• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Thought regarding a tax system

Question below

  • Total voters
    16
liblady said:
this could be workable, but would it be the same as we have now, say, if you made 75k, you would be taxed at baseline * 2 for 72k, and baseline * 4 for the additional 3k? otherwise, there actually would be a huge disincentive to jump into the next bracket and would not seem to be fair at all.
Click to expand...

Welcome to our current tax code.
 
Zyphlin said:
Okay, crazy thought in my head regarding a tax system.

Liberals generally like a progressive tax that has the higher incomes paying a significantly higher amount and that is light on the poorer ones.

Conservatives generally are wanting to have everyone have some skin in the game and avoid situations where only one bracket is getting played with due to mob rule.

So what if we did this. We set 6 brackets and they are unmovable. Bracket 1 is our baseline bracket with each other bracket being X times higher than the baseline bracket. That number (X) can not be changed, and individual brackets can not be changed. The only way to change the tax is to affect the baseline bracket. It would look like this

1) $0 - $24k . . . . . . . 1 (baseline)
2) $24k - $72k . . . . . . Baseline * 2
3) $72k - $144k . . . . . Baseline * 4
4) $144k - $240k . . . . Baseline * 6
5) $240k - $360k . . . . Baseline * 8
6) $360k + . . . . . . . . Baseline * 10

The only deduction would be from Chlidren. Your baseline is reduced by 6% per child (may of 4 children), with that 6% going down by 1 for each bracket you're in. So Bracket 1 would get the full 6% per, bracket 3 would be getting 4%, and bracket 6 would be 1% per.

From there, politicians can still argue over taxes but only in regards to changing the baseline. If you want the upper bracket to pay 70% you can, however the poor will be paying 7% and middle class will be paying between 14% and 28%. Want to make the upper income brackets pay under 30%? Then the poor is going to be paying less than 3% taxes and the highest middle class tax would be under 12%.

This would eliminate the ability for politicians to play to any particular base, pitting them against the other. Whether that be convincing everyone to go after the "rich" or doing a "pay off" to the wealthy by lowering their taxes. It would interject a bit of stability into our tax rate system as well and make it slightly less of a constant politicla issue. It'd also simplify the tax code immensely.

You could set Capital Gains at say Baseline * 5 and leave it at that, taking Capital Gains also off the table as a political tool. Ditto for setting something like the Corporate Tax (Base * 5 as well)?

So, what would your thoughts of this generalized tax scheme be? Like it? Dislike? Like the theory but not the numbers? Also, what would you push for the starting baseline to be?
Click to expand...
Heck, that's the best tax proposal I've heard from a conservative in, like ever. Yeah, we could probably work something similar to this out. Idk about all the details, but those can be worked out. I'd like the baseline to be at like 50k and the top bracket to be at like 1 mil though. I'd say 200-300k usually qualifies as "upper middle class".
 
I support any system that is better than the current system. This one is really good, because it unites the countr. The class warfare mantra is dividing the country.

I agree, except that I think it should be addition and not multiplication. So the current american tax system is
1) $0 - $24k . . . . . . . 5%
2) $24k - $72k . . . . . .10%
3) $72k - $144k . . . . .20%
4) $144k - $240k . . . .30%
5) $240k - $360k . . . .40%
6) $360k + . . . . . . . . 50%

And you need more revenue, then it will be nearly impossible to increase taxes, becuse the taxes for the rich will be too high. The solution is to add instead of multiply. So a 5% tax increase will be
1) $0 - $24k . . . . . . . 10%
2) $24k - $72k . . . . . .15%
3) $72k - $144k . . . . .25%
4) $144k - $240k . . . .35%
5) $240k - $360k . . . .45%
6) $360k + . . . . . . . . 55%
 
A.Pearce said:
I'd say 200-300k usually qualifies as "upper middle class".
Click to expand...
:lol:

I would rather say 100 - 150K qualifies as upper middle class. If you earn more than that, then you are pretty rich.

