• 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
Whose suggesting to hammer the crap out of people with taxes? Seriously, you've just thrown out a random number at 28% and decided to act like that was somehow my suggestion.

It's not a random number, it's the current tax rate on the $72,000 to $125,000 tax braket. You're consternating about how the system should flow, but you're not suggesting any numbers. In that case, I can only use the current tax brackets.



Seems you're hearing wrong. However, I don't believe you're just playing within the rules the government created. I think you like, prefer, and would desperately hold onto the rules the government created out of self interest...country and principles be damned. That's significantly different than just "playing by the rules", that's embracing and supporting them.

So, now y're calling me a liar and I'm unpatriotic. What kind of work do you do?



I'll be honest, I'm having a little fun with the whole conservative thing since so often people enjoy having a go at me for not being "conservative" because its not lock step in the method they want. However there is a point to it, specifically pointing out that sometimes we put certain personal thoughts or views ahead of conservative principle sometimes and that in and of itself doesn't necessarily negate one from being "conservative" as I'd hardly call you anything else but that.

I've never questioned your conservative primciples, so how about saving the game for someone who does.

I get it, you're looking out for your own. You're comfortable and you don't want anyone rocking that boat. However, I don't think the results of my suggestion would have an outcome such as you're suggesting, I think your suggestion is an over reaction, and I think the total benefit it'd have for the nation would be significantly more than any damage.

It would have one hell of an impact if my tax bill doubled.
 
I have found that some conservatives instinctively shy away from criticizing subsidies if they happen to be located in the tax code. This is unfortunate, because this is where some of the least efficient subsidies occur, and should be a prime place for fiscal hawks to look for wasteful spending to cut. For example, if Obama proposed a new social program wherein the government would give people a few cents for every mile that they commuted to work, conservatives would be screaming bloody murder...and rightly so. They'd complain about social engineering, and how the government couldn't afford this, and how it isn't the government's place to get people to behave in certain ways...all valid criticisms. And yet, if you include exactly the same subsidy into the tax code instead of a social program, suddenly it's not only OK but it's essential.

Deductions aren't loopholes, they're subsides now?
 
Technically, they're opposed to increasing revenue, because they want the federal government to be much smaller. They might prefer to replace with tax credit with a general tax reduction, for instance.

Wrong. I want to see tax revenue go up, with the creation of jobs, which will happen when the current regime isn't suppressing the private sector any longer.

Can you possibly imagine how many billions in revenue are being lost because of the drilling ban? New York state is losing out on around $11,000,000 dollars in economic activity, because of the state's drilling ban in the Marcellus Shale.
 
Last edited:
Wrong. I want to see tax revenue go up, with the creation of jobs, which will happen when the current regime isn't suppressing the private sector any longer.

Can you possibly imagine how many billions in revenue are being lost because of the drilling ban? New York state is losing out on around $11,000 dollars in economic activity, because of the state's drilling ban in the Marcellus Shale.

Given all the oil subsidies the Republicans have managed to pack into the budget, we probably save money every time a drilling site goes offline.
 
Wrong. I want to see tax revenue go up, with the creation of jobs, which will happen when the current regime isn't suppressing the private sector any longer.

Can you possibly imagine how many billions in revenue are being lost because of the drilling ban? New York state is losing out on around $11,000 dollars in economic activity, because of the state's drilling ban in the Marcellus Shale.

Normally expressed as a % of the economy.
 
Given all the oil subsidies the Republicans have managed to pack into the budget, we probably save money every time a drilling site goes offline.

No, we actually have lost precious revenue, due to the drilling ban. Around 16 billion in revenue. That's not counting the jobs that have been lost and the 1 billion in revenue they would have created.

Oil companies pay the federal government an 18.75 percent royalty on the oil produced. In 2008, the offshore industry paid $8.3 billion in royalties, and another $9.4 billion for bids on new leases. Last year those bids brought in just $979 million.

Oil Drill Ban Costs Govt Billions; al-Qaida Targeted Brooklyn Bridge

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would create $709 billion over the next 10 years. The oil and gas industry creates 20 times that amount in the same 10 years in royalties and leases alone.
 
Deductions aren't loopholes, they're subsides now?

Most (all?) deductions are subsidies. They're basically the government telling people "We think it's better if you spend your money on X instead of Y...and so we are going to give you a financial incentive to spend it on X instead of Y." That sounds pretty much exactly like a subsidy to me. If there are certain things that we, as a society, want to encourage people to do (e.g. going to college), then it's more efficient to just use government programs to directly subsidize it, instead of mucking about in the tax code to indirectly subsidize it. And if it's not something that we, as a society, want to encourage people to do, then it shouldn't be a deduction in the income tax code in the first place.
 
Most (all?) deductions are subsidies. They're basically the government telling people "We think it's better if you spend your money on X instead of Y...and so we are going to give you a financial incentive to spend it on X instead of Y." That sounds pretty much exactly like a subsidy to me. If there are certain things that we, as a society, want to encourage people to do (e.g. going to college), then it's more efficient to just use government programs to directly subsidize it, instead of mucking about in the tax code to indirectly subsidize it. And if it's not something that we, as a society, want to encourage people to do, then it shouldn't be a deduction in the income tax code in the first place.

Yeah! Ok! :lamo
 
teamosil said:
Given all the oil subsidies the Republicans have managed to pack into the budget, we probably save money every time a drilling site goes offline.

You can understand why oil/energy subsidies might be a good idea though - because fuel prices affect almost every aspect of our society. Not only does it directly affect us at the pump, but industrial shipping stays cheap with inexpensive, readily available fuel. Infinite travel methods follow suit as well.

The real problem exists due to the fact that oil has an inelastic demand, which means - to an extent - they can charge whatever they want.
 
It's not a random number, it's the current tax rate on the $72,000 to $125,000 tax braket.

Which is somewhat irrelevant to my suggestion. What does the current tax rate have to do with this specific thread. If you don't like the premise of the thread that doesn't mean you should just come in, ignore it, and talk about taxes in general.

You're consternating about how the system should flow, but you're not suggesting any numbers. In that case, I can only use the current tax brackets.

I've suggested very specific numbers. Or more to the point, numbers representing a very specific formula.

Lets say we went right down the middle with a 5% baseline. That'd put the people making what you mentioned above at 20% rather than 28%.

And there's nothing guaranteeing under the system that it'd be at 5%. For example, that'd get the "wealthy" up where some liberals would like, but that'd also be hitting the poor with a 5% tax and the lower middle class at 10% which may or may not affect what the democrats would push. That's part of the discussion here...what number would YOU push for to plug into the baseline to make it what you'd like to see

So, now y're calling me a liar and I'm unpatriotic. What kind of work do you do?

Nope. I'm saying it seems that based on the principles you've seemed to imply at other times are best for this country...such as small government...that it appears you're against something that would go towards doing that very thing because it'd be harmful to you personally. I'm not calling you a liar, I'm calling you someone who is rationalizing to himself his reasons for going against his principles as spoken about when not directly effecting him and why its okay for you to do so.

And I work for the Federal Air Marshals.

I've never questioned your conservative primciples, so how about saving the game for someone who does.

Hmm, in that case perhaps I'm mistaken in my memory.

It would have one hell of an impact if my tax bill doubled.

Sure it would. It'd have an impact if your tax bill quadrupedal to. And it'd have a major impact if the tax bill suddenly turned into dog **** while you held it.

What does that have to do with this thread? This thread isn't talking about removing deductions from the current tax code, so why is it that is what you keep focusing on instead of what the topic actually is?
 
You can understand why oil/energy subsidies might be a good idea though - because fuel prices affect almost every aspect of our society. Not only does it directly affect us at the pump, but industrial shipping stays cheap with inexpensive, readily available fuel. Infinite travel methods follow suit as well.

The real problem exists due to the fact that oil has an inelastic demand, which means - to an extent - they can charge whatever they want.

Companies that make money are evil, though.
 
Which is somewhat irrelevant to my suggestion. What does the current tax rate have to do with this specific thread. If you don't like the premise of the thread that doesn't mean you should just come in, ignore it, and talk about taxes in general.



I've suggested very specific numbers. Or more to the point, numbers representing a very specific formula.

Lets say we went right down the middle with a 5% baseline. That'd put the people making what you mentioned above at 20% rather than 28%.

And there's nothing guaranteeing under the system that it'd be at 5%. For example, that'd get the "wealthy" up where some liberals would like, but that'd also be hitting the poor with a 5% tax and the lower middle class at 10% which may or may not affect what the democrats would push. That's part of the discussion here...what number would YOU push for to plug into the baseline to make it what you'd like to see



Nope. I'm saying it seems that based on the principles you've seemed to imply at other times are best for this country...such as small government...that it appears you're against something that would go towards doing that very thing because it'd be harmful to you personally. I'm not calling you a liar, I'm calling you someone who is rationalizing to himself his reasons for going against his principles as spoken about when not directly effecting him and why its okay for you to do so.

And I work for the Federal Air Marshals.



Hmm, in that case perhaps I'm mistaken in my memory.



Sure it would. It'd have an impact if your tax bill quadrupedal to. And it'd have a major impact if the tax bill suddenly turned into dog **** while you held it.

What does that have to do with this thread? This thread isn't talking about removing deductions from the current tax code, so why is it that is what you keep focusing on instead of what the topic actually is?

Oh, ok! Now we know why you're so set on people doing their duty to the country. I have to say I'm not a damn bit surprised that you're a g-man.
 
Interesting but dislike it for a number of reasons...

1. There's people who have absolutely no stake in income taxes, giving them little disincentive to try and continue to raise taxes on others and increase the free stuff they can get from the government.

It is much better than current code in that regard if it is accurate that only 50% of the people pay federal taxes. In my plan only those who make under $20,000 pay no income taxes, but they will be paying some sales tax to go along with local and state taxes.

2. There's nothing keeping someone from attempting to just manipulate a single portion of the tax code to help/hurt one particular group of people. A rich person is no less important or more worthy of targeting by the government than a poor person and vise versa. I think a linked code where you either affect everyone or no one would be better
Current tax code has the same problem. I would really have no problem in making my code a linked code with the given ratios I have in it. Another solution would make it hard to change the code, make a 2/3 or 3/4 vote necessary. You can also pretty much eliminate the power of special interests on politicians by doing term limits of one term.


3. It adds a 10% tax on top of an income tax that is already increased for some of those brackets
But I also eliminate the current gas tax and corporate tax, both of which gets transferred to the price of goods and services.

4. It implements single payer health care as a part of a tax measure. Ridiculous in that regard and something I'd be against even on its own.

I only mention it with the tax code because business will no longer provide employee health care, an enormous savings for business and part of the pro growth structure of the code.

5. It implements significant government regulation into our personal lives, going way above the current level of telling us what we can and can not eat.
The processed food and beverage industry basically engineer many of their products to keep people hungry by stripping the nutrition out of it, and loading it with sugar to get people addicted with instant sugar highs. All about profit. They know if they addict kids they will have them on their products for life. I am familiar a little bit with the Polynesian peoples. The islands that have gone on the western diet have high rates of diabetes, cancer, obesity, etc like the U.S. The ones on the traditional diet have the best athletes and those diseases are unheard of. The purpose of government is to protect freedom, so a wise government would not allow these companies to addict kids and everyone else with harmful products. I realize its civil war if we take away the big mac, but it solves long term the rationing problem in a single payer catastrophic plan. So I mention it knowing hell will freeze over before it happens.

Essentially your plan offers little for a conservative to like (the fact it lowers taxes for some people is a plus, the fact it simplifies the code by bringing less brackets is a plus) while giving a TON of things that would absolutely make it a non-start (Single payer health care, massive taxes on anything but whole foods, over the top government regulation of food, significant increased taxes on some pay levels, no taxes on some people).

Its a fine liberal plan...but its just that, a liberal plan, not a compromise one in the least.

It's pretty centrist. What liberal plans out there eliminate the corporate tax, the estate tax, is thinking of growth when they eliminate the payroll and health care costs on business. Those are huge carrots to the Right. I realize the single payer is a deal breaker to most on the Right, but even that is centrist as I am promoting a hybrid solely catastrophic/Cash for everything else system.
 
Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would create $709 billion over the next 10 years. The oil and gas industry creates 20 times that amount in the same 10 years in royalties and leases alone.

You're contending that the oil and gas industry pays $14 trillion to the US government every 10 years in royalties and leases alone? So, $1.4 trillion a year. Seriously, that is your contention. You think the oil and gas royalties and leases account for 54% of federal government revenues. That is the position you want to take with me?

Ok then, lets see a source saying that. In fact, lets just see a source saying that you aren't off by orders of magnitude.
 
Okay, I don't own a business so I do have some questions....

On a small business, is the owner of that taxed on all the money the business makes on his personal income tax? Or is it taxed under some corporate or business tax? Or is it taxed only in regards to profit

Depends how they organized. For instance, if they have a sole proprietorship, all of the expenses and income get reported on schedule E or C of the individual tax returns and are taxed at individual rates with certain items qualifying for specific tax rates if they are sales, depreciation recapture, etc. If it's a partnership, then generally they get guaranteed payments which are basically earned income along with distributions. In theory, a partnership could never distribute anything, but it's unlikely. Since the partnership under a flat tax has no deductions it can legally net with its income, the gross amount would either pile up or be distributed.

I would likely say, with a business, the tax should be on profit, not necessarily total capital.

Well, that's not really a gross tax then. But it's no longer simple.
 
But I also eliminate the current gas tax and corporate tax, both of which gets transferred to the price of goods and services.

This an assumption. In a highly competitive volume market, you can't actually pass on the cost to consumers without collusion. As long as one firm refuses to go along and can meet a sizable amount of demand, its competitors will not raise prices as they'll lose market share.
 
Oh, ok! Now we know why you're so set on people doing their duty to the country. I have to say I'm not a damn bit surprised that you're a g-man.

You shouldn't be. I've been rather open about that fact on these forums for the past 4 years. And I'm not set on doing my "duty to the country". I'm set on believing politicians and our laws should do what's best FOR the country and the people that live in it.
 
You're contending that the oil and gas industry pays $14 trillion to the US government every 10 years in royalties and leases alone? So, $1.4 trillion a year. Seriously, that is your contention. You think the oil and gas royalties and leases account for 54% of federal government revenues. That is the position you want to take with me?

Ok then, lets see a source saying that. In fact, lets just see a source saying that you aren't off by orders of magnitude.

My fingers were working independent of my brain, which is why I'm so great in the sack. I meant to say, "2 times".

Now that that has been corrected, the Bush tax cuts will yield $703 billion and the oil and gas leases+royalties will yield $1.6 trillion, in 10 years.

My point still, obviously, stands.
 
You shouldn't be. I've been rather open about that fact on these forums for the past 4 years. And I'm not set on doing my "duty to the country". I'm set on believing politicians and our laws should do what's best FOR the country and the people that live in it.

Especially for those who depend on tax revenue for a steady paycheck. Yes?

Got it!
 
My fingers were working independent of my brain, which is why I'm so great in the sack. I meant to say, "2 times".

Now that that has been corrected, the Bush tax cuts will yield $703 billion and the oil and gas leases+royalties will yield $1.6 trillion, in 10 years.

My point still, obviously, stands.

I'm afraid that is still wildly off the mark. That would be $160 billion a year. Our actual revenues from oil and gas leases and royalties are just under $10 billion a year. So, a fraction of what the Bush tax cuts cost us.

Oil and Natural Gas Development on Public Lands are an Important Revenue Source for Government
www.gao.gov/new.items/d07676r.pdf

But, it gets much worse. We spend $41 billion a year on oil and gas subsidies.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...-give-gas-and-oil-companies-41-billion-a-year

That's right, we give $41 billion in taxpayer money to oil companies just for being oil companies. Of the top 10 most profitable companies in the world, 5 are oil and gas companies and all five receive subsidies from us. President Obama proposed that we scale back the subsidies from $41 billion to $37 billion a year, but the Republicans managed to defend them.

So, overall, we are losing $31 billion a year to the oil industry.
 
Last edited:
I'm afraid that is still wildly off the mark. That would be $160 billion a year. Our actual revenues from oil and gas leases and royalties are just under $10 billion a year. So, a fraction of what the Bush tax cuts cost us.

Oil and Natural Gas Development on Public Lands are an Important Revenue Source for Government
www.gao.gov/new.items/d07676r.pdf

But, it gets much worse. We spend $41 billion a year on oil and gas subsidies.

Budget hawks: Does US need to give gas and oil companies $41 billion a year? - CSMonitor.com

That's right, we give $41 billion in taxpayer money to oil companies just for being oil companies. Of the top 10 most profitable companies in the world, 5 are oil and gas companies and all five receive subsidies from us. President Obama proposed that we scale back the subsidies from $41 billion to $37 billion a year, but the Republicans managed to defend them.

So, overall, we are losing $31 billion a year to the oil industry.

Um, no, ending the Bush tax cuts would create $7 billion a year. The oil and gas industry in 2008 created $16 billion a year...that's twice as much+. I posted the link in a previous thread. Go check it out.

It just goes to show that raising taxes isn't about generating revenue.
 
I'm afraid that is still wildly off the mark. That would be $160 billion a year. Our actual revenues from oil and gas leases and royalties are just under $10 billion a year. So, a fraction of what the Bush tax cuts cost us.

Oil and Natural Gas Development on Public Lands are an Important Revenue Source for Government
www.gao.gov/new.items/d07676r.pdf

But, it gets much worse. We spend $41 billion a year on oil and gas subsidies.

Budget hawks: Does US need to give gas and oil companies $41 billion a year? - CSMonitor.com

That's right, we give $41 billion in taxpayer money to oil companies just for being oil companies. Of the top 10 most profitable companies in the world, 5 are oil and gas companies and all five receive subsidies from us. President Obama proposed that we scale back the subsidies from $41 billion to $37 billion a year, but the Republicans managed to defend them.

So, overall, we are losing $31 billion a year to the oil industry.

Um, no, ending the Bush tax cuts would create $7 billion a year. The oil and gas industry in 2008 created $16 billion a year...that's twice as much+. I posted the link in a previous thread. Go check it out.

It just goes to show that raising taxes isn't about generating revenue.
 
Um, no, ending the Bush tax cuts would create $7 billion a year. The oil and gas industry in 2008 created $16 billion a year...that's twice as much+. I posted the link in a previous thread. Go check it out.

It just goes to show that raising taxes isn't about generating revenue.

$7 billion a year? Dude, you need to slow down and check your facts more carefully. You said it was $700 billion over 10 years. That's $70 billion a year. That was your figure. The actual figure is $2.6 trillion. That's how much the Bush tax cuts would cost us over the next 10 years if we extended them all. $260 billion a year. The $700 billion over 10 years figure is what we would save if we continue most of the Bush cuts, but repeal those for the super rich only.

And, again, we give $41 billion a year in subsidies to the oil and gas industry. Way, way, more than we make in leases and royalties even if I take your $16 billion figure over the $10 billion one I provided from the GAO...
 
Last edited:
$7 billion a year? Dude, you need to slow down and check your facts more carefully. You said it was $700 billion over 10 years. That's $70 billion a year. That was your figure. The actual figure is $2.6 trillion. That's how much the Bush tax cuts would cost us over the next 10 years if we extended them all. $260 billion a year. The $700 billion over 10 years figure is what we would save if we continue most of the Bush cuts, but repeal those for the super rich only.

And, again, we give $41 billion a year in subsidies to the oil and gas industry. Way, way, more than we make in leases and royalties even if I take your $16 billion figure over the $10 billion one I provided from the GAO...
My sources say 4.0 trillion USD. 3.3 trillion in increased revenue, and 0.7 trillion in reduced deficit. Problem is, none of he parties are interested in ending the bush tax cuts. Democrats just want to increase the tax for the rich, ehich will raise little revenue and have a negative impact on the US future prospects.

Congressional Budget Office - CBO's 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook
 
OK about the dozenth time I've revised my tax plan. It is weird, I don't think I have ever even done my own taxes and I am waking up at 5am doing this. Zephlin I think you'll like these two little carrots. Decided against sales tax on services. Too much temptation for people to cheat. On capital gains decided to go 0% on ipo's and anytime a company releases shares to raise capital. All other times it will be 20%. Interesting comparison to 999 plan. Mine is more pro growth, and progressive. About the top 7% of the population make over $100,000 a year, almost half the national income, and under my plan they have a higher burden for government revenue compared to the 999 plan where the 93% who make less than $100,000 and have the other half of the national income are given the greater burden for revenue. Both plans are designed to greatly simplify tax code and be extreme pro growth and job creation.

Scrap current tax code. New net income tax: No deductions, no corporate tax, no payroll taxes, no SSI tax, no estate tax, no joint filings.
0% on income below $20,000, 10% on any additional income between $20,000-$100,000, 30% on any additional income between $100,000-$1,000,000, and 40% on any additional income above $1,000,000. So someone making 1.2 million would pay in federal taxes ($20,000 X 0)+(80,000x.10)+ (900,000 X .30) + (200,000 X .40)=$358,000.
What the rates will look like on net income:
$20,000 income...0%
30,000................3.3%
40,000................5%
50,000................6%
60,000................6.7%
70,000................7.1%
80,000................7.5%
90,000................7.8%
100,000...............8%
200,000...............19%
500,000...............26%
1,000,000.............28%
1,500,000.............32%
2,000,000.............34%
1,000,000,000.........39.9%

Capital gains rate of 0% on ipo's and whenever a company issues more shares on the equity market to raise capital. All other times the capital gains rate will be 20%.

10% federal retail sales tax on goods with exemptions on medical, whole foods in grocery stores, and rent.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom