88Comrade2000 Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 If you could decide the tax policy, what would it be? Remember now if there's a federal government there's going to have to be some taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted April 21, 2003 Author Share Posted April 21, 2003 I'll just focus on personal income tax and social security taxes. My tax plan: Income Tax: Under 20000- 1/2 % Even the poor should pay income taxes for the damn services we give them. 20,000 to 99,999- 10% 100,000 and over- 25% The only deductions I would allow is for home mortage/rental payments and for education: college, trade school, etc... I would also add a National value added tax of 1/2 %. Social Security Tax: Social Security part- 7.5% medicare part- 2.5% For those who want to invest in stock market- they can have an additional 2% taken for that purpose. The estate tax would be eliminated and dividend tax gradually reduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 Someone else on this board turned me on to this. It's a consumption tax. Haven't read everything on it yet but sounds good so far. At this point almost anything would be better than the system we have now. Check it out at www.fairtax.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 Probably me or Code. We are both big proponents of a National Sales tax. If you have doubts, look at the website and find out the amount of taxes the country would receive from illegal businesses that currently pay ZERO taxes. That alone will convince you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 If you have doubts, look at the website and find out the amount of taxes the country would receive from illegal businesses that currently pay ZERO taxes. That alone will convince you. Hell Yeah...!! :cheers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 Capital gains adjusted for inflation (which it always was, until Carter removed it by presidential order). No capital gains for equity held 5 years or more (to reduce the propensity towards churning). A flat tax in the teens somewhere with a single deduction around 15k. No deductions for anything else other than dependents (ie not mortgage rates, donations, etc.) A VAT tax somewhere in the upper single digits. ...And maybe all guitar related purchases could be tax-deductible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 Im all for a national sales tax, get rid of income tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 Spoken like a true Objectivist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 Does anyone think that a national sales tax would create a larger blackmarket for goods (that would go untaxed)? It seems like a logical side effect to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 It might to a degree, but those who profit from the black market would eventually use that money to buy something legally. Eventually the tax gets paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 It might to a degree, but those who profit from the black market would eventually use that money to buy something legally. Eventually the tax gets paid. Another thought is what happens when we have rampant inflation (or worse stagflation) and people start buying less (or nothing at all) because they cost more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 TEG, did you read the website info? It goes into that in pretty good detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 Ah but Kilmer, isn't the whole point to tax the money as it moves. Any tax that misses movements will lead to inflation. Saying those who don't pay taxes on it once will have ot pay at the next stage ignores that they might use money from the black market on goods and services on the black market thus completely skipping the taxes. You have to tax everytime the money moves from individual to individual. Case and point...dividend tax cut. We treat the businesses like they are entities. That's why we tax money moving from person to company to person. It's just like person to person to person. If you start taxing the money only once, you have to make more money everytime you want the government to do anything. Making more money leads to inflation. That's what gets me about the "double taxation" and "death tax" mantra of the right. I hope that money has been taxed more than twice in it's usage lifetime. If i had to design a tax code from scratch (oy!), I'd start with the premise that I want to tax most those that benefit most from the existance of a government. Afterall, you get what you pay for. I'd make an effort to tax money as it moves. As unpopular as it might seem on this board, I'm not against todays tax system. There are a few changes I would make: 1) less exemptions - These just make things more complicated than they need to be. Many of these are just payoffs to special interest lobies. 2) I'd losen capital gains a little. This one would take more research, but if I were inclined at all to reduce taxes for the rich, this one seems to have the most promise according to what I've read about it's impact on investment. 3) I'd be VERY tempted to allow lower income people to trade time for tax money. If you volunteer, I'd like to think that has as much value to society as a few extra bucks. Think about low income neighberhoods where people who currently don't pay much currently either worked on neighberhood cleanups or neighberhood watch programs to reduce taxes owed. If a neighberhood looks nice, more people want to move in which aids income and racial integration of neighberhoods. That in turns raises property values. When the properties sell, the government takes it's share. Also, there are property taxes. It's a thought, but I haven't seen this propossed many places, and there may be a reason for it. 4) I'd do away with state and local taxes. Reduce paperwork. If the government can have locality adjustments for government employees, they can figure out a tax for different localities. This would also obligate the Fed when it comes to funding state and local programs they mandate but don't currently fund because all of the government funds would come from the fed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 TEG, did you read the website info? It goes into that in pretty good detail. Oops...didnt see a website...the one that AX mentions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 eg, yep. Good Site Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 Hey Riggo, i like the guitar exemption. But we would have to limit the amount of twelve strings you could claim. :high: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 Consumption tax...oy. That just means the rich pay a smaller percentage than the poor because they can afford to save more. There's something wrong with taking 30% of a guy working 70hours a weeks pay but only making 20K while taking 10% of the millionaire's money because he gets to save most of his income. As a side issue, isn't our economy consumption driven? Does anyone think that a tax only on consumtion might result in less consumption? That whole econ 101 thing about raising prices reducing amount sold ect. It sounds like the whole consumption arguement is trying to promote savings. Why? and for whose benefit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 The rich would pay more actual money then they do now and the poor would pay less. Comparing the percentages isn't important or relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 How do you figure the rich would pay more than they do now? Now they pay taxes on all of their income. You want them to pay taxes on just the portion of their income that is spent. You only get more absolute dollars from the rich if A) they spend more than they get in income which historically is not the case. Hence the disparity in savings rates or the tax rate is higher than it currently is. I have not yet seen any conservative on this board advocate taxing the rich more. I'm shocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 Yes, heaven forbid we not call for more taxes. Read the website. It will answer all of your objections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 http://www.fairtax.org/faq2.asp This might help How will the FairTax affect the various income brackets? The FairTax is fairly distributed amongst all income brackets and in fact, much more fairly than does the current income tax system. The FairTax is fair to low-income earning Americans. The FairTax empowers those with low incomes. Under the FairTax plan, no American will pay taxes on necessities. Every household will receive a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, and wage earners will keep 100% of their paycheck. More money will be available to spend, save and invest. Used items will not be taxed, and prices will go down by 20-30%. Education will be easier to obtain with the FairTax. Education costs will go down by as much as 50%. This will allow for easier upward mobility amongst lower income earning families. The FairTax is the only plan that can legitimately claim to "untax" the poor. Those spending at twice the poverty level will pay a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burdens they bear today. The FairTax would dramatically improve economic growth and wage rates. Jobs will be more plentiful, and wages will go up. The FairTax is fair to middle-income taxpayers. Middle-income earners will benefit greatly under the FairTax, who will receive a rebate based on household size, just as will those in all other income brackets. The FairTax will eliminate all payroll taxes, enabling wage earners to bring home 100% of their paycheck to spend, save and invest. There will be no more tax on used items, savings, investment and education. Education costs will be reduced by as much as 50%. Small business compliance costs will virtually disappear. There will be no more self-employment tax. Hidden taxes will disappear! Prices will drop by 20-30%, and the tax rate for the middle-income bracket will drop. The FairTax is fair to the wealthy. The wealthy will get a rebate based on household size, just as those in other income brackets will. There will be no more corporate taxes, business-to-business taxes, self-employment taxes, taxes on investment or savings, and no more estate taxes. Wealthy people spend more money than other individuals. The FairTax will tax them on their new purchases only above the poverty level. When money is spent on the development of job-creating factories, financing of research, education, savings or investment, these expenditures will not be taxed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 That's all words ignoring basic math. It still comes down to how do you get the same amount of money by taxing only a portion of the income. "Education costs will go down by as much as 50%" how? why? Like most goods, the cost is what the market will tollerate. So long as education continues to determine earnings for a large portion ofthe population, education will cost. "Wealthy spend more than other people." That's a dodge that completely ignores the question. You said they'd pay more in absolute terms. Let's say currently a millionaire is in a 40% bracket. That means she pays $400,000 a year. Now with a consumption tax, she only has to pay on what she spends. Let's say she's a big spender and spends 600,000 a year. You're talking about a 66% consumption tax to net the same money for the government to spend. Since the idea of the "fair tax" is that everybody pays the same percentage on consumption for non necessities, does that mean that middle class people will be forced to pay a 66% consumption tax on everything but food and lodging? Is a million dollar house not taxable because lodging is a necessity? "no more self emloyment taxes" ... Nonsense. I would assume you would still tax money businesses spent, right? Now instead of taxing profits you're taxing expenses. THis discourages investment in businesses becuase wht can the buisiness do with it. Maybe you mean to continue giving the business the rights of individual entities without taxing them at all? Oy, you better raise that consumption tax a bit more. Talk about corruption city. "My business just gave my family an all expenses paid vacation." The business then refers to it as an expense to keep workers. Of course the business is a soleproprietorship. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 I just provided a basic link. They have resources to back up their claim. Go on the website and check out the links and resources and the research link. This is by no means a conservative agenda. This is a bipartisan effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 The first thing I would do is cut the taxes on bonuses you get from companies. They are at a 50% rate right now, which is ridicolous. No CAP gain if more than 5 years old, what ever the investment is. I would make it really hard for these day traders to live, since this is what hurts the markets. I would have a tax on liqour, beer, smokes, and gas. This will offset some of the other tax cuts, but also this is where a little tax not a sin tax could create a massive amount of money. States all should have their own lottery systems, this money can go to schools and roads etc... make up for the money some states would lose from the tax on gas, alcohol, etc... I would have an internet tax, just like a sales tax. Once again nothing extremely high. This could lead to a national health care program. When it comes to income tax, maybe tweak the current structure a little. Unlike some of you I don't agree with taxing the rich so much, why do we want to punish people who have worked hard for what they have (one day you will be there). The highest anyone should pay in income tax is 25%, for instance if you have someone who makes $200k that is 50K which is a lot of money. The one thing I would make sure of his have a clause if you are a FAMILY and your combined income for say 3 to 4 peolple is less than 25K then you should not have to pay income tax. Now if you are a student making 20K then you still should pay taxes, but like I said don't know what percentage. And no I am not rich, not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 I say a flat tax would be the best. These rules must be present. All earnings are income period. No exemptions for anything at all. It could work if we could keep the number < 25%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.