If I start working in New Zealand, I will earn about 40K USD per year in the begining. For me that is a lot of money, because I spend about 7000 USD per year . Prices in New Zealand are not lower than America.
 
Abolish the sales tax. Abolish the income tax for those making less than $500,000 a year. A flat tax for everyone above. That sounds perfect to me.
 
apdst said:
First, you can't cut all deductions except for children. There's now way people would be able to pay their taxes. It would be the same as cutting out all tax deductions for corporations and forcing them to pay taxes on 100% of their gross revenue. Individuals, like businesses would go in the hole every year and would be up to their necks in taxes for the rest of their lives.
Click to expand...

I disagree. There's no way under our current system that it'd function without deductions. However, if taxes became lowered than that should offset.

Second, this is no different than the system we already have in place.
Click to expand...

Just patentedly false and shows you didn't read my post. I already detailed in this thread various ways this is distinctly different than our current system.

Third, there's no way that Liberals will ever accept a tax code where the poor pay their share and the rich don't pay more than their share.
Click to expand...

That's funny, I thought only liberals talked about "shares" as if there was fair unquestionable pin point spot. Tell me, what is the poors "share" and what is the "richs" share. Many on the right demand specific hard numbers from those on the left when they talk about "fair share", how about you tell us a hard number specifically what is the correct "share" for the poor and the rich so that you can properly define what "more" or "less" is.
 
A.Pearce said:
Heck, that's the best tax proposal I've heard from a conservative in, like ever. Yeah, we could probably work something similar to this out. Idk about all the details, but those can be worked out. I'd like the baseline to be at like 50k and the top bracket to be at like 1 mil though. I'd say 200-300k usually qualifies as "upper middle class".
Click to expand...

Absolutely not, and by doing that you remove the primary purpose of this plan which is to deal with some of the concerns both sides have. By moving the baseline up to 50k you:

1. Return the concern of conservatives that there are a significant amount of the population that has zero skin in the game when it comes to income taxes

2. Lowers the incentive for Democrats to attempt to massively jack up to astronomical levels the tax on the "wealthy" because it will in turn raise the taxes a fair bit on the poor and lower middle class when you start to get to that level.

So your suggestions to "change" it effectively takes it away from being a compromise bill to just simply being a full on liberal one.
 
Camlon said:
I support any system that is better than the current system. This one is really good, because it unites the countr. The class warfare mantra is dividing the country.

I agree, except that I think it should be addition and not multiplication. So the current american tax system is
1) $0 - $24k . . . . . . . 5%
2) $24k - $72k . . . . . .10%
3) $72k - $144k . . . . .20%
4) $144k - $240k . . . .30%
5) $240k - $360k . . . .40%
6) $360k + . . . . . . . . 50%

And you need more revenue, then it will be nearly impossible to increase taxes, becuse the taxes for the rich will be too high. The solution is to add instead of multiply. So a 5% tax increase will be
1) $0 - $24k . . . . . . . 10%
2) $24k - $72k . . . . . .15%
3) $72k - $144k . . . . .25%
4) $144k - $240k . . . .35%
5) $240k - $360k . . . .45%
6) $360k + . . . . . . . . 55%
Click to expand...

The reason I went with multiple rather than addition (my original thought) is due to the principles of a progressive tax schedule and looking at taxes from the idea that its purpose is to provide necessary funds while providing the least amount of harm to the most amount of people. It can be argued that 5% going away from someone making 30k a year causes significant more harm than it does to someone making 300k a year. That is because it could be argued there is more "harm" in limiting a persons ability for general "essentials" (food, shelter, medicine, every day needed household items [toilet paper, soap, etc]) than there is in limiting someones ability for "luxuries" (anything non-essential). That's not saying losing the ability for luxuries isn't harm, and shouldn't be attempted to be avoided as best as possible, but when weighing the two one is "more" harm.

So under a progressive code, the higher up in the scales you get the the less impact a single % has. With addition, that 5% is distributed equally across the board statistically, but not in terms of impact. With a multipication based system it adheres to the initial thought process behind the initial set up of the tax bracket.

