMCC965:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Joel, why do you think any of this is a good idea or an improvement for society?

PROGRESSIVE FIGHT !!! PROGRESSIVE FIGHT !!!

I, being a progressive am willing to admit that times change and people and societies need to adapt to the CURRENT times.
Recognizing a "flat tax" as a possible cure, I see that ALL incomes will be treated equally. The most gulling item of the current tax code is the allowance of a special and prejudicial tax rate for investment monies ("capital gains"). It is pure bullcrap...and the most regressive tax in this counties history.
I also see a possibility that ALL earners income will be taxed evenly and fair-handedly. Allowance for a "personal exemption" should include a reasonable amount of money for everyone's circumstances. The amount should be large enough to include for child care expenses and house mortgage rates (which is really a low priority in the world of 2-4% money), as an example. However, this plan. like any other tax plan, the devil lies in the details. Congress can make it workable or they can destroy it. I don't necessarily believe that everyone should "own" a home...I don't think "home ownership" is nearly as large a part of the American dream as it was 30 years ago. However, it still costs money to live and taxes should be structure accordingly.
I believe rates on MediCare and Social Security can be lowered as long as EVERYONE participates and everyone pays a percentage on ALL of their earned income. The same case can be made for a "flat tax" proposition.
This plan would "simplify" the tax code, but I am not naive enough to believe taxes for all can be filed on the back of a post card or that the IRS can (or should) be abolished. I am "progressive" enough to understand their is a better way of paying for America. I am progressive to live in the real world and not in a world that I think existed once upon a time.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by joelbc1:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by IMCC965:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Joel, why do you think any of this is a good idea or an improvement for society?

PROGRESSIVE FIGHT !!! PROGRESSIVE FIGHT !!!

I, being a progressive am willing to admit that times change and people and societies need to adapt to the CURRENT times.
Recognizing a "flat tax" as a possible cure, I see that ALL incomes will be treated equally. The most gulling item of the current tax code is the allowance of a special and prejudicial tax rate for investment monies ("capital gains"). It is pure bullcrap...and the most regressive tax in this counties history.
I also see a possibility that ALL earners income will be taxed evenly and fair-handedly. Allowance for a "personal exemption" should include a reasonable amount of money for everyone's circumstances. The amount should be large enough to include for child care expenses and house mortgage rates (which is really a low priority in the world of 2-4% money), as an example. However, this plan. like any other tax plan, the devil lies in the details. Congress can make it workable or they can destroy it. I don't necessarily believe that everyone should "own" a home...I don't think "home ownership" is nearly as large a part of the American dream as it was 30 years ago. However, it still costs money to live and taxes should be structure accordingly.
I believe rates on MediCare and Social Security can be lowered as long as EVERYONE participates and everyone pays a percentage on ALL of their earned income. The same case can be made for a "flat tax" proposition.
This plan would "simplify" the tax code, but I am not naive enough to believe taxes for all can be filed on the back of a post card or that the IRS can (or should) be abolished. I am "progressive" enough to understand their is a better way of paying for America. I am progressive to live in the real world and not in a world that I think existed once upon a time.

So basically you are willing to trade favoritism in rates (progressivity) for favoritism in income types and deductions - eliminating favoritism on both sides.

I'm guessing you think the well-off would take the greater hit. I suspect you are right.

You might want to take a look at Paul Ryan's budget from a few years ago. He moved quite a bit in that direction. IIRC, he had 2 rates - 15% and 25%. Three rates if you count zero as a rate, since people below roughly the poverty level wouldn't pay. And he did away with a whole lot of deductions.

The Ryan plan won't suit you because he doesn't treat investment income the same as other income or make your SS/Medicare adjustments, but if you consider his plan as a first offer, it's a start.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by joelbc1:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by IMCC965:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Joel, why do you think any of this is a good idea or an improvement for society?

PROGRESSIVE FIGHT !!! PROGRESSIVE FIGHT !!!

I, being a progressive am willing to admit that times change and people and societies need to adapt to the CURRENT times.
Recognizing a "flat tax" as a possible cure, I see that ALL incomes will be treated equally. The most gulling item of the current tax code is the allowance of a special and prejudicial tax rate for investment monies ("capital gains"). It is pure bullcrap...and the most regressive tax in this counties history.
I also see a possibility that ALL earners income will be taxed evenly and fair-handedly. Allowance for a "personal exemption" should include a reasonable amount of money for everyone's circumstances. The amount should be large enough to include for child care expenses and house mortgage rates (which is really a low priority in the world of 2-4% money), as an example. However, this plan. like any other tax plan, the devil lies in the details. Congress can make it workable or they can destroy it. I don't necessarily believe that everyone should "own" a home...I don't think "home ownership" is nearly as large a part of the American dream as it was 30 years ago. However, it still costs money to live and taxes should be structure accordingly.
I believe rates on MediCare and Social Security can be lowered as long as EVERYONE participates and everyone pays a percentage on ALL of their earned income. The same case can be made for a "flat tax" proposition.
This plan would "simplify" the tax code, but I am not naive enough to believe taxes for all can be filed on the back of a post card or that the IRS can (or should) be abolished. I am "progressive" enough to understand their is a better way of paying for America. I am progressive to live in the real world and not in a world that I think existed once upon a time.

It sounds like your motivation is to eliminate the disparity between income and investment taxes because you see the current preferential treatment for investment income as regressive. Is that correct? If so, why would you choose a inherently regressive tax like a flat tax as the replacement? Why not simply treat all income the same under the current progressive tax system? Additionally, why couple the SS cap to this? Why not simply eliminate the cap and keep the current progressive system? You have yet to present any advantage inherent to the flat tax system. Did you choose it simply to get support from conservatives for your other two goals?

 

[86Hawkeye]

Good thread!

 

[joelbc1]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by joelbc1:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

It sounds like your motivation is to eliminate the disparity between income and investment taxes because you see the current preferential treatment for investment income as regressive. Is that correct? If so, why would you choose a inherently regressive tax like a flat tax as the replacement? Why not simply treat all income the same under the current progressive tax system? Additionally, why couple the SS cap to this? Why not simply eliminate the cap and keep the current progressive system? You have yet to present any advantage inherent to the flat tax system. Did you choose it simply to get support from conservatives for your other two goals?

Good question(s) natural.
The purpose behind my "flat tax" thought was primarily to treat ALL income the same...you see right through me. However, when talking taxes and talking of eliminating the cap gains rate, one encounters too much opposition. Therefore, progressively, I say.....eliminate capital gains from the tax code vocabulary.
My thought behind the getting rid of the SS cap is........by removing the existing cap and assessing all earned income for SS and MediCare, it might actually result in a DROP of (current) rates assessed.
The flat tax rate just ends "definitions" of "what is what" as far as the tax code. Perhaps the rate could be as low as 10-12% of income, after the standard deduction levels are met. Poorer folks will still get a lower liability although the same tax "rate"...and maybe if a way can be figured to maintain the earned income credit, actually benefit from the tax code change. Rich folks will pay...and in many cases, pay a much higher dollar (at the same rate as "the poors") amount than they do currently because loop-holes and deductions will have been eliminated. That's my thought any way.
It's not a perfect idea by any stretch....but what we have now is so damn tilted to the rich and wealthy it is scary. Doesn't the thought that GE paid no Federal income a couple of years ago taxes just turn your (progressive) stomach?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by joelbc1:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by joelbc1:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

It sounds like your motivation is to eliminate the disparity between income and investment taxes because you see the current preferential treatment for investment income as regressive. Is that correct? If so, why would you choose a inherently regressive tax like a flat tax as the replacement? Why not simply treat all income the same under the current progressive tax system? Additionally, why couple the SS cap to this? Why not simply eliminate the cap and keep the current progressive system? You have yet to present any advantage inherent to the flat tax system. Did you choose it simply to get support from conservatives for your other two goals?

Good question(s) natural.
The purpose behind my "flat tax" thought was primarily to treat ALL income the same...you see right through me. However, when talking taxes and talking of eliminating the cap gains rate, one encounters too much opposition. Therefore, progressively, I say.....eliminate capital gains from the tax code vocabulary.
My thought behind the getting rid of the SS cap is........by removing the existing cap and assessing all earned income for SS and MediCare, it might actually result in a DROP of (current) rates assessed.
The flat tax rate just ends "definitions" of "what is what" as far as the tax code. Perhaps the rate could be as low as 10-12% of income, after the standard deduction levels are met. Poorer folks will still get a lower liability although the same tax "rate"...and maybe if a way can be figured to maintain the earned income credit, actually benefit from the tax code change. Rich folks will pay...and in many cases, pay a much higher dollar (at the same rate as "the poors") amount than they do currently because loop-holes and deductions will have been eliminated. That's my thought any way.
It's not a perfect idea by any stretch....but what we have now is so damn tilted to the rich and wealthy it is scary. Doesn't the thought that GE paid no Federal income a couple of years ago taxes just turn your (progressive) stomach?

Over the years I have seen several discussions of the flat tax and what the rate would end up being. The numbers that come to mind are 17-18% and 21-22%. I think the difference mainly depended on whether the proponent was also planning to cut government programs or was, instead, planning to pay for things more or less as they were at the time. It's been several years, so it wouldn't surprise me if those numbers would be higher now.

Part of the discussion, as usual, would be whether we will actually pay our bills - meaning raising sufficient revenue to pay them without borrowing. Since neither party seems interested in really paying the bills, we could probably end up with very low rates. For as long as the party lasts. Sure, our allies and China will eventually stop lending us money, but we can always just borrow from ourselves and extend quantitative easing indefinitely.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by joelbc1:

Good question(s) natural.
The purpose behind my "flat tax" thought was primarily to treat ALL income the same...you see right through me. However, when talking taxes and talking of eliminating the cap gains rate, one encounters too much opposition. Therefore, progressively, I say.....eliminate capital gains from the tax code vocabulary.
My thought behind the getting rid of the SS cap is........by removing the existing cap and assessing all earned income for SS and MediCare, it might actually result in a DROP of (current) rates assessed.
The flat tax rate just ends "definitions" of "what is what" as far as the tax code. Perhaps the rate could be as low as 10-12% of income, after the standard deduction levels are met. Poorer folks will still get a lower liability although the same tax "rate"...and maybe if a way can be figured to maintain the earned income credit, actually benefit from the tax code change. Rich folks will pay...and in many cases, pay a much higher dollar (at the same rate as "the poors") amount than they do currently because loop-holes and deductions will have been eliminated. That's my thought any way.
It's not a perfect idea by any stretch....but what we have now is so damn tilted to the rich and wealthy it is scary. Doesn't the thought that GE paid no Federal income a couple of years ago taxes just turn your (progressive) stomach?

Are these thoughts based on any actual data? Because some of these assumptions you are making sound suspect to me. Namely I doubt a 10-12% rate would be adequate in pulling in the same revenue numbers we pull in now. Second, I am skeptical that a 10-12% rate would represent an actual increase in tax burden on the rich, even if they get no deductions.

Here is a flat tax calculator based on 2010 numbers. If I punch in a 12% rate and use the medium US household income in 2010 of $53,000 you will see that your plan doesn't come close to covering for the old system. You need to about double your tax rates for it to work and under that plan the poor would pay more while the rich paid less than they do currently.


