• 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!

Best possible tax system (if we were starting from scratch)?

Best possible tax system (if we were starting from scratch)?

  • Progressive income tax, with deductions, credits, incentives, etc.

    Votes: 2 8.7%
  • Progressive income tax, with no deductions, credits, incentives, etc.

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • Flat national sales tax ("necessities" excluded)

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • Progressive national sales tax ("luxuries" taxed at a higher rate, but "necessities" still excluded)

    Votes: 2 8.7%
  • Flat income tax, no deductions, credits, incentives, etc.

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • Value-Added tax, i.e.: tax hidden in cost of goods and services

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 4 17.4%

  • Total voters
    23

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Best possible tax system (if we were starting from scratch)?

The question is intended as an intellectual discussion, as it is impossible to have a purely clean slate, but... if the country were to just plop down from the sky and begin today, and we had to set-up a tax system from scratch... with absolutely no pre-determined bias or anything... what would be the best tax system for the overall common good of society?

1) Progressive income tax, with deductions, credits, incentives, etc.
2) Progressive income tax, with no deductions, credits, incentives, etc.
3) Flat national sales tax ("necessities" excluded)
4) Progressive national sales tax ("luxuries" taxed at a higher rate, but "necessities" still excluded)
5) Flat income tax, no deductions, credits, incentives, etc.
6) Value-Added tax, i.e.: tax hidden in cost of goods and services
7) Other

Your reasons can be social, or economic, or a combination of both.

Note #1: "Necessities" defined as basic food staples, etc.
Note #2: I purposely am not including "no tax system at all" as an option. While there is some irrelevancy in the form of "starting from scratch" involved to facilitate discussion regarding the topic, I am not willing to entertain the fantasy that no tax system would be even remotely viable.
 
Replace all federal taxes on personal and corporate income with a broad national consumption tax on retail sales that is contingent upon income. In other words, the higher the amount of income you make the higher the percentage of consumption tax you pay. This could be tracked electronically. The percentages are based on a formula so there are no progressive stages of income as in our current system, but rather you pay an exact percentage based on your individual or family income. Those who are at the poverty line pay 0% and only pay a fraction of a percent more as they get above poverty, thereby not entirely demotivating them from seeking higher income or becoming reliant upon rebates. Those who are at the highest levels of income pay the highest consumption tax rate but it would still probably be lower than what they pay now and they could mitigate the cost simply by mitigating their consumption.

This would also allow us to phase out hard currency entirely. It would make tracking money in and out of the system irrelevant so there would be no need for the IRS. If you are spending more than your employer reports paying you, then you are likely cheating the system. Transfers of money from one individual to another are tracked as changes in income, so wealthier people simply can't have poorer people go buy things for them at a lower tax rate. In essence, it takes the politics entirely out of the tax debate. If you are wealthier, you have to pay a higher rate, but given that consumption falls off, a progressive system is a necessity unless people wish to create a potential entitlement system of rebates. Furthermore, unlike the current system, the wealthier do have a choice in how much they are taxed because they can mitigate how much they consume.
 
Replace all federal taxes on personal and corporate income with a broad national consumption tax on retail sales that is contingent upon income. In other words, the higher the amount of income you make the higher the percentage of consumption tax you pay. This could be tracked electronically. The percentages are based on a formula so there are no progressive stages of income as in our current system, but rather you pay an exact percentage based on your individual or family income. Those who are at the poverty line pay 0% and only pay a fraction of a percent more as they get above poverty, thereby not entirely demotivating them from seeking higher income or becoming reliant upon rebates. Those who are at the highest levels of income pay the highest consumption tax rate but it would still probably be lower than what they pay now and they could mitigate the cost simply by mitigating their consumption.

This would also allow us to phase out hard currency entirely. It would make tracking money in and out of the system irrelevant so there would be no need for the IRS. If you are spending more than your employer reports paying you, then you are likely cheating the system. Transfers of money from one individual to another are tracked as changes in income, so wealthier people simply can't have poorer people go buy things for them at a lower tax rate. In essence, it takes the politics entirely out of the tax debate. If you are wealthier, you have to pay a higher rate, but given that consumption falls off, a progressive system is a necessity unless people wish to create a potential entitlement system of rebates. Furthermore, unlike the current system, the wealthier do have a choice in how much they are taxed because they can mitigate how much they consume.
That was interesting.

Not sure I fully understand it, but it was interesting.
 
We need a system that prevents congress from pandering by telling the masses that OTHERS will be taxed more to pay for what the masses want if the masses vote for that Politician

a tax system must make everyone pay the same increase if taxes are raised

only that type of system will start getting rid of the deficit by getting rid of the incentive of politicians to pander with spending on voters that the voters aren't taxed for
 
We need a system that prevents congress from pandering by telling the masses that OTHERS will be taxed more to pay for what the masses want if the masses vote for that Politician

a tax system must make everyone pay the same increase if taxes are raised

only that type of system will start getting rid of the deficit by getting rid of the incentive of politicians to pander with spending on voters that the voters aren't taxed for
And yet, politicians are in charge of changing the system, atm.

And IMO, they'll hang on to that tool.
 
If our current progressive system stayed in place, lower rates, no deductions EXCEPT for mortgage interest up to $10K and Charity (but no trusts), all income treated equally and a moderated inheritance tax, we'd be in good shape. However, the tax system is designed to screw some and facilitate others so don't look for modification anytime soon.
 
That was interesting.

Not sure I fully understand it, but it was interesting.

If there is anything you need clarification on, then please let me know.

The system proposed is a collaborative effort which compromises and seeks to mitigate the problems inherent in taxation. There is no perfect system, but I do believe this would be a major step towards the least imperfect system obtainable.

We need a system that prevents congress from pandering by telling the masses that OTHERS will be taxed more to pay for what the masses want if the masses vote for that Politician

a tax system must make everyone pay the same increase if taxes are raised

only that type of system will start getting rid of the deficit by getting rid of the incentive of politicians to pander with spending on voters that the voters aren't taxed for

The system I proposed would be the only system that could reliably accomplish that task.
 
you tax what you want less of, and you subsidize what you want more of.

for this and many other reasons, in a magical land where such was possible, we should have a broad sales tax, and get rid of the income, capital gains, and estate taxes. In this way we encourage hard work and thrift, but discourage wasteful consumption. We also (as Turtle alludes to) make it more difficult for politicians to give favors to preferred campaign donors interest groups, thereby reducing the power and corruption in our federal government.


however, as that's unlikely to happen, we should instead strip out the vast majority of our current deductions and loopholes, and lower the nominal rates to keep effective ones the same. the only credit I can think of offhand that we should definitely keep or expand is the child-tax-credit.
 
I say option three. That way you can opt out at will.
 
And yet, politicians are in charge of changing the system, atm.

And IMO, they'll hang on to that tool.

you make an excellent point. Congress will never give up power and the ability to play one group against another is a huge amount of extraconstitutional power

indeed when the Income tax was being debated, one senator noted a NST would be more efficient in raising revenue but a proponent noted that such a NST wouldn't give congress near as much power
 
Replace all federal taxes on personal and corporate income with a broad national consumption tax on retail sales that is contingent upon income. In other words, the higher the amount of income you make the higher the percentage of consumption tax you pay. This could be tracked electronically. The percentages are based on a formula so there are no progressive stages of income as in our current system, but rather you pay an exact percentage based on your individual or family income. Those who are at the poverty line pay 0% and only pay a fraction of a percent more as they get above poverty, thereby not entirely demotivating them from seeking higher income or becoming reliant upon rebates. Those who are at the highest levels of income pay the highest consumption tax rate but it would still probably be lower than what they pay now and they could mitigate the cost simply by mitigating their consumption.

This would also allow us to phase out hard currency entirely. It would make tracking money in and out of the system irrelevant so there would be no need for the IRS. If you are spending more than your employer reports paying you, then you are likely cheating the system. Transfers of money from one individual to another are tracked as changes in income, so wealthier people simply can't have poorer people go buy things for them at a lower tax rate. In essence, it takes the politics entirely out of the tax debate. If you are wealthier, you have to pay a higher rate, but given that consumption falls off, a progressive system is a necessity unless people wish to create a potential entitlement system of rebates. Furthermore, unlike the current system, the wealthier do have a choice in how much they are taxed because they can mitigate how much they consume.

Unworkable. You'd also create a huge black market to avoid paying the higher tax rates on purchases.... When you look at the numbers you'll see that the overall tax rate would need to average over 20%, and that's if you tax all goods AND services.

The value of all goods and services is our GDP which is currently ~$15 Trillion. The current government budget requires over $3 Trillion. That's 20%.

Now... if low income people didn't pay any tax it stands to reason that the higher income people would need to pay something more than 20% tax. So if I'm a zero tax person I can go buy a widget with no tax on it then resell it to somebody for just 10% more than I paid for it, which would be less than he could buy it for legitimately. See..?

On the other hand, it also stands to reason that someone making $250k/yr would buy more stuff than someone making only $40k, right? So a flat tax is more or less self-equalizing.
 
I'll go 7.

A 2.5% flat tax on all goods and services, with exemptions for:

1. Store Bought Food
2. Medicine
3. Rent

No other consumption taxes on the federal level are allowed.

Additionally, a progressive “income” tax system where “income” is any money gained in any fashion (meaning capital gains, income that is paid to you, tips, etc). The scale would look like this

Bracket 1: 0 – [Base] = 0.2% * [Standard Tax Rate]
Bracket 2: [Base] – [250% of Base] = 1% * [SRT]
Bracket 3: [250% of Base – [500% of Base] = 2% * [SRT]
Bracket 4: [500% of Base] – [1000% of Base] = 3% * [SRT]
Bracket 5: [1000% of Base] and up = 4% * [SRT]

[Base] would be decided by an agency which would look at what is the general average necessary monetary amount for someone to live in the US. This would be determined by looking at the following things in 3 random chosen large cities, small cities, and towns across the U.S. each year.

- Money spent on transportation
- Money spent on rent of applicable basic housing
- Money spent on necessary household items (toilet paper, napkins, soap, etc)
- Money spent on store bought foods
- Money spent on Medical items
- Money spent on bills (Basic Cellular, basic cable, basic broadband, electric/gas/water)

The numbers that are found for those 9 locations are then averaged and you come up with your [Base]. A [Base] is determined for four categories:

- Singe: The values above is found for a single person living on their own
- Single +1: The values above is found for a two people living together. This could be a single person and a child, or this could be a Married couple filing jointly
- Married +1: The values above is found for three people living together. This can be used by individuals who are married and filing jointly and have one child.
- Married +2: The values above is found for four people living together. This can be used by individuals who are married and filing jointly and have two or more children.

So in this tax system you can claim dependents. However, a single parent can only claim a max of one dependent for tax purposes and a married couple can only claim a max of two dependents for tax purposes.

Finally, each bracket is static. The range of the bracket cannot change, only the [base] number can. Additionally, the % of each bracket cannot be changed individual. What can be changed however is the “Standard Tax Rate”. The SRT is the tax rate number that congress has the power to set, and it affects every bracket. Set the SRT to 5% and each bracket changes (1 = 1%, 2 = 5%, 3 = 10%, 4 = 15%, 5 = 20%). This allows Congress the ability, at times of need (Say war time), to increase taxes to bring in more tax revenue but disallows them the ability to make targeted tax hits against singular classes of people. SRT is “maxed” at 20%. The brackets work just like they do now, with the money you earn within that bracket being taxed at its rate.

The only exemption allowed would be Charitable Donations, and you’d be allowed to write off up to 20% of your income off into charitable donations. There is no capital gains tax, that would work into the income tax now. There is no corporate tax, that’s built into the consumption tax and the way the income tax now takes any money an individual gains.

The basic consumption tax means everyone has at least that basic amount of skin in the game. The connected tax brackets makes sure that you can’t target just a single class of people in an attempt to rally votes or scapegoat someone. The SRT adjustment allows the ability to increase taxes in times when it’s absolutely necessary, but it’s connection to the lower tax brackets makes it a difficult thing to keep high permanently. It’s progressive in nature, recognizing that the more you make the less impact on your “survival” the tax money takes away. At the same time, to get it to the point where its significantly affecting the higher tax brackets lifestyle you’d raise rates to the point where it’d make lower tax brackets significantly be affected in terms of their life style as well. It would simplify the tax code IMMENSELY, reduce the need for the size and scope of the IRS, and in general take the wedge issue of taxes out of the front lines of the political debate.
 
Best possible tax system (if we were starting from scratch)?The question is intended as an intellectual discussion, as it is impossible to have a purely clean slate, but... if the country were to just plop down from the sky and begin today, and we had to set-up a tax system from scratch... with absolutely no pre-determined bias or anything... what would be the best tax system for the overall common good of society?1) Progressive income tax, with deductions, credits, incentives, etc.2) Progressive income tax, with no deductions, credits, incentives, etc.3) Flat national sales tax ("necessities" excluded)4) Progressive national sales tax ("luxuries" taxed at a higher rate, but "necessities" still excluded)5) Flat income tax, no deductions, credits, incentives, etc.6) Value-Added tax, i.e.: tax hidden in cost of goods and services7) OtherYour reasons can be social, or economic, or a combination of both.Note #1: "Necessities" defined as basic food staples, etc.Note #2: I purposely am not including "no tax system at all" as an option. While there is some irrelevancy in the form of "starting from scratch" involved to facilitate discussion regarding the topic, I am not willing to entertain the fantasy that no tax system would be even remotely viable.
The best possible tax system is no taxes at all, the government to go get a job and make investments. But that aint gona happen.A broad flat tax of 20-25% across the board, without regard to income or class, no brackets, no exemptions or incentives of any kind. No other tax or tax-like fee of any kind what-so-ever.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to go with other, because it's not really income or spending that needs taxation. Earning and spending money strengthens the economy. It's wealth that needs taxation. Stagnant money that is doing nothing. It is, of course, entirely reasonable to save some money. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the millions and millions that wealthy people and big companies are just sitting on. Apple is sitting on close to $100 billion, doing nothing with it. It's not building better products. It's not paying anyone's salaries. That is the money that should be going towards the public sphere. It was all created by people working hard, and buying and selling goods. That money should be taxed substantially and be spent on protecting the country, educating children, improving public health and transportation, and law enforcement. No money should be stagnant. It should all be working for something. And no, just generating more money for an already wealthy person is not a legitimate use.

And I'm including things like capital gains in wealth. At least some of it. Investing in a startup and reaping benefits when it succeeds is perfectly legitimate. Someone took a risk, and deserves a reward for it. But safe bets, where it's just money earning more money, that does nothing. And that money never comes out in a vacuum. The best example I can give is Romney and Bain Capital. They make huge amounts of money by artificially driving up stock prices, largely by firing workers. All the money that those employees need to live on suddenly goes into the hands of a few owners, and to the owners of Bain. They have not produced anything to improve the country. They have just taken their wealth, and used it as a battering ram to take other peoples' livelihoods. That money is money that is not working. It is not moving trade. It is not funding innovation. It is not educating anyone or helping anyone live. That money should be substantially taxed, too.

Earning money from working is good. Spending money on goods and services is good. Using money to fund companies that make goods and provide services is good. Using money to fund innovation is good. Hoarding money is bad. Using money just to make more money, often at the expensive of those without much money, is bad. Tax the bad things, not the good things. Tax the money that isn't doing anything to strengthen the economy, and then use it to strengthen the economy.
 
3) Flat national sales tax ("necessities" excluded)
This is what we should have.This ensures that everyone is actually paying their fair share while at the same time ensuring that those who buy less pay less in taxes and those who buy more pay more in taxes.The only downside I could see to this is that tax preparers would be out of business.
 
This is a very interesting poll. Made me from a POV on taxes I never used. Nice list of choices too.

I come up with your #s 1, 3, possibly 4, 6. In addition fuel taxes and others. The reason to have many is mostly fairness, but there are many more reasons. Skipping ahead, my biggest problem with taxes is keeping them functioning as they are ostensibly intended. Most taxes have special interests distorting their function and we have so many types of taxes that citizens can’t be up on what is happening to them as they ‘mature’ over time. An example is property taxes. We know in detail the property taxes on several groups of homes in the US. They should be funding services suck a fire dep., local police, road maintenance, etc.; but, what is paid compared to the services provided varies too much. In addition, valuations of properties in one community are not in alignment with reality so we suspect they are significantly modified by influence.
 
Flat tax, no deductions. possible national sales tax included also flat depending on rates of income tax
 
Back
Top Bottom