Additionally, you come to other issues with addition/subtraction methods. For example, if you reduce taxs by 4% instead of raising you bring the "poor" down to 1% while bringing the rich only down to 46%. By going multipication and starting the baseline at 1% there still is a small allowance for taxes to be a political issue, just not as manipulative of one. It can move up and down with significant effect to every bracket, where as under an addition plan the effect would be negligable...both good and bad...for the upper brackets rather than the lower.

That's why I eventually went with Multiplication over addition.
 
Zyphlin said:
I disagree. There's no way under our current system that it'd function without deductions. However, if taxes became lowered than that should offset.
Click to expand...

It would have to be 5%, or less.



Just patentedly false and shows you didn't read my post. I already detailed in this thread various ways this is distinctly different than our current system.
Click to expand...

In the sense that you want to do away with all deductions, sure it's different. But, as far as having tax brackets based on income, it's a carbon copy.



That's funny, I thought only liberals talked about "shares" as if there was fair unquestionable pin point spot. Tell me, what is the poors "share" and what is the "richs" share. Many on the right demand specific hard numbers from those on the left when they talk about "fair share", how about you tell us a hard number specifically what is the correct "share" for the poor and the rich so that you can properly define what "more" or "less" is.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about anyone paying their, "fair share". I was only explaining to you how I interpret the Liberal ideology concering taxes.
 
Camlon said:
:lol:

I would rather say 100 - 150K qualifies as upper middle class. If you earn more than that, then you are pretty rich.

If I start working in New Zealand, I will earn about 40K USD per year in the begining. For me that is a lot of money, because I spend about 7000 USD per year . Prices in New Zealand are not lower than America.
Click to expand...
My family earns that much and we are upper middle class... though I suppose they are paying for 2 kids in college right now... But we never had a big house or fancy cars, we mostly just went on vacations. By "upper middle class" I mean that that is the amount many professional people make, though. I suppose it could be anywhere from 100-300k or so, depending on living costs, etc etc.
 
apdst said:
In the sense that you want to do away with all deductions, sure it's different. But, as far as having tax brackets based on income, it's a carbon copy.
Click to expand...

1. Removes deductions
2. Changes the tax rates for each bracket
3. Mandates all tax rates be linked towards a common baseline so its not possible to change a single tax rate
4. Mandates all tax brackets remain unchanged unless the entire system is scrapped

Yes, you're exactly right, my plan is "no different" than the plan we have in place because it uses numbers and talks about taxes :roll:


I never said anything about anyone paying their, "fair share". I was only explaining to you how I interpret the Liberal ideology concering taxes.
Click to expand...

I never said you said fair share, you just said share and suggested some people are able to pay "more" than their share and others "not" paying their share, which means you seem to have arbitrarily determined what is an appropiate "share" for the different groups since you've determined you can make judgements about quantity regarding said "shares".
 
A.Pearce said:
My family earns that much and we are upper middle class... though I suppose they are paying for 2 kids in college right now... But we never had a big house or fancy cars, we mostly just went on vacations. By "upper middle class" I mean that that is the amount many professional people make, though. I suppose it could be anywhere from 100-300k or so, depending on living costs, etc etc.
Click to expand...

we make over a hundred, and we are most certainly NOT upper middle class. i drive a 2004 malibu, my husband has a scooter, and we live on our boat at a marina.
 
Zyphlin said:
1. Removes deductions
2. Changes the tax rates for each bracket
3. Mandates all tax rates be linked towards a common baseline so its not possible to change a single tax rate
4. Mandates all tax brackets remain unchanged unless the entire system is scrapped

Yes, you're exactly right, my plan is "no different" than the plan we have in place because it uses numbers and talks about taxes :roll:
Click to expand...

Have you ever looked at the Bush tax cuts? I'm thinking, no.

It's neither here, nor there, however. Your tax plan is a non-starter, because it does away with all deductions.