Here is how the effective taxes rates break down by income group now:

If we adopt a flat tax of about 25% which is what we would need to maintain current revenue levels, you can see that the bottom 40% will pay more while the top 60% get a cut. A flat tax is very good for high income wage earners, but its not progressive in any way and will redistribute wealth up the income ladder making the wealth gap greater and slowing the economy.

Link

 

[86Hawkeye]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by joelbc1:

Good question(s) natural.
The purpose behind my "flat tax" thought was primarily to treat ALL income the same...you see right through me. However, when talking taxes and talking of eliminating the cap gains rate, one encounters too much opposition. Therefore, progressively, I say.....eliminate capital gains from the tax code vocabulary.
My thought behind the getting rid of the SS cap is........by removing the existing cap and assessing all earned income for SS and MediCare, it might actually result in a DROP of (current) rates assessed.
The flat tax rate just ends "definitions" of "what is what" as far as the tax code. Perhaps the rate could be as low as 10-12% of income, after the standard deduction levels are met. Poorer folks will still get a lower liability although the same tax "rate"...and maybe if a way can be figured to maintain the earned income credit, actually benefit from the tax code change. Rich folks will pay...and in many cases, pay a much higher dollar (at the same rate as "the poors") amount than they do currently because loop-holes and deductions will have been eliminated. That's my thought any way.
It's not a perfect idea by any stretch....but what we have now is so damn tilted to the rich and wealthy it is scary. Doesn't the thought that GE paid no Federal income a couple of years ago taxes just turn your (progressive) stomach?

Are these thoughts based on any actual data? Because some of these assumptions you are making sound suspect to me. Namely I doubt a 10-12% rate would be adequate in pulling in the same revenue numbers we pull in now. Second, I am skeptical that a 10-12% rate would represent an actual increase in tax burden on the rich, even if they get no deductions.

Here is a flat tax calculator based on 2010 numbers. If I punch in a 12% rate and use the medium US household income in 2010 of $53,000 you will see that your plan doesn't come close to covering for the old system. You need to about double your tax rates for it to work and under that plan the poor would pay more while the rich paid less than they do currently.


Here is how the effective taxes rates break down by income group now:

If we adopt a flat tax of about 25% which is what we would need to maintain current revenue levels, you can see that the bottom 40% will pay more while the top 60% get a cut. A flat tax is very good for high income wage earners, but its not progressive in any way and will redistribute wealth up the income ladder making the wealth gap greater and slowing the economy.

Why would it slow the economy?

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:

Why would it slow the economy?

Because you are shifting money out of the hands of consumers who will spend it. Thats why redistribution downward is also good for the upper classes.

 

[joelbc1]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by joelbc1:
Are these thoughts based on any actual data? Because some of these assumptions you are making sound suspect to me. Namely I doubt a 10-12% rate would be adequate in pulling in the same revenue numbers we pull in now. Second, I am skeptical that a 10-12% rate would represent an actual increase in tax burden on the rich, even if they get no deductions.

Here is a flat tax calculator based on 2010 numbers. If I punch in a 12% rate and use the medium US household income in 2010 of $53,000 you will see that your plan doesn't come close to covering for the old system. You need to about double your tax rates for it to work and under that plan the poor would pay more while the rich paid less than they do currently.


Here is how the effective taxes rates break down by income group now:

If we adopt a flat tax of about 25% which is what we would need to maintain current revenue levels, you can see that the bottom 40% will pay more while the top 60% get a cut. A flat tax is very good for high income wage earners, but its not progressive in any way and will redistribute wealth up the income ladder making the wealth gap greater and slowing the economy.

Nope natural, no numbers per se......just brain storming this idea. I would, in a "flat tax" situation also exempt from tax the first "X" $$ from taxes....be that number 20k? 40K 100k? Allow a "standard deduction" for kids, disabilities and then have the balance taxable.
Interestingly, it was Jimmy Carter who propose not taxing a pre-set amount of initial income from households. He was dealing with a very much more cumbersum set of tax laws back in the 70's than today. His idea never made it out of committee.
I agree with you natural, that a progressive tax situation that does redistribute wealth annually is the best system in America. People who know how to make money will always make money. People who need money to live, would have access to money via jobs. However, that idea has long left the station as "libertarian economics" (economic slang for "me first!") has replaced the proven economics of the greatest generation, via convenience as opposed to being proven.

 

[Hawkfan757]

Joel - Since your main goal seems to be eliminating the capital gains rate that bothers you so much I have a compromise. How about we change the corporate tax rate to 0% and then tax all capital gains and dividends at the ordinary income rate. This seems fair as people like Romney will pay income tax at the high rate you want them to pay at and you will no longer feel like they are getting a special deal. Also, anyone rich or poor can invest in a company. If that company makes money the person who invested in the company will pay tax on those earnings either when they sell the stock or receive dividends.

 

[aflachawk]

Originally posted by SCHawkFan:
I am a fair tax person, so I am with you. The current tax code bloated because it is used to reward and punish and manipulate people. That is a power that congress and the president need not have.

The arguments that this will hurt home ownership and charitable giving is not a good one. People own a home because they want the permanency of it. If they were buying a home for the tax benefit, then why would home sales go up when interest rates go low? The tax advantage of interest deduction is not the motivator.

People give to charities because that is in their heart. Why would anyone give a $1000 so that they can reduce their taxes by $300? They are out $700 dollars. People give to charities because they believe in the cause.

I agree with removing all deductions, loop holes, etc. I would simply go a step further and eliminate all income taxes completely and use a flat consumption tax.

I love the fair tax with one exception. Their should be a limit on the amount of taxation on necessary medical expenses( no exception on plastic surgery) a full tax on medical expenses will drive many older Americans and some younger ones into a life of poverty
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[joelbc1]

Originally posted by Hawkfan757:
Joel - Since your main goal seems to be eliminating the capital gains rate that bothers you so much I have a compromise. How about we change the corporate tax rate to 0% and then tax all capital gains and dividends at the ordinary income rate. This seems fair as people like Romney will pay income tax at the high rate you want them to pay at and you will no longer feel like they are getting a special deal. Also, anyone rich or poor can invest in a company. If that company makes money the person who invested in the company will pay tax on those earnings either when they sell the stock or receive dividends.

Hawk...what you propose, I fail to see a compromise.
Ideally, I would have corporations pay the same rate as individuals.......but a serious rewrite of tax laws/tax loopholes/ depreciation and the like would have to occur too.
I'm not looking to "finesse" what exists.......I'm looking for a newer and more fair way to conduct business in regards to taxes. Businesses and corporations should (by Supreme Court edict do) enjoy many of the same rights....and paying taxes and at an equal tax rate would be one of them.
I am an old man. I can see the benefit of a "progressive" income tax, but that POV apparently now has passed as the younger, more greedy, libertarian "me first"ers generation that is coming into power. I'm looking for a feasible, reasonable solution to a problem.....not a fight.
With the rise of corporatism in the USA, the role of corporations needs to change..and being a payer of taxes, Federal and State and local, is one of these new roles they should assume. My consternation here is that most of the smaller, local, privately owned corporations are good citizens for their respective communities and states....the #800 gorilla in the room are mostly multi-national corporations who are owned by publicly owned/traded stock.

 

[Noble Hawk]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:

Why would it slow the economy?

Because you are shifting money out of the hands of consumers who will spend it. Thats why redistribution downward is also good for the upper classes.

Do you really think that is how economies grow? You believe it is done by poor and middle class people spending money on retail items and services?

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by Noble Hawk:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:

Why would it slow the economy?

Because you are shifting money out of the hands of consumers who will spend it. Thats why redistribution downward is also good for the upper classes.

Do you really think that is how economies grow? You believe it is done by poor and middle class people spending money on retail items and services?

Yes

 

[Noble Hawk]

Unfortunately that level of economic understanding is all too common.