ES Tax Policy for the wealthy

[SkinsHokieFan]

I definitely disagree. Income should only be allowed to be taxed ONCE. The first time it comes into an individual. Income from stocks, rent, sale of private property, etc... should not be able to be taxed AT ALL. Only initial income should be allowed to be taxed.

I agree. I am completely opposed to double taxation in any way

[blchizzleke]

The exact same percentage as the acceptable/appropriate tax level for people making LESS THAN $1000 a year.

This idea that a person should be forced to pay a higher percentage of their income simply because they make a larger amount is absolutely insane in my mind. Even worse, it's SOCIALIST.

actually the principle of taxing the rich at higher rates is due to diminishing marginal utility...a principle that is pretty much universally accepted by economists......consider, a man working a factory job somewhere for 9 dollars an hour or 18,000 dollars a year with one child (we'll assume his wife died)...many factory workers are hard workers and do the physical labor necessary for our economy (although factory jobs have become less important for our economical stablity)..also, like in my hometown there was a large factory that supplied basically every man with a great paying job and security up until about 15 years ago...many men and women in my hometown who were growing up in the 60s/70s saw this as their opportunity (im from a rural town) and so many declined to go to college and directly enter the workforce....as we know now though factory jobs wages have not risen with inflation so now it is a pretty crappy job to have (no offense to anyone here who is in this situation, some of my family members are as well)...in situations like these i don't see these blue collar workers as asking for a handout or favor from the government, but an understanding from the government that the tax burden on the working class can not be the same as on the rich.

back to my numbers...so if this guy is making 18,000 and the tax rate is 10% he now only has 16,200 for the year with many other taxes and expenses to come....as one can see it would become very hard to raise a child as this already low income gets chipped away at by taxes. thus, each and every dollar is important to this man.

on the other hand if we have a person making 1,000,000 a year, 10% for him would reduce his salary to 900,000....i may be crazy but i think a person making a million dollars a year can afford more of a tax burden...even if we quadrupled the rate that was charged on the blue collar worker to 40%, this person still has 600,000 worth of income to live on easily. each dollar is actually worth less to this person because his livelihood is not as affected by each dollar you take away from him as it is the blue collar worker

although our government should cut a lot of spending on a lot of unnecessary things...for example, the stimulus package that im sure many americans enjoyed actually cost tax payers a lot of money...why you ask? because the government spent $42 million dollars sending out letters to remind everyone that their check was coming....thats just one example of ineffecient spending that our great gov't has done

[Destino]

I definitely disagree. Income should only be allowed to be taxed ONCE. The first time it comes into an individual. Income from stocks, rent, sale of private property, etc... should not be able to be taxed AT ALL. Only initial income should be allowed to be taxed.

Terrible idea when combined with a flat tax with no deductable. There would be almost no incentive for the wealthy to move their money once they reach the point where their income from investments at a low return becomes larger than their yearly burn rate. No need to invest in businesses, donate to charity, or do anything at all. 100% profit, no tax burden, and no reason to do anything.

The divide between the middle class and super rich would grow into the grand canyon in 10 years. America would have a defined aristocrisy worse than we've ever experienced.

[Destino]

I agree. I am completely opposed to double taxation in any way

double taxation is property tax not capital gains. Investment income is often made with borrowed money and even when it's not... it's still new income. It's not double taxed.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

No I want to tax disposable income more heavily. The disincentive argument is stupid. Would you want to make less to have a smaller tax burden Mass? You think Dan Snyder sits around considering leaving it all behind and managing a McDonald's in order to pay less in taxes?

Actually what I do is to go out of my way to legally HIDE as much of my income as I can from the government, but that's not necessarily what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is wealthy individuals who look at the additional tax burden that will be placed on them by increasing the size of their business here in the United States who refrain from expanding their business or who do the expansion in places like Mexico where that expansion will not be subject to the additional costs and taxes which would be imposed on them by the Federal government.

People forget that in our tax system you do pay the same taxes as everyone that makes less than you on that amount. Someone making 30k pays the same taxes on that first 30k as a person making 1 million.

That's fine. My problem is that because of the overtime I work here at my job I make enough more (about $10K-14K) than my roommate that we pay different tax rates even though we do essentially the same job in the same area of the same state. Essentially I'm being punished for holding a job with mandatory overtime.

Her husband (my other roommate) does not work because the amount of money he would bring in a year would push them over into the next tax bracket and put them in a position to have to PAY the government every April 15th rather than getting a refund. They're caught in a Catch-22 situation. Their debt is staying level or increasing because they only have one income; but if he gets a job they're tax burden will go up more than his income will reasonably offset.

[Koolblue13]

back to my numbers...so if this guy is making 18,000 and the tax rate is 10% he now only has 16,200 for the year with many other taxes and expenses to come....as one can see it would become very hard to raise a child as this already low income gets chipped away at by taxes. thus, each and every dollar is important to this man.

on the other hand if we have a person making 1,000,000 a year, 10% for him would reduce his salary to 900,000....i may be crazy but i think a person making a million dollars a year can afford more of a tax burden...even if we quadrupled the rate that was charged on the blue collar worker to 40%, this person still has 600,000 worth of income to live on easily. each dollar is actually worth less to this person because his livelihood is not as affected by each dollar you take away from him as it is the blue collar worker

And if Mr. $Million still had that disproportionately taken $300k, he might be able to open another factory in the USA and employ Mr $9 an hour.

But now the Gov't has it to lose somewhere.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Terrible idea when combined with a flat tax with no deductable. There would be almost no incentive for the wealthy to move their money once they reach the point where their income from investments at a low return becomes larger than their yearly burn rate. No need to invest in businesses, donate to charity, or do anything at all. 100% profit, no tax burden, and no reason to do anything.

So, if that's what they want to do, that's fine. When they stop running the company that made them their millions they have to turn it over to someone else, who WILL be taxed on their income.

The divide between the middle class and super rich would grow into the grand canyon in 10 years. America would have a defined aristocrisy worse than we've ever experienced.

You say that like it's a BAD thing. Personally I think we seriously NEED a caste system here in the United States. We need it quickly if this country is ever going to get back to being worth anything.

double taxation is property tax not capital gains. Investment income is often made with borrowed money and even when it's not... it's still new income. It's not double taxed.

So what if it's made on borrowed money? It's not what I would consider "initial" or "base" income and should not be subject to taxation by the government. Being a smart investor should not make you subject to having that money STOLEN from you by the government.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

....back to my numbers...so if this guy is making 18,000 and the tax rate is 10% he now only has 16,200 for the year with many other taxes and expenses to come....as one can see it would become very hard to raise a child as this already low income gets chipped away at by taxes. thus, each and every dollar is important to this man.

on the other hand if we have a person making 1,000,000 a year, 10% for him would reduce his salary to 900,000....i may be crazy but i think a person making a million dollars a year can afford more of a tax burden...even if we quadrupled the rate that was charged on the blue collar worker to 40%, this person still has 600,000 worth of income to live on easily. each dollar is actually worth less to this person because his livelihood is not as affected by each dollar you take away from him as it is the blue collar worker.

Maybe that $18K a year blue collar worker (who I have the utmost respect for) needs to sell the house he and his kid are living in and move into an apartment that's closer to where he actually works to save money. Ever wonder why the "mill towns" of the 19th and early 20th century sprung up the way they did.... maybe because they were the most efficient way for those types of people to live.

You take that extra $300K away from the millionaire and you know what happens.... he decides to scale back his company, move some of it overseas, or maybe to just not do the $25 million expansion to his business that he'd been looking at.

Something tells me that the impact on the economy of these millionaires paying less is going to actually be more helpful than the pains felt by the lower income people is going to hurt the economy.

[Redskins Diehard]

on the other hand if we have a person making 1,000,000 a year, 10% for him would reduce his salary to 900,000....i may be crazy but i think a person making a million dollars a year can afford more of a tax burden...even if we quadrupled the rate that was charged on the blue collar worker to 40%, this person still has 600,000 worth of income to live on easily. each dollar is actually worth less to this person because his livelihood is not as affected by each dollar you take away from him as it is the blue collar worker

Should have made it a public poll. Did you vote for what the rate would be on the million if you could set it?

[DjTj]

I agree. I am completely opposed to double taxation in any way

Your flat tax proposal is full of double taxation.

17 percent, no deductions for anything

If you make 10 million dollars a year from rents, stocks, working, whatever, 17 percent

The tax code should be no longer then to fit on a matchbox

:whoknows:

zero % is the only acceptable level for anyone. There are plenty of other taxes and fees that we pay, no need to have an income tax that pays for nothing.

(If "Income" is defined as profits, as in what a corporation makes, how can there be personal "income" in your paycheck where you traded your labor for a wage?)

This statement makes no sense. How do you calculate corporate profit then? All they did was trade their products for a selling price. How can that be "income"?

You are allowed to deduct business-related expenses for travel or equipment or training to reduce your income to a "profit" number, and then personal income works exactly the same as corporate profit: It measures the amount of money you take home after deducting your expenses. Now if you want to claim that the time you give up should be counted as an expense, then you'll need to put a value on that ... and the government has actually already kind of done that by giving everyone a standard deduction of $5,000.

We know it doesnt pay for infrastructure, social security, defense, programs, etc because the other taxes and fees

Okay, income tax doesn't pay for social security or medicare, but I'm pretty sure that it pays for defense, infrastructure, and most other programs. The DoD doesn't have a dedicated tax; it takes money out of the federal budget, which is primarily funded by income taxes.

P.S. 40%

[SnyderShrugged]

Your flat tax proposal is full of double taxation.:whoknows:

This statement makes no sense. How do you calculate corporate profit then? All they did was trade their products for a selling price. How can that be "income"?

You are allowed to deduct business-related expenses for travel or equipment or training to reduce your income to a "profit" number, and then personal income works exactly the same as corporate profit: It measures the amount of money you take home after deducting your expenses. Now if you want to claim that the time you give up should be counted as an expense, then you'll need to put a value on that ... and the government has actually already kind of done that by giving everyone a standard deduction of $5,000.

Okay, income tax doesn't pay for social security or medicare, but I'm pretty sure that it pays for defense, infrastructure, and most other programs. The DoD doesn't have a dedicated tax; it takes money out of the federal budget, which is primarily funded by income taxes.

P.S. 40%

1. A corporation has "income" which is defined as profits. What is the tax rate on corporations based upon? Is it all gross revenue or is it based upon the difference of revenue minus expenses? Of course its the latter. The logical extension to a personal income tax should be the same, but we know it isnt. So yes, we provide our "time" as a fair trade for a fair wage. IO know you arent seriously saying that my annual work "time" is only worth $5000 are you?

2. Defense is paid for via excise taxes and the corporate income tax. There is zero portion of the personal income tax that goes to infrastructure. If it did, then what is the gas tax, sin tax, etc used for? Each item in ionfrastructure that you choose has a specific tax that funds it. The personal income tax is not one of them.

The Grace commission officially explained the harsh reality of the personal income tax system.

"Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:

One-third of all their taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government as we identified in our survey.

Another one-third of all their taxes escapes collection from others as the underground economy blossoms in direct proportion to tax increases and places even more pressure on law abiding taxpayers, promoting still more underground economy-a vicious cycle that must be broken.

With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government. "

http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm

[Redskins Diehard]

Anyway to make the poll public after it is published? My level of expertise in that regard is lacking.

[DjTj]

1. A corporation has "income" which is defined as profits. What is the tax rate on corporations based upon? Is it all gross revenue or is it based upon the difference of revenue minus expenses? Of course its the latter. The logical extension to a personal income tax should be the same, but we know it isnt. So yes, we provide our "time" as a fair trade for a fair wage. IO know you arent seriously saying that my annual work "time" is only worth $5000 are you?

Well I don't know, how much do you think your time is worth in the absence of working? $5000 is an arbitrary number, but maybe that approximates the welfare I would get if I just sat around at home, so it is in some ways what I am giving up by going to work. What would you deduct if you wanted personal income to reflect corporate profits?

2. Defense is paid for via excise taxes and the corporate income tax. There is zero portion of the personal income tax that goes to infrastructure. If it did, then what is the gas tax, sin tax, etc used for? Each item in ionfrastructure that you choose has a specific tax that funds it. The personal income tax is not one of them.

You're right about the Federal Highway funds, but what about the FAA or the Army Corps of Engineers?

And I really don't think Defense is funded solely out of the corporate income tax without funding from personal income tax.

All of that is in a big discretionary spending pool, which has plenty of waste and plenty of debt reduction, but it doesn't discriminate between personal and corporate income tax dollars.

[Strandgaard]

I voted 50%

I live in denmark... we have the highest taxes in the world and at the same time we are the happiest according to michigan university.

The job i have now is close to the minimum-wage in denmark and i pay 39%... the lowest possible.

Both my parrents pay arround 60%... The highest possible and they are not millionares even in kroner (danish currency) wich is worth 1/5 of the dollar.

[SnyderShrugged]

Well I don't know, how much do you think your time is worth in the absence of working? $5000 is an arbitrary number, but maybe that approximates the welfare I would get if I just sat around at home, so it is in some ways what I am giving up by going to work. What would you deduct if you wanted personal income to reflect corporate profits?

You're right about the Federal Highway funds, but what about the FAA or the Army Corps of Engineers?

And I really don't think Defense is funded solely out of the corporate income tax without funding from personal income tax.

All of that is in a big discretionary spending pool, which has plenty of waste and plenty of debt reduction, but it doesn't discriminate between personal and corporate income tax dollars.

all that chart shows is what the government collects in revenue, it doesnt show the allocation at all.

The grace commission report was clear as to where the income tax dollars go.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I voted 50%

I live in denmark... we have the highest taxes in the world and at the same time we are the happiest according to michigan university.

Please don't take this personally but that's mostly because you people (Europeans) are silly enough to believe that SOCIALISM is something other than the work of the Devil and an express lane to everything that's wrong with the world.

It's also among the reasons that I will never step foot in Europe, regardless of the fact that there are many places I'd love to visit over there. Including some in your own home country.

[Burgold]

1. A corporation has "income" which is defined as profits.

While this is technically true, there's just so much gamesmanship about it that the true numbers rarely come forward. For example in the movie business, no Star Wars movie has ever made a profit. They way they account for them and talk about immediate depreciation, a movie which costs 100 million to make and grosses 600 million is a loser. They're in the red. Fancy accounting tricks are used throughout every industry to make sure that the corporations do not pay their "fair" share.

[DjTj]

all that chart shows is what the government collects in revenue, it doesnt show the allocation at all.

The grace commission report was clear as to where the income tax dollars go.

The Grace Commission is only talking about amounts. They could easily have said that 100% of corporate income taxes are absorbed by waste, and that all government services are paid out of a portion of personal income taxes.

There is no physical discrimination between personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. It's mostly fungible, and the Grace Commission just put it all on personal income taxes for political effect.

[SnyderShrugged]

The Grace Commission is only talking about amounts. They could easily have said that 100% of corporate income taxes are absorbed by waste, and that all government services are paid out of a portion of personal income taxes.

There is no physical discrimination between personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. It's mostly fungible, and the Grace Commission just put it all on personal income taxes for political effect.

yes, they easilly could have, but they didnt. And dont you find it interesting that there isnt a precisie breakdown of the allocations from corporate income tax vs. personal? How did our government run before the personal income tax?

[Destino]

Please don't take this personally but that's mostly because you people (Europeans) are silly enough to believe that SOCIALISM is something other than the work of the Devil and an express lane to everything that's wrong with the world.

It's also among the reasons that I will never step foot in Europe, regardless of the fact that there are many places I'd love to visit over there. Including some in your own home country.

Your brand of capitalism hasn't worked anywhere. In fact it's never survived a democracy where people had a say in their government. People are not going to vote for an aristocracy, they are not going to vote to shoulder the burden of society while the rich live tax free (capital gains is wealth, income is not).

[SnyderShrugged]

While this is technically true, there's just so much gamesmanship about it that the true numbers rarely come forward. For example in the movie business, no Star Wars movie has ever made a profit. They way they account for them and talk about immediate depreciation, a movie which costs 100 million to make and grosses 600 million is a loser. They're in the red. Fancy accounting tricks are used throughout every industry to make sure that the corporations do not pay their "fair" share.

I cant argue your excellent point on gamemanship. But it still doesnt change the point that technically, an individual doesnt have "income" under the definition accepted in the constitution.

[Smoot Point Really]

Let's make it 100%... We should guarantee that everyone is poor. Fairness is more important than success.

[Smoot Point Really]

While this is technically true, there's just so much gamesmanship about it that the true numbers rarely come forward. For example in the movie business, no Star Wars movie has ever made a profit. They way they account for them and talk about immediate depreciation, a movie which costs 100 million to make and grosses 600 million is a loser. They're in the red. Fancy accounting tricks are used throughout every industry to make sure that the corporations do not pay their "fair" share.

You have a flaw in your argument... The "100 Million" to make the movie doesn't account for percentage of box office receipts that go to George Lucas. The reason the actual corporation has nothing to pay is because the financiers of the movie take the profits.

Anyway, increasing the tax on George Lucas will probably mean he moves his business to the Caribbean (if he hasn't already). The goal would be to keep dollars inside the country, not devalue our currency further by encouraging investment abroad.

[DjTj]

yes, they easilly could have, but they didnt. And dont you find it interesting that there isnt a precisie breakdown of the allocations from corporate income tax vs. personal? How did our government run before the personal income tax?

Well, Dan Snyder doesn't tell us whether Clinton Portis's salary is paid mostly through ticket sales or beer sales, but that's okay with me ... the whole point is that the spending is discretionary. We all pay into a system where our representatives can determine where the money goes each year - I actually feel like that's a lot more democratic than non-discretionary spending, where we basically obligated by previous generations to pay for things.

And we operated without an income tax prior to World War I, when we had a standing army under 200,000, the life expectancy was about 50 years, and 140,000 people died every year from tuberculosis. Since that time, we have become the most powerful nation in the world, we are living 25 years longer, and our population has more than tripled ... I would say that we've done pretty well with this income tax thing. :2cents:

I cant argue your excellent point on gamemanship. But it still doesnt change the point that technically, an individual doesnt have "income" under the definition accepted in the constitution.

You still haven't stated what you would deduct to turn the personal income tax into a true tax on profits.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Your brand of capitalism hasn't worked anywhere. In fact it's never survived a democracy where people had a say in their government.

Which is why MOST people in the United States should not have a say in the government.

People are not going to vote for an aristocracy, they are not going to vote to shoulder the burden of society while the rich live tax free (capital gains is wealth, income is not).

I'll have to disagree. If nearly half of American voters will vote for Al Gore or John Kerry, I have to believe that at least that many would vote for anyone or anything that is properly packaged. Capital Gains may be Wealth but what we're supposed to be taxing is INCOME, not Wealth.