I never said you said fair share, you just said share and suggested some people are able to pay "more" than their share and others "not" paying their share, which means you seem to have arbitrarily determined what is an appropiate "share" for the different groups since you've determined you can make judgements about quantity regarding said "shares".
Click to expand...

I never said anything of the sort. You're distorting my comments.
 
Last edited:
liblady said:
we make over a hundred, and we are most certainly NOT upper middle class. i drive a 2004 malibu, my husband has a scooter, and we live on our boat at a marina.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the tough life to me!...lol
 
apdst said:
Have you ever looked at the Bush tax cuts? I'm thinking, no.
Click to expand...

I have. What in the world does that have to do with anything in the quoted paragraph?

Did Bush Tax Cuts set a baseline that is the only tax rate that can be altered and automatically affects the tax rate of every other bracket? Did the Bush Tax Cuts make it so that the income each bracket represented couldn't be changed? Did the Bush Tax Cuts assure that even those making the lowest of incomes are still going to be taxed at least 1% if they have no kids?

I never said anything of the sort. You're distorting my comments.
Click to expand...

Third, there's no way that Liberals will ever accept a tax code where the poor pay their share and the rich don't pay more than their share.
Click to expand...

Emphasis on the part I'm referring to. You specifically state that the the rich don't pay "more than their share" which indicates yo useem to think there's a specific "share" they should have. Or, if you're trying to say the liberals view of a share, how exactly do you know that this plan wouldn't match up to their expectations?
 
Zyphlin said:
I have. What in the world does that have to do with anything in the quoted paragraph?

Did Bush Tax Cuts set a baseline that is the only tax rate that can be altered and automatically affects the tax rate of every other bracket? Did the Bush Tax Cuts make it so that the income each bracket represented couldn't be changed? Did the Bush Tax Cuts assure that even those making the lowest of incomes are still going to be taxed at least 1% if they have no kids?





Emphasis on the part I'm referring to. You specifically state that the the rich don't pay "more than their share" which indicates yo useem to think there's a specific "share" they should have. Or, if you're trying to say the liberals view of a share, how exactly do you know that this plan wouldn't match up to their expectations?
Click to expand...

I never made that claim.
 
apdst said:
I never made that claim.
Click to expand...

Talking about my plan you stated:

apdst said:
Third, there's no way that Liberals will ever accept a tax code where the poor pay their share and the rich don't pay more than their share.
Click to expand...

Suggesting clearly that in this planned tax code you are saying the "rich don't pay more than their share".

You keep saying you didn't make the claim. I'm just reposting your words. Its right there, you can deny it all you want its there on the screen.

At best you can say you think LIBERALS will believe the plan is one where the rich don't pay more than their share...in which case, you base that on what? A number of liberals on the thread seem to like the plan in theory.
 
Last edited:
Platypus said:
Abolish the sales tax. Abolish the income tax for those making less than $500,000 a year. A flat tax for everyone above. That sounds perfect to me.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a solution for the stereotypical person who wants to contribute nothing while living off other's contributions.
 
liblady said:
we make over a hundred, and we are most certainly NOT upper middle class. i drive a 2004 malibu, my husband has a scooter, and we live on our boat at a marina.
Click to expand...
Why?

What do you spend your money on? Is your boat that expensive?

A.Pearce said:
My family earns that much and we are upper middle class... though I suppose they are paying for 2 kids in college right now... But we never had a big house or fancy cars, we mostly just went on vacations. By "upper middle class" I mean that that is the amount many professional people make, though. I suppose it could be anywhere from 100-300k or so, depending on living costs, etc etc.
Click to expand...
My family in Norway earns around 300K USD. Which is equivalent to earning 180K in the US when you adjust for costs. They got a house worth 2 million USD and are certainly rich. They have no idea of what to spend the money on apart from vacations, and are saving up most of it.

I consider any family earning more than 150K to be rich. When I can be careless and live on 7K, (or 12K when you disregard rent income) and the average household income is 50K. In fact a friend of mine lives on about 1200 USD per year if you exclude rent, but he lives pretty cheap.

You really are rich if you earn more than 150K USD. I can't even imagine what to spend the money on. A nice house costs about 500K -1000K USD. Then a nice car costs 30K. Seriously, with 150K you can hire your own private servant.
 
Last edited:
Camlon said:
Why?

What do you spend your money on? Is your boat that expensive?


My family in Norway earns around 300K USD. Which is equivalent to earning 180K in the US when you adjust for costs. They got a house worth 2 million USD and are certainly rich. They have no idea of what to spend the money on apart from vacations, and are saving up most of it.

I consider any family earning more than 150K to be rich. When I can live on 7K, (or 12K when you disregard rent income) and the average household income is 50K. In fact a friend of mine lives on about 1200 USD per year if you exclude rent, but he lives pretty cheap.

You really are rich if you earn more than 150K USD. I can't even imagine what to spend the money on. A nice house costs about 500K -1000K USD. Then a nice car costs 30K. Seriously, with 150K you can hire your own private servant.
Click to expand...

we own the boat, but upkeep is a bitch. we save quite a bit, and are taking off to sail for good in the spring. we are early fifties and won't be working any longer. however, we will live very cheaply on my husband's pension as i don't qualify for ss for 15 years. right now, i would say we are solidly middle class.
 
liblady said:
we own the boat, but upkeep is a bitch. we save quite a bit, and are taking off to sail for good in the spring. we are early fifties and won't be working any longer. however, we will live very cheaply on my husband's pension as i don't qualify for ss for 15 years. right now, i would say we are solidly middle class.
Click to expand...
Fact is, your household income is in the top 15% in America. Middle class is 50K USD, not over 100K. You are not middle class. I have no idea how you are able to spend over 110K, but I'm not your tax accountant.

Also, getting over 100K in pension is just crazy. Public Pension in New Zealand is 12000 USD per year. People have their own pension plans, but no one can save up enough to get 100K in pension when they are 50.

One thing is certain, you are not middle class.
 
Camlon said:
Fact is, your household income is in the top 15% in America. Middle class is 50K USD, not over 100K. You are not middle class. I have no idea how you are able to spend over 110K, but I'm not your tax accountant.

Also, getting over 100K in pension is just crazy. Public Pension in New Zealand is 12000 USD per year. People have their own pension plans, but no one can save up enough to get 100K in pension when they are 50.

One thing is certain, you are not middle class.
Click to expand...

who said we got 100k in pension? i didn't. i make the majority of money, my husbands pension is about half of what i make. he worked for gm. we also have healthcare. we're blessed. i am middle class...or maybe slightly above. i also mentioned that we saved quite a bit, but apparently you didn't bother to really read my post.
 
liblady said:
we own the boat, but upkeep is a bitch. we save quite a bit, and are taking off to sail for good in the spring. we are early fifties and won't be working any longer. however, we will live very cheaply on my husband's pension as i don't qualify for ss for 15 years. right now, i would say we are solidly middle class.
Click to expand...
Boat (yes, they are expensive, I'll grant that), no *need* to work, early 50s, sailing at leisure. You may have to be somewhat frugal to accomplish it, but you are solidly above middle class.
 
liblady said:
who said we got 100k in pension? i didn't. i make the majority of money, my husbands pension is about half of what i make. he worked for gm. we also have healthcare. we're blessed. i am middle class...or maybe slightly above. i also mentioned that we saved quite a bit, but apparently you didn't bother to really read my post.
Click to expand...
OK, that makes more sense. I read your post, but it is confusing.

I just stated that living on over 100K is upper middle class, since you can afford living on one income. Middle class people can't afford only having one income. I understand that you are saving money and need to live more frugal, but you can't really say you are not upper middle class, because you chose to retire when you are 50. Middle class people can't afford to retire early.

Anyway, enjoy your boatriding. I'm a little bit jealous. :)
 
Last edited:
There's a thread actually specifically designed for discussing what is or isn't Middle Class...perhaps the "you're not middle class / yes I am" conversation would be more apt for there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom