• 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!

Viktyr Korimir's Tax Plan

Would You Support a Tax Plan Like This?


  • Total voters
    10

Real Korimyr #9

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
20,120
Reaction score
16,169
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Posted this in the Buffett thread, and the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that it deserves its own thread. This would require a Constitutional amendment, and I don't foresee this proposal receiving any kind of serious support on Congress-- this would gore a lot of personal oxen and for the most part take envy politics off the table as far as pandering to the electorate.

I don't have the exact language prepared out, but here's the gist of the Constitutional amendment:

  • All Federal State and Income taxes must use this system, but the Federal government and the individual States are free to set their tax rates separately.
  • The Federal government gets its bite first; State income taxes are based on income after Federal taxes are withdrawn.
  • EDIT:The tax brackets are Constitutionally defined based on multiples of the previous year's poverty line: >1x, >2x, >4x, and then each subsequent doubling.
  • EDIT:The tax rates are based on a base tax rate set by Congress. There is no tax on income up to the poverty line. The first tax bracket starts at the poverty line and is taxed at the base tax rate; each the tax rate on each subsequent tax bracket is increased by one-half the base tax rate. (So, with the recommended base tax rate of 10%, it's 10%/15%/20%/25% and so on.)
  • EDIT: The maximum income tax bracket is the first tax bracket at or above 90% at the current base tax rate; income in the maximum tax bracket is taxed at 90%.
  • There are no rebates, deductions, or exemptions allowed on the income tax. (Dependents already affect poverty line and thus tax brackets.) Households may claim any person as a dependent who lives in the household and does not file taxes separately.
  • The capital gains tax is replaced by a transaction tax paid buy the seller on all sales of securities equal to the base tax rate. First sales and single-family dwellings are exempt.
  • There is a tariff on all goods entering the country, and a surcharge on all wages and salaries paid to non-citizens, equal to the base tax rate or the rate of that country's import tariffs on American goods, whichever is higher. Countries may be exempted from this tariff by the authority of the President and a supermajority vote of both Houses of Congress.
  • The following forms of taxation are abolished and declared unconstitutional: consumption taxes, corporate taxes, payroll taxes, inheritance taxes, property taxes, and capital gains taxes.
  • The following forms of taxation are explicitly permitted by Congressional and/or State authority: usage fees, transaction taxes, and excise taxes.
  • The government must maintain a balanced budget except during times of war and national emergencies as determined by Presidential order and supermajority vote of both Houses of Congress.
  • The Social Security program receives 10% of all income tax revenue; the Social Security fund is separate from general revenue and cannot be borrowed, appropriated, or spent for any purpose except the operation and administration of the Social Security program.
  • The amendment authorizes the creation of the American Economic Stimulus and Reinvestment program, which is funded separately from the general revenue.

This plan accomplishes a lot of things:
  • EDIT: Everyone above the poverty line bears a portion of the tax burden. Nobody gets more money back from the IRS than they paid to the government.
  • Politicians can't promise to raise taxes only "on the rich" to spend more money on the poor; when they raise taxes, everyone pays more taxes, and when they cut taxes, everyone pays less. Likewise, they can't use tax incentives to shift the actual tax burden downward onto the middle class.
  • It encourages families to have more children, and the wealthier they are, the more it encourages them. Splitting inheritances up between more heirs also makes up for the lack of an estate tax.
  • It encourages honest equity investments over speculation and closes the "capital gains" loophole that allows the wealthy to avoid paying income taxes.
  • It relieves corporations of their domestic tax burden, allowing them to hire more Americans and encouraging them to keep their operations in America, while discouraging them from outsourcing jobs.
  • It creates a special Federal government fund for economic investment.


Now, for the investment fund. A lot of people say "Keynesian" like it's a bad word, like one of the giants in the fields of economics would have seriously suggested that an economic powerhouse amass a mind-boggling national debt and run a deficit budget year after year. The key idea in Keynesian economics is that the natural boom-bust cycle of capitalist economics can-- and should-- be moderated by government spending by having the government run surplus budgets in boom years and running deficits in bust years to encourage the economy to pick back up.


The problem is, the country's being run by a bunch of short-sighted jackasses.

So instead of relying on the government to exercise proper restraint with "bailouts", the AESR fund is created. All of the revenue generated by the transaction taxes, tariffs, and alien surcharges is used to fund the AESR which re-invests in the American economy and maintains a discretionary budget for stimulus programs.

  • The AESR is managed by its own agency within the Treasury Department.
  • AESR funds cannot be spent without the authorization of the President and a supermajority of both Houses of Congress and each "bailout" must be authorized separately.
  • At the end of every fiscal year, the AESR invests 25% of its remaining budget in American companies with an emphasis on long-term income (determined by the agency itself), and 25% of its remaining budget equally in a list of companies authorized by Congress (for stimulus purposes) when the budget is passed. These funds may not be sold or transferred under any circumstances, but the allocation of new investments can be changed.
  • Dividends from AESR investment funds are paid into the AESR fund budget.
  • Congress may, on its own authority, allocate additional funds from the general revenue into the AESR fund when the government is not under an economic emergency.


Interesting proposal.


On the one hand, 5% tax shouldn't bankrupt even the poor, if almost all other taxes are done away with. (did you mention SS/Medicare tax? That one is regressive on the poor...)


I didn't see a top rate mentioned, surely it doesn't go right up to 100%?

SS/Medicare is funded by FICA, which is a payroll tax. I've amended my plan since you posted this, so I've accommodated Social Security separately.

EDIT: Per Goshin's suggestion, I have modified my proposal to include a maximum tax bracket of 90%.

At the proposed 10% base tax rate, the 90% tax bracket is reached at $713,687,040 dollars for the fiscal year 2011. At 11%, it would be $356,843,520.

Did I get that right? Well, if so the middle class will love you, and the moderately wealthy... I think one of the flaws in the plan is the lack of a definition for "poverty level". That would turn into a football that the politicians could play with.

Changing the poverty level would be the same as changing the tax rate-- it either raises everyone's taxes or it lowers everyone's taxes-- and it isn't determined by the Congress by the DHHS. Raising the poverty line would lower everyone's taxes but it would also mean a lot more welfare, so I doubt you could exert too much political pressure to move it in either direction without reaping the whirlwind.
 
Last edited:
I haven't read through/digested it all, but I'm seeing a lot of good -- and importantly, fair -- ideas in here. Will check back.
 
I haven't read it all thoroughly as it's late for me, but I too see promise.
 
..... I.... don't get any of it but I will pick economics for dummies tomorrow and then ask the wife to read it all and give me her opinion. I dislike money unless it comes in a paycheck.
 
I have two main issues with it. First is that I don't believe people living below the poverty line should have to pay any taxes. Second, is that it's more complicated than what I'd like to see. It's an improvement over the current system though.
 
I have two main issues with it. First is that I don't believe people living below the poverty line should have to pay any taxes. Second, is that it's more complicated than what I'd like to see. It's an improvement over the current system though.

You could probably just shift all of the tax brackets down by one-- leaving people under the poverty line paying no taxes-- and use a higher base tax rate. I suspect that most people in that category aren't voters anyway, so they're not the ones the politicians are pandering to. On the other hand, I also think it's an important compromise gesture to the flat tax advocates, because it does guarantee that almost everyone is working in some capacity.

As much as I think taxes need to be simplified, I'm afraid that any tax plan that most people would consider "simple" would instead be simplistic-- too simplistic to be functional in a very large and very complicated economy.
 
Very detailed and well thought out for a hypothetical scenario, most tax proposals are vague and unrealistic. Can't say I agree with all of your policies, but a good read nonetheless.
 
I think I would like to see language that would state that any funds that is collected for specific applications in any form (lottery proceeds for education, gas tax for transportation, etc) runs the same as your SS, i.e. cannot be borrowed or used for any other purpose.

I do like that everyone should have to pay. I also like that there are no exemptions. However I think I need some clearer explanation as to how the rate changes based on the number of members in the household.
 
While I see that the 100% rate would only apply to ludicrously high incomes, I still think a 90% cap in principle is a good idea. I'd just have issues with any tax system that allowed a 100% rate for anyone.

Personally I think the "poverty line" is set too low by half.
 
While I see that the 100% rate would only apply to ludicrously high incomes, I still think a 90% cap in principle is a good idea. I'd just have issues with any tax system that allowed a 100% rate for anyone.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with setting a cap. It's just, between how high the top tax brackets would be and the way tax brackets work, I don't consider it strictly necessary.

Personally I think the "poverty line" is set too low by half.

Alright. I'll adjust my plan to exempt people below the poverty line. If Henrin or maquiscat want to change their votes after I'm done editing the plan, I believe that can be arranged.
 
I would like to see more control on monies going to companies. More entreprenural and less status quo. Encouragement of business at the local level. Other than that, I liked it.
 
it is too long ,ı couldnt read and ı dont understand this issue, but if there is a real plan like that ,there is no reason for it to fail..
 
I would like to see more control on monies going to companies. More entreprenural and less status quo. Encouragement of business at the local level. Other than that, I liked it.

I agree with you, but I can't think of a way to word it that's appropriate for a Constitutional amendment-- and I think that's a matter that should be left up to each individual Congress and the political pressures that their constituents to bring to bear on them.
 
I like the general idea of having fixed brackets going all the way up the scale, and having them tied together to be multiples of a base rate. Bravo for that.

BUT I think it needs to cover all sources of income, including inheritance. Perhaps with an exclusion for the first million or something.
 
BUT I think it needs to cover all sources of income, including inheritance. Perhaps with an exclusion for the first million or something.

Inheritance was already taxed once, when the deceased earned it. My tax system encourages millionaires to have more children, dividing their estates up between more heirs; in my opinion that is sufficient measure to address the issue of accumulation of inherited wealth.
 
Inheritance was already taxed once, when the deceased earned it.

That is not logically sound. All money was previously taxed when some previous owner got it. If I earn $500 and I pay taxes on it, you aren't exempt from paying taxes on it if I use some of that money to hire you to walk my dog. Each owner pays taxes when the money changes hands regardless of whether previous owners of the money paid taxes on it.
 
My system doesn't charge sales tax, either. Not all transactions should be taxed.
 
Agree with tea on the inheritance tax.

And the tariffs are a total nonstarter. Protectionism does not work unless the goal is to jack up inflation to insane levels.
 
My system doesn't charge sales tax, either. Not all transactions should be taxed.

I'm fine with not taxing sales. Sales tax is regressive. But, the store owner that gets your money is still being taxed on the portion he gets. He pays income tax on it. It appears that every other situation where a person gets new money, except inheritance, are taxed in your scheme, no? So why the exception for inheritance? If anything, I would think that is the type of income where there are the most arguments that it should be taxed. They got the money without having to take any risk or put in any work. It sort of counters the whole idea in this country that people get rich or go poor largely on the basis of their own efforts. I don't know that we should tax it more than other kinds of income, but I don't see the argument for taxing it less.
 
Because the entire point of working hard and earning as much money as possible is to leave something behind for your children. Inheritance taxes are fundamentally immoral.
 
Because the entire point of working hard and earning as much money as possible is to leave something behind for your children.

No it's not. People work hard so they can eat. People work hard so they can get a new TV. People work hard so they can do all kinds of things.

Inheritance taxes are fundamentally immoral.

I fundamentally disagree with that. Personally it strikes me as the most moral thing to tax- free money people didn't earn.

If I were to design an ideal society and didn't have to worry about any practical issues I think I would find one where everybody started out exactly equal and then rose or fell based on their own efforts to be the most moral. One where some people start out a million miles ahead and others a million miles behind is what strikes me as immoral.
 
I'm fine with not taxing sales. Sales tax is regressive. But, the store owner that gets your money is still being taxed on the portion he gets. He pays income tax on it. It appears that every other situation where a person gets new money, except inheritance, are taxed in your scheme, no? So why the exception for inheritance? If anything, I would think that is the type of income where there are the most arguments that it should be taxed. They got the money without having to take any risk or put in any work. It sort of counters the whole idea in this country that people get rich or go poor largely on the basis of their own efforts. I don't know that we should tax it more than other kinds of income, but I don't see the argument for taxing it less.

I don't have issues with sales taxes as long as they are not working in conjunction with income taxes. Sales taxes are how we started with this country and we were going pretty gung ho prior to the income tax being instituted with the constitutional amendment.

But with that idea of yours, teamosil, how are you on reporting imputed income? How much wealth do our poor have because things are given to them? They may be under the poverty line, but I could give them a 52" plasma TV. Should they pay taxes on that? What if I want to give them a straight $200? Is that taxed? What about a wealthy man leaving to his heirs in the form of material objects instead of money? How is that figured? Where is the line between gift and taxable income, imputed or otherwise? After all by your words, any gift, no matter how large or small, is obtained without the recipient "having to take any risk or put in any work".

Because the entire point of working hard and earning as much money as possible is to leave something behind for your children. Inheritance taxes are fundamentally immoral.

I'll have to disagree with you here, no so much as they may be seen as wrong, but I believe that immoral is too strong a level. teamosil has a valid point. I agree that inheritance taxes, and death taxes for that matter (they really are double taxation) should not exist. But I can't go as far as to call them immoral.

No it's not. People work hard so they can eat. People work hard so they can get a new TV. People work hard so they can do all kinds of things.

No, at least not entirely. I agree that people work hard to provide the things that they want and need in the here and now and for their own futures, but people really do work hard to also provide something for their children to have something to help improve their lives when they pass on.


If I were to design an ideal society and didn't have to worry about any practical issues I think I would find one where everybody started out exactly equal and then rose or fell based on their own efforts to be the most moral. One where some people start out a million miles ahead and others a million miles behind is what strikes me as immoral.

Sadly short of taking children from their parents to be raised "equally", there is no way to do this because the children will be exposed to the success or failure of their parents and are affected by that. What you want is one where one has equal opportunity and can come from behind to succeed. I believe that this country has come the closest to this ideal although I do not believe that we are as close to it as we once were.

Viktyr, I'm looking over your edits:

You are saying to further the example that if the base rate at the poverty line was 12% then they next brackets would be 18%, 24%, 30%, etc? Does your system allow for say 11.4%? Mathematically I am sure there would be a way to set the base rate so that the final bracket is 99%. Is this a good thing? Or just a thing?

The brackets themselves: If poverty line is $10k then the next brackets are $20K, $40K, $80K, $160K, etc?

Finally you still haven't explained about how the number of people in the household affect which tax bracket one is in.
 
Inheritance was already taxed once, when the deceased earned it. My tax system encourages millionaires to have more children, dividing their estates up between more heirs; in my opinion that is sufficient measure to address the issue of accumulation of inherited wealth.

Wealthy people rarely have many kids, even before birth control was invented. Kids are the best way to stay impoverished. But I guess if it assisted them in keeping more money out of the hands of the government, they might.

I don't think your tax plan will help save this system. This system cannot be saved. You might be able to see that if you acknowledge the amount of corruption and inefficiency in this government. A new system is needed. One that has not been invented yet. A system that can account for human greed, and somehow prevent that greed from destroying long term progress.
 
Quick clarification needed. Why and how does your proposal encourage the wealthy to have more kids? I couldn't work that out.
 
I don't have issues with sales taxes as long as they are not working in conjunction with income taxes. Sales taxes are how we started with this country and we were going pretty gung ho prior to the income tax being instituted with the constitutional amendment.

Actually we were pretty much a third world country prior to the 16th amendment. For example, approximately 1 in 8 kids died before reaching 1 year of age- roughly twice as high as in Sierra Leone today, which currently has the highest infant mortality rate. The US's GDP was about 8% of the world GDP where now it is 22%.

How much wealth do our poor have because things are given to them?

Not sure what you're getting at there. The poor, by definition, have very little wealth.

They may be under the poverty line, but I could give them a 52" plasma TV. Should they pay taxes on that? What if I want to give them a straight $200? Is that taxed? What about a wealthy man leaving to his heirs in the form of material objects instead of money? How is that figured? Where is the line between gift and taxable income, imputed or otherwise? After all by your words, any gift, no matter how large or small, is obtained without the recipient "having to take any risk or put in any work".

Yeah, gifts and inheritance are currently taxed at the same rate. Makes sense to me that should continue to be that way. But, somebody who is in poverty and gets $200 would only pay the very low rate for their bracket.

No, at least not entirely. I agree that people work hard to provide the things that they want and need in the here and now and for their own futures, but people really do work hard to also provide something for their children to have something to help improve their lives when they pass on.

That's certainly one reason some people work hard. But lots of people don't even have kids and they still work just as hard. Generally people without kids actually work harder because they aren't having to leave work early to pick kids up after school or take sick days or whatever. When a huge assignment comes in that is going to require working weekends and travel and whatnot, guess who gets it- the people without kids. So, there are many different motivations for working hard. I don't see why that particular motive would excuse the people that it benefits from paying their taxes.

Sadly short of taking children from their parents to be raised "equally", there is no way to do this because the children will be exposed to the success or failure of their parents and are affected by that.

Yeah, no doubt. That's why I said if I didn't have to worry about practical realities. I'm just explaining what to me would be the moral ideal- equal opportunity.

I believe that this country has come the closest to this ideal although I do not believe that we are as close to it as we once were.

You are correct that we're sliding in that regard. Severely in fact. The statistical measure of it is called "intergenerational income mobility". It measures what percentage of people whose parents are in a particular income bracket when they retire manage to make it into a different income bracket by the time they retire themselves. Sometimes they look back one generation, sometimes two.

Back in the 60s the US had the highest intergenerational income mobility of any country in the first world. Meaning how rich your parents were was not a very strong indicator of how rich you would be by the time you retired. But we slowly fell through the 70s, then started plummeting in the 80s and kept falling ever since. Today we are tied for the lowest intergenerational income mobility in the first world. Some studies find that we're the lowest, some say we're tied with the UK.
 
Back
Top Bottom