• 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

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,427
Reaction score
35,264
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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?
 
Why a deduction for children? You have kids based, in part, on whether you can afford them or not.
 
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?

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.
 
How is this proposal much different in concept than the current tax table?


2011
Married Filing JointlyMarried Filing SeparatelySingleHead of Household
MarginalTax BracketsMarginalTax BracketsMarginalTax BracketsMarginalTax Brackets
Tax RateOverBut Not OverTax RateOverBut Not OverTax RateOverBut Not OverTax RateOverBut Not Over
10.0%$0$17,00010.0%$0$8,50010.0%$0$8,50010.0%$0$12,150
15.0%$17,000$69,00015.0%$8,500$34,50015.0%$8,500$34,50015.0%$12,150$46,250
25.0%$69,000$139,35025.0%$34,500$69,67525.0%$34,500$83,60025.0%$46,250$119,400
28.0%$139,350$212,30028.0%$69,675$106,15028.0%$83,600$174,40028.0%$119,400$193,350
33.0%$212,300$379,15033.0%$106,150$189,57533.0%$174,400$379,15033.0%$193,350$379,150
35.0%$379,150-35.0%$189,575-35.0%$379,150-35.0%$379,150-
Note: Last law to change rates was the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.
 
I'm all for simplifying the tax code, however I don't deny that sometimes its better to complicate it for whatever reasons, whether its to encourage growth in certain industrial sectors, or land areas, or to encourage more participation in high education by giving schools tax break, etc. I guess we could wipe it all clean and rebuild it from this system, but God almighty what a task heck even if we all agreed what to do simply drawing up the law would take years alone.
 
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?

Dislike.

20-25% consumption on everything anyone buys, paid at the point-of-sale. No exceptions, write-offs, or other taxes at all.
 
This is to be a tax rate on what kind of income. I retired at 55. I netted more money per year for 5 years after retirement. For example, I sold a house for about 500k that I bought 20 years earlier for 100k. Is that income? When was it made? Are there any deductions? I bought another house for 300k before I sold that one, so does that allow me to say I still have 300k invested in a house? What other deductions do I get? I inherited commercial property, that is not income, but what the tax rate on that? I sold it for more that the appraisal at inheritance; is that income? Do I get deductions on that income for the money and hours of work to sell it? Some people I worked for got differed income (You know how that works I’m sure.), so how does you proposal establish a tax rate for that?
 
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?

Generally I tend to support a simpler, progressive tax structure. However, I would not give any tax deductions for kids.
 
Dislike.

20-25% consumption on everything anyone buys, paid at the point-of-sale. No exceptions, write-offs, or other taxes at all.
I need new roofing on one of my homes. If I get a small time roofer, my neighbor is one, to buy the materials does he pay the tax on that? If he does my roof with those materials, who sells them to me? Do I pay the tax again with tax on tax? How much could he charge me? A big discount below his purchase price would be nice. Would it be better for me to buy the materials and pay the tax just once? If I buy the roofing materials in Mexico (I have a PU and a trailer that carries over a ton.) how much tax do I pay? Is this tax just for the final consumer? If I buy a car and claim I’m a part time taxi service how much tax do I pay?
 
I am basically supportive of the hypothetical tax structure. I would make 2 changes:
  • a zero baseline set to the poverty level and that group would pay a small flat tax rate
  • the other baseline be set as multiple of the poverty guideline. This would add the flexibility to the system to adjust to changing economic conditions over time.
 
We live on a private road. (Not because we want to, but because when the township was established it didn’t want it.) It needs paving and bridge work. We don’t get a property tax break because we have a private road. So, would we have to pay consumption tax on the paving materials? BTW, there are only disadvanteses to havinh our house on a private road rather than a township one.
 
Last edited:
We live on a private road. (Not because we want to, but because when the township was established it didn’t want it.) It needs paving and bridge work. We don’t get a property tax break because we have a private road. So, would we have to pay consumption tax on the paving materials? BTW, there are only disadvanteses to havinh our house on a private road rather than a township one.
So you have a long driveway and you want other people to pay for it's maintenance. :doh

.
 
I need new roofing on one of my homes. If I get a small time roofer, my neighbor is one, to buy the materials does he pay the tax on that?

Not sure what state your in, but here today in SD he would pay a 6% tax, yes.

If he does my roof with those materials, who sells them to me?

The materials are not resold, they are used. They literally become part of your home.

Do I pay the tax again with tax on tax?

Your roofer does not sell you the materials. The roofer buys the materials, uses them of your house, and then bills you the cost.

How much could he charge me?

Industry standard is to give the homeowners copies of all receipts of materials on-demand to justify that charge on the contractor's bill. You have a legal right to that information.

A big discount below his purchase price would be nice.

All costs are passed on to the consumer. It's your house.

Would it be better for me to buy the materials and pay the tax just once?

In many cases, yes. In fact it's not unheard of for a homeowner to wish to buy all materials themselves to control costs. This can exceedingly complicate medium to larger home projects, even if a few dollars are saved, it may not end up being worth it.

If I buy the roofing materials in Mexico (I have a PU and a trailer that carries over a ton.) how much tax do I pay?

Whatever their tax rate is. Hey if you can find cheaper meds in Canada, let me know so I can shop there also.

If I buy a car and claim I’m a part time taxi service how much tax do I pay?

20-25% on the price of the car, and that total value becomes the value of that capitol asset for your small business, which it needs to figure depreciation for when calculating what you will set your fees at.
 
Last edited:
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?

I would support an income tax like the one you described, with the numbers you described (where the tax rate on the wealthy was 10 times more than the tax rate on the poor). I don't agree with the capital gains tax and corporate tax plan though. I'd rather eliminate corporate tax entirely, and offset that by taxing capital gains at the normal income rate.
 
This is to be a tax rate on what kind of income.


Whatever income our current income tax system considers income.

Are there any deductions?

Outside of the small deduction for children, no.

As to your back and forth about consumption taxes, could you all perhaps take that to another thread rather than turn this one into a thread about consumption taxes?
 
How is this proposal much different in concept than the current tax table?

The current tax table allows for individual brackets to have just their own percentage be changed without any effect on any other bracket and each bracket can be changed without changing the others. The one I suggested you can only change the baseline tax rate, which then changes EVERY other tax rate, and to change the brackets would require scrapping the entire system because individual brackets are unchangable.
 
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.

Yes, just like the current. So income up to each bracket is taxed at that bracket.
 
So you have a long driveway and you want other people to pay for it's maintenance. :doh

.
No, we have about 20 homes on this private drive. It’s about 3000 feet long because of a long curve and bridge that doesn't need to be there if it was public. The density matches another township road I can see from my house, i.e. it's typical for the area. I also have a long driveway that I pay to maintain.
 
ok......whay haven't any righties voted?
 
Whatever income our current income tax system considers income.



Outside of the small deduction for children, no.

As to your back and forth about consumption taxes, could you all perhaps take that to another thread rather than turn this one into a thread about consumption taxes?

What is and is not considered income is where a lot of the problem is, maybe even most of it.
 
No, we have about 20 homes on this private drive. It’s about 3000 feet long because of a long curve and bridge that doesn't need to be there if it was public. The density matches another township road I can see from my house, i.e. it's typical for the area. I also have a long driveway that I pay to maintain.
So why did you buy or build a house there?

.
 
any system that forces the masses to pay more taxes anytime they want to jack up the taxes on the rich is better than the current system. it will retard the ability of dem politicians to pander to people by promising them more handouts paid for by more taxes on the rich

when the masses start equating MORE GOVERNMENT with the masses having LESS MONEY, we will finally begin to get rid of the massive government malignancy we have now
 
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?

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.

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

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom