Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

Scarecrow Akhbar · Jan 7, 2010

Ethereal said:
I'd support a flat tax with the caveat that people below a certain income level would be exempt.

With the additional caveat that people who don't pay taxes aren't allowed to vote.

We seriously should not be allowing people who don't pay into the treasury a voice in how the treasury is disbursed.

Ethereal · Jan 7, 2010

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
With the additional caveat that people who don't pay taxes aren't allowed to vote.

We seriously should not be allowing people who don't pay into the treasury a voice in how the treasury is disbursed.

As long as they aren't a net tax consumer then I think they should be able to vote.

Coolguy · Jan 7, 2010

I support a forced balanced budget at all levels with a combined Fed & State flat income tax, in addition to a combined flat sales tax, with no other taxes being imposed.
Which could not be deviated from except in case of declared war.
I see that as being fair and just to all concerned.

Kandahar · Jan 7, 2010

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
With the additional caveat that people who don't pay taxes aren't allowed to vote.

We seriously should not be allowing people who don't pay into the treasury a voice in how the treasury is disbursed.

There are other political issues besides allocating tax dollars. :roll:

AlbqOwl · Jan 7, 2010

Kandahar said:
Why wouldn't it be extremely painful? People who are earning very little money spend almost ALL of their money on the necessities of life, whereas people who are earning more spend a lower percentage on necessities. Therefore it's more painful for a poor person to give up X% of his income than for a rich person to give up X% of his income.

Nope. Been there done that. When we were living absolutely paycheck to paycheck, our 10% tithe didn't seem like a big deal. It was a small amount and though we had very little it seemed like a small amount to pay. Once we got into the big time and were nowhere rich but were quite comfortable, that tithe looked enormous and we swallowed hard writing out the check. It was still just 10% but the perception was entirely different.

But nevertheless, the poor among us should be encouraged to do what they need to do to stop being poor. Many will not do that if the government rewards them for their poverty and punishes the productive for their productivity.

Some of the best-governed countries in the world have taxes that are much more progressive than ours.

When our country gave us the freedom to chart our own destiny and reach for whatever our imagination, skills, and ability will let us achieve, there has been no country in the world with the freedom and opportunity offered by America or that was more envied than we were. Even with all the government corruption and manipulated economy, we still still sustain one of the highest standards of living in the world, but it will not last if we continue on the path of Marxist tinged socialism that we are currently on.

Or more likely: It's a powerful incentive for politicians to use extreme levels of deficit spending forever, and eventually bankrupt the nation.

The government has proved that it will spend whatever money it has to spend and more. All that will remedy that is limiting the amount of money that government has to spend. The people need to take their government back and make that happen.

Catawba · Jan 7, 2010

I like the sound of this. Its the direction I think is needed:

We need a new progressive tax system

"We need a new tax bracket for millionaires.

The bonus babies of bailed out Wall St do not get to have their cake and eat mine too.

Our nation is in an economic crisis which is nearly entirely of Wall Streets making, and yet the super profits they will make this year will be entirely because of the Government bailouts that could have been used for education, health care and basically anything else.

My first instinct is to get the pitchforks and torches, but on second thought there is an easy way to rectify the situation.

Tax the millionaires.

Inflation has hit our economy hard because of the high end inflation of many goods such as housing, health insurance and education. Though inflation is not easily perceived in small day to day goods like milk and bread, the price of housing doubled in the last ten years. So did health care and education.

And as the super rich profitted during the Bush years and wages stagnated across the counry life became too expensive for us Joe and Jane Six Packs.

But the class war goes on and the rich keep getting richer.

We are now at a point where our nation will collapse financially without massive Government spending that will create jobs. Mere trickle down bailouts for the banks that cause and continue to cause these economic disasters will not do.

And in order to do that someone has to pay for it.

After 40 years of trickle down, now is the time to build from the bottom up.

Now is the time to grow the base of the economy.

If we create new tax brackets at 25 million, 15, 10, 5 and 1 million we can pay for all the vital infrastructure and social programs the future of America is depending upon at minimal cost to those tax payers while providing maximum return.

That return will be in the form of a better more equitable society. Youth with better educations, parents with better retirements, a cleaner, safer environment, more scientific breakthroughs, more progress

Isn't that the goal?

We can not continue to assume that no one has to pay for anything and the free market will provide for all. This is simply not true. Someone must pay. How it should be should be based on who has the ability to pay. The status quo as it stands now is untenable. It has not worked and never will, not as long as profits come before people.

Therefore, I propose a Millionaires tax, as well as a fundamental progressive shift in our tax code which shifts the burden off the lower brackets by creating new, higher brackets.

What those shifts are, how drastic they should be and how we will achieve it, I leave to be debated amongst you, my docudharmic peers.

The floor is now open for debate."
Docudharma:: Class War 101: We need a new progressive tax system

Kandahar · Jan 7, 2010

AlbqOwl said:
Nope. Been there done that. When we were living absolutely paycheck to paycheck, our 10% tithe didn't seem like a big deal. It was a small amount and though we had very little it seemed like a small amount to pay. Once we got into the big time and were nowhere rich but were quite comfortable, that tithe looked enormous and we swallowed hard writing out the check. It was still just 10% but the perception was entirely different.

First of all, your tithe was optional. Furthermore, you're talking about your PERCEPTION of how much it hurt you, whereas I'm talking about actual well-being. Someone who spends 100% (or more) of their income on basic necessities is going to be hurt more by higher taxes than someone who has some discretionary income.

AlbqOwl said:
But nevertheless, the poor among us should be encouraged to do what they need to do to stop being poor. Many will not do that if the government rewards them for their poverty and punishes the productive for their productivity.

And yet, some of the developed countries with the most progressive tax structures (e.g. Norway, Denmark) have some of the lowest levels of poverty, whereas the United States has an extremely high amount of poverty for a country as developed as we are. Hmm.

AlbqOwl said:
When our country gave us the freedom to chart our own destiny and reach for whatever our imagination, skills, and ability will let us achieve, there has been no country in the world with the freedom and opportunity offered by America or that was more envied than we were. Even with all the government corruption and manipulated economy, we still still sustain one of the highest standards of living in the world,

No argument there.

AlbqOwl said:
but it will not last if we continue on the path of Marxist tinged socialism that we are currently on.

:roll:
I've never seen Comrade Obama or Comrade Emanuel at the Party meetings. Maybe they go a different night of the week than I do. Obviously you're right; clearly the United States is becoming just like the USSR. :lol:

AlbqOwl said:
The government has proved that it will spend whatever money it has to spend and more. All that will remedy that is limiting the amount of money that government has to spend. The people need to take their government back and make that happen.

Tax rates have gone up and down, but government spending has continued to increase. The notion that tax cuts will lead to spending cuts is demonstrably false; they have just led to higher sustained deficits.

rathi · Jan 7, 2010

Universal Tax Formula:

Gross Income x 10% = Tax Owed

No adjustments, deductions, loopholes.

Other Universal Tax Formulae:

Inheritance Tax = 0.00000%
Capital Gains Tax = 0.00000%
Corporate Income Tax = 0.00000%
Property Tax = 0.00000%

Funny scarecrow, I never thought you wanted to cut the military budget so much.

ptif219 · Jan 7, 2010

rathi said:
Funny scarecrow, I never thought you wanted to cut the military budget so much.

From what I heard the Sales tax would have to be about 22%

samsmart · Jan 7, 2010

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
A sales tax is least intrusive and offers the individual the option of not paying taxes.

Which is why it's not a good form of taxation. In order to get the amount of tax revenue needed to finance the government, we'd have to raise the tax rates to oppressive levels that the people who do pay taxes wouldn't be able to afford.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
A national sales tax encourages thrift and savings.

That's always a good thing.

Sure, let's add a national sales tax on items in the current economy. It won't hurt businesses who manufacture those items at all, further stagnating the economy. Won't hurt a bit.

Kandahar said:
Another thing with societal costs which we should consider taxing is day-trading. A so-called "Tobin Tax" on excessive speculation might be a good idea, to prevent sudden price swings in currencies/commodities/stocks/whatever with no obvious cause. Gordon Brown floated the idea at the G20 summit a couple months ago, but the US delegation shot it down.

While I support a tax on stock trades to stabilize the economy, I'm not sure if I would do it as an alternate for the income tax.

On one hand, those who are more likely to pay this tax are the wealthy who frequently perform such trades, and therefore would better be able to bear the burden. On the other hand, it would also be a burden on the poor and prevent them from making quick trades.

I don't think such a tax should be used as an alternate to the income tax because I don't think it would bring in enough tax revenue. If you raised such a tax to levels that high, the lower and middle classes may not be able to trade stocks as fast as they'd need to. Mostly the reason why I'm in favor of a "Tobin Tax" is to keep Wall Street executives from using stock trading as pump-and-dump schemes, but I don't want to unfairly punish trading.

Ethereal · Jan 7, 2010

samsmart said:
Which is why it's not a good form of taxation. In order to get the amount of tax revenue needed to finance the government, we'd have to raise the tax rates to oppressive levels that the people who do pay taxes wouldn't be able to afford.

Except no one can agree on how much tax revenue is "needed" to finance the government. Us libertarian-minded individuals believe it is considerably less than is currently the case, which means a national sales tax (and a flat tax with exemptions) would be a good model if we were to assume a libertarian government as opposed to the bloated, statist model others advocate.

Dav · Jan 7, 2010

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Universal Tax Formula:

Gross Income x 10% = Tax Owed

10% for a low-income family and 10% for a billionaire are two very different things. Poor families need all they have for bare essentials, whereas rich ones have much more than enough for essentials and mostly use money on other things. You can take away a much larger percentage of that wealth before the earner starts to feel it so much that it becomes a disincentive to make that much money; using the logic of the Laffer Curve, it follows that the point of maximum revenue is higher for the rich than for the poor.

samsmart · Jan 7, 2010

Ethereal said:
Except no one can agree on how much tax revenue is "needed" to finance the government. Us libertarian-minded individuals believe it is considerably less than is currently the case, which means a national sales tax (and a flat tax with exemptions) would be a good model if we were to assume a libertarian government as opposed to the bloated, statist model others advocate.

While I do believe that our current government is certainly bloated and needs reductions in certain areas, I believe that even with the reductions I advocate a national sales tax would still not bring in the revenue needed to fund an effective government.

Ethereal · Jan 7, 2010

Dav said:
10% for a low-income family and 10% for a billionaire are two very different things. Poor families need all they have for bare essentials, whereas rich ones have much more than enough for essentials and mostly use money on other things. You can take away a much larger percentage of that wealth before the earner starts to feel it so much that it becomes a disincentive to make that much money; using the logic of the Laffer Curve, it follows that the point of maximum revenue is higher for the rich than for the poor.

Just exempt the working poor from paying income taxes and implement both a national sales tax and flat tax on income. It's fair and uncomplicated.

Dav · Jan 7, 2010

Catawba said:
My first instinct is to get the pitchforks and torches

That says a lot about the person right there.

Tax the millionaires.

If you really don't think that the rich pay a really high portion of the taxes as it is, you aren't very well informed.

But the class war goes on

Only in the minds of class-envying socialists.

and the rich keep getting richer.

This is a bad thing... why?

We are now at a point where our nation will collapse financially without massive Government spending that will create jobs.

This is very, very, horribly incorrect for reasons that have nothing to do with the thread topic so I won't even get into.

We can not continue to assume that no one has to pay for anything and the free market will provide for all. This is simply not true. Someone must pay. How it should be should be based on who has the ability to pay.

Or maybe - gasp! - people can pay for their own stuff.
What a novel idea!

Therefore, I propose a Millionaires tax, as well as a fundamental progressive shift in our tax code which shifts the burden off the lower brackets by creating new, higher brackets.

What burden on the lower brackets? The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay 3% of the taxes.

Dav · Jan 7, 2010

Ethereal said:
Except no one can agree on how much tax revenue is "needed" to finance the government. Us libertarian-minded individuals believe it is considerably less than is currently the case, which means a national sales tax (and a flat tax with exemptions) would be a good model if we were to assume a libertarian government as opposed to the bloated, statist model others advocate.

False dichotomy.

Ethereal said:
Just exempt the working poor from paying income taxes and implement both a national sales tax and flat tax on income. It's fair and uncomplicated.

For one thing, if you think that the Federal government can institute two taxes and not be "uncomplicated", you don't know the Federal government very well.
Secondly, to have a point where there's a sudden jump from no taxes to the same tax as everyone else is a bad idea and a huge incentive for people who would normally be just past that point to be less productive so as to be on the no-tax side.

Catawba · Jan 7, 2010

Dav said:
That says a lot about the person right there.

Unlike with the tea baggers who stuck with the pitchforks and torches approach!

If you really don't think that the rich pay a really high portion of the taxes as it is, you aren't very well informed.

They pay a higher portion of the taxes because they make a higher portion of the income.

Or maybe - gasp! - people can pay for their own stuff.
What a novel idea!

Great you can pay for the the two optional wars, a military budget almost as large as the rest of the planet combined, and the tax breaks for the rich?

What burden on the lower brackets? The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay 3% of the taxes.

That is because they own less than 3 % of the wealth.

Ethereal · Jan 7, 2010

Dav said:
For one thing, if you think that the Federal government can institute two taxes and not be "uncomplicated", you don't know the Federal government very well.

I thought we were discussing ideals. Ideally, we would have a flat income tax of ~15% with an exemption for the poor, and a national sales tax of ~8%, and the government wouldn't muck things up so much.

Secondly, to have a point where there's a sudden jump from no taxes to the same tax as everyone else is a bad idea and a huge incentive for people who would normally be just past that point to be less productive so as to be on the no-tax side.

It depends on several things.

The lower the tax rate, the more incentive there is to move into the next tax bracket.

The lower the exemption threshold, the more incentive there is to move into the next bracket.

Also important, there are only two tax brackets. Once you're paying taxes, you don't have to worry about another increase, so you can just keep making more and more money for yourself. That seems like a huge incentive for people above the threshold to continue being as productive as possible.

You also neglect the fact that the poor would still be paying a sales tax, so it's not like they're paying nothing.

AlbqOwl · Jan 7, 2010

Kandahar said:
First of all, your tithe was optional. Furthermore, you're talking about your PERCEPTION of how much it hurt you, whereas I'm talking about actual well-being. Someone who spends 100% (or more) of their income on basic necessities is going to be hurt more by higher taxes than someone who has some discretionary income.

They are hurt far more by a floundering economy with high unemployment and a growing generation of people who are growing up with a sense of entitlement and a belief that big government should and will take care of them if enough people demand that. They are benefitted most by knowing they must get an education to pay the rent, that they must learn a trade to put bread on the table, and they must go to work if they ever hope to have the things they want in life. There simply are not enough rich to take care of all the poor and if you attempt to make them do so, they pack their money and go elsewhere leaving even less opportunity for the poor to take care of themselves. No poor man ever gave me a job, and there is something inherently immoral and Unamerican about forcing one citizen to be slave to another.

Should there be compassion for the poor? Of course. Should there be safety nets? Yes, but these should be administered at the state or local level and preferably by the private sector.

But if tax increases do not affect the lower income as well as the higher income, you cannot help but initiate class warfare and build automatic inequity into the system. It is not a healthy thing.

And yet, some of the developed countries with the most progressive tax structures (e.g. Norway, Denmark) have some of the lowest levels of poverty, whereas the United States has an extremely high amount of poverty for a country as developed as we are. Hmm.

You are talking about countries with homogenous populations and size approximating one of our states. A social contract can be competently sustained in such a society, but even those societies cannot perpetually sustain huge entitlements or encourage poverty. That's why I strongly advocate that the Federal government focus on its constitutionally mandated responsibilities and leave everything else to the states and local communities as the Founders intended, and why I think as much of the safety net be left to the private sector as possible.

I have no problem with taxes covering necessary expenses. I have huge problems with taxes being collected to buy favors, votes, power, prestige, and increase personal wealth of those who collect them.

Dav · Jan 7, 2010

Catawba said:
Unlike with the tea baggers who stuck with the pitchforks and torches approach!

I'm all for torches and pitchforks when it comes to politicians who were elected to serve the nation; it serves as a friendly reminder of who's in charge. Private citizens aren't elected to anything and telling them who's in charge is antithetical to freedom.

They pay a higher portion of the taxes because they make a higher portion of the income.

Only partially true.
Taxation in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the top 0.1% of taxpayers by income pay 17.4% of federal income taxes (earning 9.1% of the income), the top 1% with gross income of $328,049 or more pay 36.9% (earning 19%), the top 5% with gross income of $137,056 or more pay 57.1% (earning 33.4%), and the bottom 50% with gross income of $30,122 or less pay 3.3% (earning 13.4%)

Great you can pay for the the two optional wars, a military budget almost as large as the rest of the planet combined, and the tax breaks for the rich?

Afghanistan is not an optional war, though you could make the case for Iraq. The military budget is only about 19% of government spending. And nobody pays for tax breaks for the rich, since by definition you need to buy something in order to pay for it.

That is because they own less than 3 % of the wealth.

True. But they don't earn less than 3% of the income, as shown above, and it is income that is taxed, not wealth.

Catawba · Jan 7, 2010

AlbqOwl said:
I have no problem with taxes covering necessary expenses.

This is has been, and continues to be, the philosophical debate, ever since the writers of the Constitution included the vague term, "the General Welfare." I would include affordable health care for all our people in that category.

On the other hand........

Many, including myself, would argue that our optional 2 trillion dollar invasion and occupation of Iraq and the doubling of our annual defense budget so that it is almost as large as the rest of the world combined, is unnecessary and goes far beyond the requirement for National defense.

RightinNYC · Jan 8, 2010

Catawba said:
Unlike with the tea baggers who stuck with the pitchforks and torches approach!

They pay a higher portion of the taxes because they make a higher portion of the income.

Great you can pay for the the two optional wars, a military budget almost as large as the rest of the planet combined, and the tax breaks for the rich?

That is because they own less than 3 % of the wealth.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/250.html

The top 1% of taxpayers earn 22.83% of national income, but pay 40.42% of all income taxes.

The bottom 50% of taxpayers earn 12.26% of the national income, but pay 2.89% of all income taxes.

The average federal income tax rate for someone in the top 1% of earners is 22.45%. For the bottom 50% of taxpayers, it's 2.99%.

It's also worth noting that these numbers only account for those with a positive AGI, who had a tax liability, and who filed. There are tens of millions more at the bottom end that aren't included.

AlbqOwl · Jan 8, 2010

Catawba said:
This is has been, and continues to be, the philosophical debate, ever since the writers of the Constitution included the vague term, "the General Welfare." I would include affordable health care for all our people in that category.

On the other hand........

Many, including myself, would argue that our optional 2 trillion dollar invasion and occupation of Iraq and the doubling of our annual defense budget so that it is almost as large as the rest of the world combined, is unnecessary and goes far beyond the requirement for National defense.

I agree that there needs to be a national debate--with our fearless leaders listening--as to what constitutes the national defense. And we should be rethinking about those things that qualify for that; however, if our presence someplace is an honest to goodness deterrent against armed conflict, that should be a consideration.

But if you include affordable healthcare as appropriate for the general welfare, why not affordable housing, affordable food, affordable transportation, affordable clothing/heating/cooling all of which are more critical to life than is most healthcare?

The Founders definition of the general welfare was that which benefitted all of society equally from the poorest to the richest. The Founders, to a man, believed it dishonest to confiscate one person's property who legally acquired it and give it to somebody else who had not earned it. The right to one's own labor, property, and self determination, so long as the rights of others were not infringed, was the pure definition of what they meant by life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Ethereal · Jan 8, 2010

Catawba said:
This is has been, and continues to be, the philosophical debate, ever since the writers of the Constitution included the vague term, "the General Welfare." I would include affordable health care for all our people in that category.

I would include televisions and perhaps automobiles. General welfare, yippee!

And if you were wondering what they meant by "General Welfare" and whether or not it was an actual power granted to the government, here is Madison, Jefferson, and Hamilton:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-constitution/62233-questions-libertarians.html#post1058428262

On the other hand........

Many, including myself, would argue that our optional 2 trillion dollar invasion and occupation of Iraq and the doubling of our annual defense budget so that it is almost as large as the rest of the world combined, is unnecessary and goes far beyond the requirement for National defense.

And I would agree with you. Two wrongs don't make a right, you know.

Catawba · Jan 8, 2010

RightinNYC said:
The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

The top 1% of taxpayers earn 22.83% of national income, but pay 40.42% of all income taxes.

The bottom 50% of taxpayers earn 12.26% of the national income, but pay 2.89% of all income taxes.

The average federal income tax rate for someone in the top 1% of earners is 22.45%. For the bottom 50% of taxpayers, it's 2.99%.

It's also worth noting that these numbers only account for those with a positive AGI, who had a tax liability, and who filed. There are tens of millions more at the bottom end that aren't included.

Your figures only show income and not other assets of wealth that are sheltered.

"The top 5 percent own more than half of all wealth.

In 1998, they owned 59 percent of all wealth. Or to put it another way, the top 5 percent had more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population, collectively.

The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth. In 1998, it owned 83 percent of all wealth."
Wealth and Income Inequality in the USA

This disparity has only grown since due to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

Which do you prefer:

Income tax - no changes in the status quo

Flat tax - Everyone pays the same %

National sales tax - don't spend, you don't pay taxes

No tax - Unconstitutional - rely on private donations

Other - explain

Cookies!

Enemy Combatant

Disappointed Evolutionist

Enemy Combatant

Count Smackula

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Girthless

Disappointed Evolutionist