How much do you feel people should be taxed on their wages?

[One Taste]

Based on the following brackets.

$10,000 -20,000
$20,001-30-000
$30,001 - 40,000
$40,001 - 99,999
$100,000 - 250,000
$250,001 - 500,000
$500,000 +

:shrug: Just want to get some opinions here.

[Langis]

1. Hrmmmm

$10,000 -20,000 0%
$20,001-30-000 10%
$30,001 - 40,000 15%
$40,001 - 99,999 25%
$100,000 - 250,000 40%
$250,001 - 500,000 50%
$500,000 + 50%

[JohnKleeb]

33. That sounds simliar to how I'd like it

[GOPFighter]

2. No taxes...

...on wages under $30,000. Then it should be scaled up gradually to about 40% on wages above $500,000.

[Zan_of_Texas]

4. Equal to capital gains taxes.

It is a royal rip-off that people who work for a living and make, say, $40,000 (average family gets roughly that) pay more taxes on that money than someone who makes $40,000 in profit on selling stocks for a gain.

No one ever talks about this inequality. If anything, stock gains should be taxed HIGHER than wages. But, at least equal.

[RivetJoint]

5. I like your numbers

38-40 should be max tax bracket. Nothing on less than $40K. Of course, I'd have to see how this all played out in terms of generating the requisite amount of revenue...

[leftyandproud]

13. 40% is FAR too low!

Are you crazy? $500k is a ridiculous amount. Nobody should be allowed to have a penny more than that...I say 90% on anything above 200k, 99% above 400k.

[RivetJoint]

22. Why shoudn't they be ALLOWED?

Whose money is it?

[leftyandproud]

141. who's money? Society's...that's who

without workers beneath them, they would never have made that much...without the infrastructure provided by government, they would have no business. They should be sacrificing a bit more of their windfall to give others a chance.

[AP]

37. That's crazy. If you work to

earn that much money, you deserve to keep a big chunk of it.

If you get your income from something other than work, I can see charging higher rates, but I really don't see the need for charging rates like that.

Corporations pay an effective tax rate of about 3%, and contribute to less than half of the income tax base. If you could tripple that effective rate, nobody would have to pay personal income taxes (but that's not a good idea either, or there'd be no more corporations -- everyone would organize as a partnership).

But the point is, increase corporations contributions a little, and indifiduals could dramatically reduce their tax rates. They should still be progressive (ie, the more you make, they higher your rate)) but no individual would need to pay 40% rates on earned income, no matter what your level of income is.

[Commendatori]

94. So if I make $401,000 I get to keep $3,010

plus whatever I can find to deduct? I won't be able to deduct living expenses unless I get my cardboard box renovated.

Under your suggestion I would suck the life out of social services and not work a single day. Better to live in a park bush all year than bust my ass for sixty bucks a week.

[leftyandproud]

144. no silly

you pay the 40% federal on the first 400k, which only amounts to $80,000 in taxes. Anything ABOVE the obscene 400k amount is taxed at 90%+++

You won't be hurting for food or shelter even if we taxed you at 100% above 400k

You would simply be helping those who need the help, via income transfers. It's in the constitution (general welfare)

[One_Life_To_Give]

171. Long Vacations?

Wouold anyone work after making 400K? Or would they just take the rest of the year off? (8 Mo's vacation or work, pays the same either either way. I am sure they will opt to worl 70hrs a week;^))

[ArkDem]

173. Wow, we would have neurosurgeons (7 year residency) coming

out of the woodwork with that incentive!

[Wcross]

121. Guess that would take all the fun out of the lottery. n/t

[Yupster]

138. Some people may make that much, but

only for 2-3 years. Then they go back to more normal wages.

[librechik]

154. Here's mine:

under 90,000 No taxes
100,000-250,000 %10
250-500,000 15%
500,000 up 25 %

Corporation rate:
%20 of all Gross profits specifically to pay for Universal healthcare
%10 for Defense
%5 other stuff

Increase minimum wage to 12.00 federal.

[leftyandproud]

156. Good GOD people...

aside from wanting universal healthcare, you are a GOP wet dream...

You have proposed a tax cut 500% bigger than anything Bush has done so far...Do you realize that?

[librechik]

158. If we raise the minimum wage and corporations pay their share

the revenue will pour in. Lots of incentives for stuff like alternative energy and daycare. We're rich! People have just been stealing from us for many years, people who we don't really need anymore (huge defense industry)

They need to find another job--it's been done before. There will be huge problems due to global warming; we're going to need big industry to solve those problems instead of getting mired in the profit motive. If we tax very leniently, they won't mind it.

[ArkDem]

174. Don't corporations just pass their costs on to the poor consumer?

[AP]

31. Stopping at 500k is basically a flat income tax for the many many people

who make over 500k, and it's a very burdensome rate to pay if you're just above 500k. But if you make 1 mil or 20 mil or 100 mil -- ie the farther you get above 500k -- the less the burden it is relative to the 500k earner.

There's no reason to make the top bracket start so low (and I also happen to believe that a top rate of 50% is unnecceary for any kind of income other than inheritance if we actually had a progressive income tax that captured more corp income and did better with cap gains and dividend income).

[annabanana]

3. not "wages"......ALL INCOME

If there was a graduated tax on ALL income, earned and unearned, corporate and personal, THAT kind of plan I could get behind.

[AP]

40. Yes. And there should be different graduated rates on different types of

...income.

If you want to encourage productivity and labor in the US, you can't throw the full yolk of the tax burden on personal earned income, and that's what we do in the US.

In the US we want to discourage inherited wealth and privilege, because that's the least productive kind of wealth. We want to encourage people to pass their wealth down broadly and to people who need it (whether family members or charities) so that's why it's good to tax inheritied wealth at high rates (but the best thing to do would be to tax it as income to the recipient at progressive rates).

We should also not tax income on corporate wealth and wealth from wealth at lower rates than wealth from work, but we do that in the US, and we're suffering the economic consequences right now. So there should be higher progressive rates on dividend and cap gains income than on earned income.

[Catfight]

63. EXACTLY Annabanana!

[mr_du04]

6. I say

no taxes on single people up to 30k
couples with kids (no matter what sex) no taxes up to 75k
anyone who makes over a million 50% after the first million and 30% on the first.

[leftyandproud]

14. You realize you are advocating a tax cut right?

On a million today, people pay 37% federal.

[mr_du04]

17. well dems can be for some tax cuts

the way I see it it is the people who have over a million who should be carrying the most of the weight. Those under a million should pay very little if anything at all.

[pnb]

172. Why that limit for those with children?

Why should a personal choice like having children be subsidized so well?

And why should there basically be a significant penalty for those with children whose income eventually increases beyond 75k?

[mr_du04]

183. simple

because we are democrats and we are for children's wellfare. Raising children is very expensive and I believe that the parents should be given breaks to enable to children to have good lives and get a good education. I hate to say it but, your reasoning is almost as bad as the pukes who don't want to give our children anything so they can grow up to be virtual slaves or die for oil in some far off land.

[sweetheart]

7. No taxes on income at all

I think all taxes should be levied on spending money, not earning
it.

This way, when someone works hard, they don't have to support oil
wars and a military buildup, unless they spend the money on parts of
the economy where the sales-tax pays for that government activity
(petroleum, cars).

I think that it is possible to create a progressive consumption tax,
that replaces the income tax entirely.

The treasury would install a massive single-instance version of
"oracle financials" or "peoplesoft", and install a module at the
cash register of every single business in America. This system would
then automatically deduct taxes from payments and using SQL, shift
them to the treasury... no latency, no tax forms, no IRS.

The system would also have incorporated, like peoplesoft today, a
full pensions, vacation and worker management system that would serve
as an upgrade to the social security system. All employees would be
treated fair under working laws, as all would be paid using
government software.

With the internet and computers as fast as they are today, there is
no reason to have paper tax forms or tax filing. The computers can
entirely replace this with a closed IRS system that functions as the
very tax code itself.

Its a supply side tax, indeed, but by ending the private income
tax, involuntary support of military wars for oil and other industry
sector taxes can be avoided by people of conscience, thereby giving
the economy room for choice. It would also lighten the load of
tax attourneys and whatnot that serve as a burden on businesses
of all sorts, and contribute nothing to the real economy.

[Selwynn]

11. sales taxes are regressive, though...

..the make life harder on the people who can least afford it

[MUSTANG_2004]

133. Yes but some plans

factor that in by paying everyone a "rebate" that would balance that. Kind of how the Earned Income Tax Credit helps to off-set the FICA payroll tax.

[ContinentalOp]

21. Terrible idea.

Since the poor spend close to 100% of their income on the necessities of life they will be hit the hardest. The wealthy on the other hand are able to save (you might say hoard) money and will be taxed on a much smaller portion of their total wealth. The wealthy also have the means to purchase big ticket items overseas and escape your proposed consumption tax. And I think you would have to agree that under such a system necessities like food and shelter should not be taxed. After you allow for these deductions, cheating by the wealthy, and elimination of all income and payroll taxes the resulting sales tax would have to be so high that it would stifle our economy.

Furthermore, the issue you raise of taxpayer choice doesn't make any sense to me. Are you saying that those who oppose the war would have the choice to stop funding it by simply not purchasing anything? That sounds as absurd as arguing that you can simply stop supporting war by quitting your job and not paying taxes.

[sweetheart]

119. the petrol economy is a choice

What i meant was that we should charge the entire cost of iraq and
the whole middle east army at the gas pump. Then people who use
gas and oil will pay the tax. People who bicycle and use public
transit will not. It makes the tax somewhat voluntary, and i find
it wholly coercive to make me pay for someone else's cheap gas.

That said, i recognize that the tax is regressive unless it is very
carefully implemented not to be on food and consumable items. As well,
it is not fair to the elderly who would in effect be double taxed
under such a scheme.

I have a bug in my ear about this, and will start another thread
later, with the whole thing in detail. Since the IRS was founded,
computers and the internet have been created. Much of the system
that is in place is "pre-computer". I am for a major tax overhaul
that installs a single-instance software at the core of the treasury,
and "loans" data objects (people) to companies who temporarily employ
citizens.

The IRS is a waste. It has tax courts without jurys against the
constitution; and an army of people who's job it is to treat all
americans as guilty until proven innocent. The whole thing is an
unconstitutional dodge, and can be, with modern technology, massively
reworked to better serve the american people.

A lotta tax attournies, courts, IRS sponges and CPA's have a lot to
be concerned about if the tax code was simplified without them in it.
Before computers, their system was cute... now it is a total waste
of resources. "Eminent Domain" are 2 words that firms like oracle
might be hearing in the coming years as we put coherent computer
systems in where once adding machines and people did the job.

Fact: there is no reason that a tax system should require any manual
work by human people... none. The tax code can be turned in to
literally "code" and run in the massive wire transfer computers
that run VISA, SWIFT, FEDWIRE, CHIPS, CIRRUS, Mastercard. Every payment is simply tagged with its issuer and beneficiary, and a
tax charged as it moves from one account to another.

More data can be captured at the POS (cash register), and this can
be applied directly to tax, without paper, courts or compliance
problems.

The savings in efficiency from such a system would allow taxes to be
cut for all people. Ultimately, what makes it progressive or not,
is how the taxes are levied. Europe uses a value added tax (sales
tax) of 17.5% and yet manages to run very effective social democratic
policies. (food, drugs and books are not taxed).

I respect that "a consumption tax is regressive." There are, however,
ways for us to take any taxation technology and turn it to good...
even consumption taxation.

[AP]

43. That's the worst idea. It would push the tax burden on to people

who spend the greatest % of their income, and that ain't the rich.

Also, you have to tax wealth everywhere it changes hands -- everywhere it flows.

Think of water passing through several channels. If you put up greater resistance in any one channel, the consequence is that more flows through other channels.

You'll find that you only tax wealth on people who have no choice but to take wealth in that one channel, while people who have choices about how their wealth changes hands won't get taxed.

Every channel of wealth should be taxed in a way that promotes the greates social wealth. That's why we should tax earned income lower than inherited wealth, and we should tax dividends and cap gains somewhere in between.

[SharonAnn]

105. No, that's a regressive tax structure. The poor and lower middle-class

would pay taxes because they have to spend everything they get just to survive.

Incomes above those levels could do "fancy-dancy" sheltering of income and get things without "purchasing" them. Like business "expense acounts".

This is the latest right-wing Republican meme about making the tax code "fairer".

When the rich and the right-wing want to change the tax structure, "Watch out below!"

[JanMichael]

116. Why on earth do you keep pushing Regressive Taxation?

Wasn't the last thread on this enough?

[sweetheart]

126. Nobody heard my point

Tax collection methods are a technology, and in themselves
neither progressive or regressive.

There are ways to use consumption taxes to be progressive, so i'm
not pushing something regressive, just you hear what you want to,
and presume i'm suggesting what bush suggests.

I could implement a consumption tax so that it did not penalize the
elderly, or the poor, and by eliminating the IRS, i could cut the
net burden of government overhead on the citizen by serious amounts.
This would spur economic growth, as the money and effort tied up in
to filling out a gazillion silly forms, is better spent doing real
work.

Better yet, i could take a republican idea, and twist the tax rates
in the computer to provide a more socially balanced and progressive
system than today's obscure corporate-graft tax code.

Something about being a liberal must mean that i've given up all
hopes of a less burdensome government, which uses modern technology
and methods to achieve better value for the citizen. As the pukes
are now the party of big government, move over and welcome small
government democrats in to the tent.

I should hope you can rub more than 2 words together to explain why
under all circumstances, a taxation technology is regressive.

Hell, if the republicans wanted to launch this tax, the best name
for it would be "the progressive sales tax" PST. Then all the folks
who knee jerk that all consumption taxation is all regressive would
be flatfooted.

I believe in fair taxation, really. It burns me to be taxed to pay
for military buildups, petroleum wars, road gas and automobile
subsidies. These things should be paid for by those who use them,
and not at all by those who don't. It is not remotely fair, the
regressive taxation system of today with city, state and federal
tax forms demanded with millions of obscure boxes and tables.

I am wholly open to being wrong. Rather JanMichel, i am being
honest. I don't see how a technology itself is regressive. I
think you're wrong about that, and are just kneejerking about
the word "consumption tax".

Your point is, to me, as ludicrous as declaring airplanes regressive,
because they were used to bomb iraq.

[JanMichael]

152. It's a mix, there have always been mixes of taxation.

I'm not quite certain how you've given up on "Income" taxation or even "Wealth" taxation and ended up with Sales/Consumption taxes for all.

But this comment may explain it, I'm not sure where you picked this one up either but here it is:

"Tax collection methods are a technology, and in themselves neither progressive or regressive."

What? As if they're not related?

Try this for a better description of the effects of taxation.

And this is pure conjecture:

"Better yet, i could take a republican idea, and twist the tax rates in the computer to provide a more socially balanced and progressive
system than today's obscure corporate-graft tax code."

The magic computer? It's nice that you think you can pay for all of the roads, sewers, schools, colleges, libraries, housing programs, human services like homeless shelters, emergency units, utilities, parks, sidewalks, dams, bridges, hospitals, etcetera (Really, the list could go on till the cows come home, oh yeah, food safety...) but the general consensus is that you can't and even if you could it wouldn't be equitable.

"I believe in fair taxation, really. It burns me to be taxed to pay
for military buildups, petroleum wars, road gas and automobile
subsidies. These things should be paid for by those who use them,
and not at all by those who don't. It is not remotely fair, the
regressive taxation system of today with city, state and federal
tax forms demanded with millions of obscure boxes and tables."

Paid for by those who use them? What does that imply when it comes to groups of armed men? Mercenaries roaming the streets? I don't want people using those period, even if they can pay for them!

BUT:

I agree that there needs to be a radical departure from the current system, but I don't want a 50 year "Golden Age" for Robber Barons to solve it.

It's a complex issue, I agree, but if you want to crash the system in order for the solution to appear, fine, I don't, not yet.

[ContinentalOp]

155. I think you're confusing the terminology here.

"Tax collection methods are a technology, and in themselves
neither progressive or regressive."

The terms progressive and regressive aren't a value judgement. They simply describe who pays a lower percentage of their total income in taxes: the people on the high end or the people on the low end. A consumption tax is BY DEFINITION always a regressive tax. There is no way you could come up with some type of consumption tax scheme that would end up with rich people paying taxes on a greater percentage of their income than the poor because rich people will always spend a lower percentage of their income and put more of their money into savings.

Rather than talking about vague "technologies" perhaps you could outline exactly how you would implement a "progressive" consumption tax. So you exempt food, housing, medical care, etc. The poor are STILL going to spend a greater percentage of their income on clothing, energy, transportation or entertainment while the rich can buy everything they want and still put a vast majority of their income into savings. So the poor guy spends 100% of his income, and 50% of it goes to tax exempt purchases. Therefore he's paying your 17% V.A.T. on the other 50% of his income. Let's say a billionaire only spends 50% of his total income, 20% of his purchases are exempt and so he's only paying the 17% VAT on 30% of his total income. It's inherently unfair. And I'd imagine those numbers are conservative. Most billionaires probably don't spend 50% of their yearly income.

[sweetheart]

169. You're right about terminology

I have not been clear, and have become entwined in terms that i
don't use day to day to describe tax.

I am for a simple "transaction tax", that is levied any time money
is paid from a business. This flat tax would be levied:
1. payroll (replacing income tax)
2. accounts payable (value added tax)
3. dividend payments
4. accounts receivable (sales tax)

In sort, it is a flat tax, that is completely implemented between
businesses and the IRS. Even the payroll tax, is deducted immediately and never a form need be filled out.

Such a tax, would hit the rich with dividends and it would hit
businesses with unavoidable, undodgeable tax liabilities. It would
massively cut the tax infrastructure, and make it cheaper for all
americans to deal with the tax authorities.

Such a tax would be less than 20%. A simple tax such as as this
would tax money moving around in the economy, and shift the burden
of the liabilities significantly towards businesses and away from the
poor. With food, charity payments, medicine, books exempted from
the tax, the poor's spending power in feding the family and keeping
health would increase.

You're right. I used terms wrong. I apologise.

I am surely wrong to call it a consumption tax, but certainly that
is part of it. When I myself have been working 2 jobs and living in
my car as a member of the working poor, it really burned me that
the IRS withheld and borrowed money from me i needed. This would
end in this tax idea. That extra money would also be increased by
not having any other taxes, so 20% is much lower than what it is
today.

[sweetheart]

179. Eminent Domain, Oracle, Peoplesoft and Mathematical Unity

Single instance is a mathematical and philosophical reference to data
which occupy a natural monopoly in society. Every person has a
unique identity for example, a name/birthplace/time that is unique
and global the world over throughout time.

This "name" or citizen ID, is managed today through massively obscure
record systems between government offices the world over. This
unique ID is accessed by YOU on a brand new web system installed
at the IRS. You can, on the web screen, using modern banking
password technology, make your ID public to certain parties, various
data objects that belong to the public, and it is public record
to administrate.

Basically, I'm suggesting that we replace every single general ledger
in the USA with a single database, that is completely private, and
held in trust by the Treasury. The treausry would adjust the SQL
of "debit" and "credit" to tune the tax system.

This database also replaces social security, incredibly complex, but
technologically modern and feasible with silicon graphics computers,
Sybase, IQ or warehouse. On a server farm, this could be tuned to
easily handle every single financial transaction in north america
in Real time.

Eminent domain. We are incapable of using computers in their true
value-add sense as long as we cannot get a solid reference data
store, that is publically kept private and policed. This public
data store would have public "methods" that allow its use, securely,
to the authorized choice of each citizen.

That the government is against the citizen, is cynical. Corporations
have no restrictions on how they use private data. Putting in under
government DBA trust, would be much wiser in the longer term of
the electronic economy, public certificates, to empower the citizen
in real-time lightweight taxation and finance load. All cheques
clear in real time. All payments clear in Real time.

Databases and computers are so large today, that we could throw away
every single business computer in america and replace it with one big
system. IBM, Oracle and Peoplesoft are against eminent domain,
as it clearly collapses their market. Then i propose we give them
a cheque and get on with it. Modern computing can completely
leapfrog existing business practices, providing better services,
and shifting resources to the front line in the economy away from
the speculation bubble towards diversity and complexity, empowered
local economics, based on a solid federal tax system.

In such a computer, a single web screen, could allow anyone to form
a business. It is not blue sky at all. This sort of systems power
is common, ask IBM, SUN or someone like that. Likely we'd converge
on IBM's long term vision of 100 data centers running the planet.

[UdoKier]

143. Why do you hate the poor?

Why do you want to kill our economy?

Consumption taxes have been proven time and again to be economy killing regressive taxes.

Any person who supports them may as well be a republican because such taxes are a billionaire's wet dream and a nightmare for the working poor.

[sweetheart]

149. why do you presume?

VAT is a consumption tax working fine in the worlds largest economy.
(EU). It is 17.5% on all items, not food, drugs or books.
Western europe has nothing of the poverty in the USA today. What
has stripped the economy is a taxation regimen far more insideous
than a bloody sales tax.

In these tiny boxes, a complete tax strategy is a bit hard to map,
but indeed, i do believe a major overhaul is due on the supply side,
so that all companies and people have access to a simple, clean
and effective taxation system.

What is in use today, predates computers, and whilst we've
done some automation of the forms, we've not fundamentally
reconsidered the taxation financial architecture since the advent
of computers. I don't presume to suggest you hate all americans
by supporting the IRS and taking money away from valuable social
programs. I don't presume to suggest you hate the constitution
by supporting a tax court regime that violates the 6th amendment.
You shouldn't presume i hate poor people by seeking a massive
overhaul of a grossly inefficient tax code.

Consider that between now and november, "n" swing voters who have
some tax sympathy with small "c" conservatives. It does you no harm
to engage different taxation technologies and manipulating them
to serve western liberalism and the poor. It might even attract
some voters who are offput by such rejectionism of much needed reform.
Remember, the rich are just as likely to vote democrat
as republican.

[UdoKier]

153. I was exaggerating, but still...

"Western europe has nothing of the poverty in the USA today. What
has stripped the economy is a taxation regimen far more insideous
than a bloody sales tax."

There is a whole intricate social safety net in most European countries that does not exist here.

And you can suggest that I hate the cconstitution if you like. I will always defend the interests of poor human beings over a piece of paper. And I do hate the parts of the constitution that were flawed from its conception. Prohibition was a horrible amendment - and the constitution fails to even protect individuals from being forced by employers to have their bodily fluids tested. It is hardly a perfect document.

Also, you claim that a VAT would serve the poor. How? If we switched to such a system, the poor would undoubtedly lose their EIC credits.

"by supporting the IRS and taking money away from valuable social
programs."

This statement makes no sense. The IRS collects the revenue to fund those programs, it doesn't take money away from them.

Any tax scheme that taxes all people equally when we have such a gaping disparity between the rich and poor is fundamentally wrong, IMO, and I will never support it.

You also failed to mention that the rich-poor gap in Europe is substantially less than it is here. The progressive tax scheme was an effort to address some of that excess that peaked before the Great Depression - a gap that has widened alarmingly in the last 25 years.

I guess rather than "why do you hate the poor?" a better question would be: "do you think the poor are too rich and the rich are too poor at present? Do you support a family of 4 on less than $30K? I do, and I fail to see how your scheme would help me. I live in SF, one of the most expensive cities, and thus am living at a subsistence level, but I'm too "rich" for almost any kind of government assistance. And there are TONS off people in the same boat.

I'd rather stick with the plan we have now, and lower the combined FICA tax rate to 9%, while making ALL wages subject to FICA, not just wages under $80K. It would be a big boost to hiring and wages.

[sweetheart]

170. Hamsters on the treadmill

Raising a family of 4 on less than 30K is more heroic than fighting
in war, and is worthy of the silver star. Yes, income inequality is
core to the new stratification of america and the creation of a
new permanent underclass is hardly in keeping with the egaletarian
views of America's framers.

The tax credit for children should actually represent the real cost
of raising a child, which surely is above 7000 per year. That the
income tax credit is so low, it penalizes people with kids, when
they are in economic terms, the core consumption engine of the
economy.

Kids remind me of a refinement to a new tax system, that all people
should get a state payment of the cost of the yearly annual kid
rasing. You're right it is an issue, and we need more parents to
be not-stressed economically, that they have the time to love and
nurture their children.

To answer your question: Both the rich and the poor are too poor,
living in a genetically engineered culture of materialism, where
material survival is the core issue of most poeple's lives. By
weighting alternatives, perhaps we can improve things by stimulating
innovation and goodwill... a willingness to be wrong.

I am wrong. An income tax is necessary, to correct inequality.

[Selwynn]

8. whatever it takes

[RivetJoint]

10. for what?

[Selwynn]

12. justice.

[RivetJoint]

23. and that is?

[Selwynn]

61. self-explanatory.

jus·tice Pronunciation Key (jsts)
n.

1. The quality of being just; fairness.
II.
1. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
2. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
III.
1. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
2. Law. The administration and procedure of law.
4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.
5. Abbr. J. Law.
1. A judge.
2. A justice of the peace.

[JanMichael]

117. That it is.

[Monte Carlo]

9. You'd have to have a lot more info.

There's no morally correct tax rate. It would depend upon how much revenue was needed to cover costs and how high you can go before it becomes harmful.

[Drifter]

15. Flat tax ... no exceptions

We must tax the rich more because the ultra-rich have methods of paying no tax. Get rid of all of the loopholes, and institute a flat rate tax.

No exceptions.

Cheer
Drifter

[SoCalDem]

18. There will always be problems LOCATING the income

for a flat tax.. The richie rich folks are very good at hiding assets...and "bargaining with each other" with no cash changing hands.. I had a friend whose Dad was an orthodontist..she got the use of a brand new mustang for 3 years (for FREE) in exchange for braces for the Ford dealer's kid..

[AP]

46. You contradict yourself. A flat tax doesn't tax the rich more. It actually

taxes them less if you consider relative burdens.

If you have a 20k per year job, to make another 20k you'd have to work a second 40 hr/wk job for a full year.

If you had a mil in the bank, to make another 20k you wouldn't lift a finger. You could invest your money in 10 diff't 100,000 FDIC insured savings account and make 2% interest. No labor. No effort. No risk.

You want to tax those two people the same amount on that income? That's totally unfair for the person who had to work all that time. You're taking, say, 30% of the hours that person worked and telling that person they weren't working for themsleves, they were working for the government. But that millionaire has so little value for the 30% you're taking from him or her. You're asking the poor person to work so much harder to pay their taxes than the rich person.

That's why we don't have a flat tax. That's what progressive taxation is all about. It's about trying to spread the burden fairly so that nobody has to work much much harder to make their contribution to the government.

[Yupster]

139. The uber rich don't make much

income. They just have lots of wealth.

[neverborn]

16. NO income tax

National Sales Tax.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-272.html

[ContinentalOp]

24. Sigh...

See post 21. And the Cato institute? Please :eyes:

[neverborn]

25. Yeah, the CATO Institute.

An awesome think tank advocating "Individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace."

[JohnKleeb]

32. you realize that they are libertarians right?

[neverborn]

35. Yes. I do.

[JohnKleeb]

50. gotcha

I disagree with you on income tax that said.

[leftyandproud]

146. I'm afraid you don't belong here..

You certainly aren't on the left if you don't believe in progressive taxation.

Even the free market God Adam Smith thought it was a good idea to a certain extent...and later a genius named Karl Marx explained the need for it in detail.

You should do some reading.

[MAlibdem]

97. you cite CATO on DU?

Are you insane?

A National Sales Tax would be horribly regressive. Those who spend the most amount of their income on goods and services, the poor, would be taxed at a vastly higher rate than those who are able to save and invest their income, the rich. Most economists, including most conservative ones, agree that a graduated income tax has a necessary redistributive effect on keeping down the concentration of wealth.

[neverborn]

104. And you save money to do what....?

[MUSTANG_2004]

168. CATO Rocks! Read the plan

It includes a rebate to offset the regressive nature of the tax.

Besides, CATO is not incompatible with being liberal. Most people don't march in lock-step with any single organization (for instance, I don't agree with everything CATO or the ACLU says, but I like and support them both). I think it's best to judge an idea on its merits, and not whether you fully support the organization that is behind it.

[LuminousX]

19. No person should ever pay more than 33% on wages, 40% on all income

Taxation should start $10,000 above poverty at around 2-3%.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Why not?

What is your reasoning that no person should pay more than 33-40%? Why should a person making $40,000 for working pay less than a person who does not work but receives millions from stock dividends or inheritance?

[LuminousX]

92. Simple

Simple, dividend money, etc. is rarely put back into the economy so by taxing it slighly heavier, you are giving the gov't what it would normally get if the dollar was spent.

Besides, we should always reward the earned dollar over the ROI dollar.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. "...promote the general Welfare.."

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

As to the question at hand, as a socialist, I believe that there should be a cap on material wealth and that it should not be allowed to be passed on to the children who have done nothing to earn it.

But, seeing how this government is a slave to money, I don't see anything happening to remedy the situation until it falls.

[neverborn]

28. General Welfare does not mean Socialism.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Who says so?

It does to me.

[RivetJoint]

34. No to me

So now what?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. Well, we let history take it's course.

If we don't destroy ourselves in the process, hopefully, we will eventually realize that having a governing class of the wealthy and powerful doesn't work all that well.

[SoCalDem]

69. Feel free to "opt out" of your benefits

:evilgrin:

The "state" is made up of ALL citizens..

The people of a country should be able to ALL share in what that country has to offer.. Why should a few rich fat cats OWN the energy of OUR country.. Why should those same people OWN the infrastructures of the country that are necessary to ALL people??

If a person wants to start a company making some really cool gadget, that's great...but..

there are some things that should be for ALL people to avail themselves of...by virtue of being citizens..

in no particular order...

communication
healthcare
energy
shelter
food
water
roads & bridges
educaation

once those necessities are taken care of for the "family" of the nation, then whatever's left could go for the "war toys" that the guys love so much..

I would bet that if we took such a tack, the "evildoers" might be less angry at us.. why?? Because if we used our wealth and resources to see to the real needs of OUR people, we would not have so much money laying around tempting the ones with the checkbook..The national checkbook has been used for many an evil plan in thrid world countries, disguised as "help"..

Private ownership of PUBLIC necessities is wrong.

[neverborn]

39. So.

The guys who wrote the Constitution were against taxes. So you're telling me that the same people who wrote the damn thing fucked up and actually wanted a communist government?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. They were against taxation without representation.

Not against taxes that would serve the people as stated in the preamble.

Also, most of the guys who wrote the constitution were of the propertied class. They looked after their own interests. Most of the guys who fought the revolution weren't and made a helluva lot of trouble after the revolution. Shay's Rebellion and The Whiskey Rebellion were about unequal taxation and property. Hell, even the Civil War was about property (slaves).

Did they guys who wrote the constitution fuck up? Not for the most part, except for little problems like ensuring slave ownership by installing the senate and the electoral college.

[AP]

26. There's no reason you can't have a constatntly variable rate with no...

....brackets, or narrower brackets. Ie, you could give people a choice to use tables with brackets published in the book, or go to a website and get the specific rate for the exact dollar amount you're declaring.

Also, it's really impossible for someone here just to arbitrarily set rates. What you really need to know is what the actual range of incomes is in America and you need some measure of how easy it is to make another dollar when you have a certain amount of money.

For example, if you make 20,000 per year, how much do you have to work to increase that by 5,000? Well, if you'd have to take a second job and work 30 hrs more a week, you certianly shouldn't be taxed very much on your income. If you make 500,000k, it's very easy to make another 5K, so you should be taxed more on your income.

The final think you need to know is just how much $ the US needs to do all the things it has to do so that people can create wealth.

Finally, you reall need to tax different sources of income at different levels. We should tax earned income at the lowest rates (perhaps even for people making a lot of money), and inheritance at the highest rates, with dividdends and cap gains somewhere in the middle. Also, the tax code should be sensitive to the fact that some very wealthy people are able to determine how they realize wealth. If you're the janitor, you can't take your salary in dividend income if you wanted to. But if you're the CEO or the owner, you have a lot of control over how you take your income, so all the differenet income rates should probably converge at the highest income levels.

All these numbers would shift every year.

But it wouldn't be outrageous to have a tax code which did something like this:

0-50k in the 5-12% range
50-150k in the 12-18% range
150-500k in the 18-22% range
500-1.5m in the 22-27% range
1.5m-5m in the 27-29.5% range
5m-15m in the 29.5-32.5% range
15m-30m in the 32.5-36.5% range
30m-60m in the 36.5-40% range
60m-100m in the 40-42% range
etc, up through the actual range of incomes earned.

And from 0-15m, you'd probably want to have different rates for earned and unearned income, but beginning at 15m the rates would merge and then be the same above that.

[democratreformed]

42. Inheritance

Can you help me understand why inheritance should be taxed excessively? Seriously, my dad has worked very hard to store up quite a bit of money. He has paid taxes on it all along. Why, when he dies, should I have to pay taxes on it again? (This is theoretical, of course, b/c he will likely lose or waste it all on women before that happens - but suppose he didn't).

Now, if I am able to inherit any gains that he made on stocks or other investments, then I can understand having to pay taxes on that. But, why 50-something percent instead of the normal percentage rate for whatever income level it puts me at?

[AP]

51. Because it's not wealth from work for the recipient. If we didn't tax

inheritiance, we'd encourage a concentration of wealth and the consequent political power in the hands of people who did nothing to earn it, and they'd use that power to furhter guarantee that society was rigged to protect people who didn't work to concentrate power.

What moves society forward is the carrot and stick of wealth and work. If you work to earn wealth, you will get it. We have to have a society that encourages and rewards work.

That's why you have to tax inheritance more, relatively, than wealth from work. I'm not saying that it should be taxed at punitive levels. But it's an insult to people who work for a living to make them pay a bigger share than people who did nothing to get their wealth.

But what I really think is that inheritiance should be taxed at progressive rates tied to the income of the recipient. (Say, 5% higher than whatever earned income bracket you're in.) Why? Because this would encourage people to leave their money to the people who need it the most -- people with low incomes. Unfortunately, it might encoruage some people not to work in the year they think their parent is going to die, but who's really going to do that? (And not taxing them at all discourages them from ever working.)

I should also note that it's not so much people like you I worry about. It's people like George P. Bush marrying Hoby Gates and then building up these incredible, untaxed fortunes that let them weild a great deal of power over society.

If you don't get why this is a problem, look at feudal Europe. Rewarding wealth with wealth has destroyed economies. It's very possible that the inheritance tax in the US is an integregal part of how American become such a rewarding society for people who worked for a living, and a major reasong why there was an industrial revolution in America. Why work if you were a European king if you could create wealth just by marrying someone rich?

[democratreformed]

82. Thank you.

I do understand. And especially at the income and wealth levels of ppl. like GW Bush.

I have lived my whole life believing that hard work will get you somewhere and will bring material rewards. Sometimes, though, it is really really hard to keep believing that. Especially when you have ppl. who don't pay you for your efforts like we talked about before. And, another thing, I have, in the past few years, been subjected to witnessing ppl. acquire financial "comfort" simply b/c of who they are smart enough to fool into believing that certain body parts are worth alot (if you get my meaning).

Dealing with the death of a parent has changed my whole perception of a lot of things. But, I have to keep going and believing that my and my husband's hard work will pay off. Otherwise, I would just give up and become a hermit.

[leftyandproud]

162. You should have to pay because YOU CAN...

and because YOU didn't earn it...It's like winning the lottery. Unearned income deserves to be taxed at 60%

Stop complaining or vote GOP and at least be consistent. The democratic party stands against concentration of wealth, especially wealth that is passed down without being fairly taxed.

[democratreformed]

166. See my reply to the other post. I DO understand.

n/t

[sadiesworld]

How would we finance government on your numbers?!

1m--25%?!

[AP]

60. Reread my post. I don't think you understand it.

Firstly, I offer specific numbers only to offer the relationship between the rates on the scale. I have no idea what the actual rates would be because I don't know how much money needs to be raised and how much money is made by Americans at different income levels.

But I'll tell you this: the IRS has a graph that shows relative FEDERAL INCOME TAX BURDENS for individuals and corporations. The graph for individuals is broken into five quintiles (IIRC) and the burdens range from something like 10% for the bottom quintile, which ends at maybe 13K/year, and up to maybe 24% for the top quintile which begins at maybe 70k.

The graph for corporations is broken into 3 income segments (again, IIRC). 0-5 MILLION. 5-50 MILLION. 50 million-infinity.

The effective Federal INcome tax rates on corporations ranges from about 1.8% to 2.2% across all the quintiles (I don't know why they even bother to break it up into three sections, but at least they had the sense of shame not to break it into 5 the way they did with the personal rates).

In other words, corporations pay income tax at rates that are about 1/10th the effective rates individuals pay.

So, to answer your question, I think it's safe to say even without seeing the data that the US could make due with 25% rates on PERSONAL earned income if we merely raised, say, the effective corp tax rate on corp income over 50 million to a measly 3%. Wouldn't you say? Perhaps we could do this with the same sort of Alternative Minimum Income Tax thing that we only apply to individuals.

Don't you agree?

[sadiesworld]

74. Well, it is helpful to know that your figures were meant to take

an increase in corporate taxation into account. Or that you didn't mean to give actual figures in the first place.

[AP]

76. You would have known that if you read my post. I say that in paragrpaph 2.

Sadie, I'm noticing a pattern with you. You jump on my posts. I know why, and I just ask you to put it behind you.

[sadiesworld]

87. And just prior to the numbers you say "it wouldn't be outrageous..."

and in the next post you continue to justify them. No, this is not a big issue. But please don't treat ME like a dolt b/c YOUR figures are not clear.

As for who is JUMPING on posts, take a look at this thread (and then go to the other thread you are implicitly referring to and examine that one).

And what is it that you think you "know"? That I am bitter about the Clark vs. Edwards VP business perhaps? WRONG.

[AP]

100. And they aren't outrageous, are they?

I'm jumping on posts because of the subject matter in the post, and not because of a months old argument about the primaries.

[sadiesworld]

131. I've told you (more than once) than I am not motivated by leftover

anger from the primaries. However, I can see how that accusation might might serve as a convenient way to dismiss anything I have to say.

Thanks.

[AP]

132. I haven't dismissed anything you've said. I've directly responded to your

posts.

What I did do was (in addition to responding direclty to your misreading of my post, and even adding a note about corporate taxes) to note that you had a hair-trigger response to my post and clearly didn't read as far as paragraph two, which directly addressed your comment.

Now, why would you go straight to my numbers, and then post, essentially, "those numbers won't work!" when I've said that they're just for the sake of argument and that the point that I'm trying to make has more to do with constantly variable rates over a very wide income range.

You did this before. It's like you're nitpicking. You're ignoring my points and getting hysterical about something really small and then headlining that it your reply.

Remind me of the subject matter last time you felt the need to reply to something I said. What was that last one about?

The pattern suggest that you have a personally motivated and eager desire to disagree with me without being able to make really concrete arguments about what it is that are disagreeing with.

What is it about my argument that you don't like? Progressivity? Progressivity over a wide range? Lower rates for earned income, higher rates for unearned income?

If it's just the numbers, I said in my post that I don't know what the numbers would be. I don't know how I could have made that clearer.

[sadiesworld]

135. Mobility of labor and whether the EU is a workable model

for our current trade/outsourcing issues with China and India. These issues are very important to me and I will continue to participate on those threads (and IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU).

As for the current thread, I said previously it is NOT a big deal. Just thought the numbers seemed a bit off. If I misinterpreted :shrug: so be it.

[AP]

136. I think in both cases you were trying to squeeze my square peg

arguments into some round-hole version of what you thought I was saying just so that you could disagree.

In both cases I think all the refutations to your posts were already in my posts in both threads

In the EU one I was simply saying that you can't have free trade without having mobility of labor. I said if it's not possible, than you can't have free trade, because labor can't comepete with capital. I wasn't saying that it's simple to do, so let's have free trade with China.

[sadiesworld]

137. Whatever. It's all about you.

[AP]

160. It's about us.

I don't think you do this to anyone else. So it's clearly about me. And since you're the one doing it, it's about us.

[sadiesworld]

176. This is the last time I will (ever) respond to one of your posts.

I hope that resolves this issue.

[sangh0]

27. As much as is needed

I know, a little too complex for repukes

[dumpster_baby]

36. This should be the MAIN political issue in America (here are mine)

$10,000 -20,000 ==0%

$20,001-30-000 ==10%
30-35K == 13%

35-40K == 17%

40-45K == 20%

45-50K == 22%

50-55K == 24%

55-60K == 26%

60-65K == 30%

65-70K == 33%

70-75K == 36%

75-80K == 40%

80-90K == 43%

90-100K == 46%

...

and so forth, with a top tax rate of about 70% or more.

NO payroll tax and only the only other taxes should be on luxury items and wealth.

[RivetJoint]

44. WAY too confiscatory

40% max period. One should NEVER have to pay over half their earnings to the Government.

[dumpster_baby]

52. Sez You. I happen to disagree

I think someone makes a million should pay at least 65% in taxes. That would leave them with 350K. That should cover them.....

[RivetJoint]

62. Not up to you as to

"what should "cover" them."

[dumpster_baby]

71. but if more people agree with me than with you, we win

And it may surprise you that last year, about 30% of all tax returns (joint AND single) were $20K or less gross income , and about 50% were less than $35K.

So, if all of us agree with me and vote in our best interests, this tax brackets would look like I think they should.

[ContinentalOp]

157. You're missing a huge factor here.

"40% max period. One should NEVER have to pay over half their earnings to the Government."

Something that always gets lost in this discussions is that if we tax the top bracket at 50% that doesn't mean that anyone is paying 50% of their total income to the government! First of all, the way that brackets work means that for the person's first 10k earned they pay X%, the next chunk they pay another percentage, etc. They would only be paying 50% of that top chunk of their income that falls above the line. Plus you're forgetting all of the writeoffs and loopholes (which the rich are particularly good at exploiting). So for a hypothetical example you could tax the top bracket at 90% but a billionaire might still be paying only 40% of their total income in taxes after writeoffs and when you factor in the lower brackets.

[lukasahero]

75. By my calculations that would mean

that someone "earning" $76000/yr would bring home $4200 more than someone "earning" $56000/yr. Salary is often linked to responsibility and it would hardly be worth it for anyone to take a job that required $20,000 worth of more responsibility but only bring home $4,200 for it. :shrug:

ETA: I just think your brackets are a bit naive and too close to be meaningful. I also believe the top tax bracket should not be more than 50% and that singles making less than somewhere around $20,000 and families making less than at least $50,000 should pay no tax.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. "Those who have the Gold make the rules"

Capitalism ensures that those who have the money control the government. We have a democracy, but it is, in reality a democracy of the wealthy.

Don't believe it? If you should happen to be able to speak to either of the presidential candidates this year, would your voice carry as much weight as, say Donald Trump's or George Soros'? Is your elected rep more likely to listen to your concerns - or Boeing's?

[rinsd]

45. And this is different from being a party apparachik, how?

Who do you think has Fidel's ear, the man on the street or the influential party member?

There will always be haves and have nots in terms of power and influence.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Why?

Why should there be?

[JanMichael]

120. Because people are trained to have no imagination?

To think that God willed the inequality?

Beats me, I know that it'll change though, when I can't rightly say, but it will change.

I see Regressive Taxation pumped on this thread, I see people defending those who would enslave them if they could, it's amazing.

But it can't last forever.

[nyhuskyfan]

41. it's hard to say...

Like most economic principles, when you simplify the model to remove external factors, you make the theory impractical for real life. Changing external conditions require changing policies.

For all the grumbling from the right, the United States is actually 29th out of the top 30 industrialized nations in terms of tax burden on its citizens (although I am not sure how recently the data was compiled). The only one ranking lower was Japan -- which has taken a national oath of passivity and spends very little on its military. The other 28 on the list are also not currently trying to dominate the world militarily -- they use their tax money to guarantee health care to all its citizens, guarantee good education for its children, protect the environment, invest in its people and its long-term infrastrcutre, etc. Our statistics in those areas are ABYSMAL compared to the rest of the world.

I would personally like to see us close the gap with the rest of the world when it comes to those social issues -- and we have a long way to go. If we wish to continue to be the world's only superpower and spend more on national defesne than the rest of the world combined, it's very difficult to do those things without significant tax burden.

[Mountainman]

47. It seems to me that those who have little do not want anyone to have

more than they do.

A lot of the proposed tax rates here seem to try to equal out the income levels.

It also seems to me that there are a large number of DUers who hate anyone who is better off than they are.

Having wealth doesn't always mean a person is conservative or anti social programs. There is truth to the idea that wealth can be and is used to create jobs.

What I think we should be talking about is the need for everyone to have the basic necessities of life and an equal chance at improving their lot in life. What ever we decide the governments roll is in that we need to fund that roll in an equitable way. But to try to even out incomes by taxing the hell out of a wealthy person in detrimental to all of us. We could start on the right path by making interest on consumer debt tax deductible again. That would give lower incomes a deduction they can use. Also, if you earn less than it takes to live on, you should not have to give part of that income to a government. A lot of this is based on the cost of living in different areas.

[AP]

53. So true. And that's crazy. If you're rational, you want a society that....

...rewards (rather than punishes) people who work hard and amass wealth.

[nyhuskyfan]

55. However...

A progressive income tax offsets the fact that other taxes (payroll taxes, sales taxes, etc.) are regressive. if you take total tax burden in this country, not just income tax, it is almost a perfectly flat tax across the board. The numbers are pretty remarkable -- just about everyone pays within 1 or 2 percentage points of their income in taxes.

[AP]

78. I think it ranges from 15-22%, with the highest burden in the 4th quintile

And that's wrong. Flat taxes are bad.

[lastliberalintexas]

54. When the 16th was ratified, only the top 1%

were effectively subject to federal income taxation. While I don't think we would be able to fund our government with so few people being subject to the federal income tax these days, I do think a MUCH larger proportion of our population should pay no additional federal income taxes. I say additional, because we seem to forget that the vast majority of workers pay a flat 7.5% in payroll taxes right off the top. So in general, I'd say the first $80,000 or so should be subject to no additional federal income taxes, since that is about the level at which the payroll tax disappears. The wealthiest 5% can make up the difference, particularly with increased taxation rates for UNearned income.

And the poster above who said that earned income should be taxed at a much lower rate than unearned income is exactly right. We need to use the proper economic terminology on this, people. Interest, dividends, capital gains and the like are UNearned income, and should be treated much less favorably than wages and salaries.


For those of you who are advocating a national sales tax: WTH? The sales tax is the MOST intrusive form of taxation in a market economy, while the income tax is the least intrusive. Do you really want to see a stagnant economy? Because you only think that the economy is in the tank right now- implement a 15 to 20% national sales tax, and we could make the Great Depression look like the good old days.

Do you really want the rest of the nation to be like TEXAS? Or would you use Oregon as your model for our government? Texas has no income tax, while Oregon has no sales tax. Me, I'd much prefer Oregon.

[AP]

56. The other 99% might have been paying taxes in the form of excise taxes

and government fees.

I'd rather have a society funded on a system that is sensitive to how wealthy you are rather than by one that burdens you more as you spend a greater % of your income on taxable items.

[lastliberalintexas]

64. I agree

Personally, I would like to see our entire government, state and federal, funded by income taxes alone. PROGRESSIVE income taxation, based on the ability to pay, which was the foundation for the ratification of the 16th. But I would still like to see a system in which a significant percentage of Americans pay no or very, very little income or payroll taxes.

[AP]

70. I agree with you.

I actually think everyone should contribute even if it's a tiny bit, just so they feel like they have a stake and are contributing, but that's in a perfect society with no poverty.

I serioulsy believe that the earned income tax credit is very important in a society where people who work 40 hrs a week are impoverished. If you're working your ass off to make America successful and you're hurting, you should get a little back (but it should come from a tax pot that doesnt' over burden the middle class, which is the problem today).

[Commendatori]

77. I take the opposite stance - I think everyone should pay taxes, regardless

of income level. If they work or own property, they should pay some sort of tax because they're still protected and served by government services and programs such as police, traffic lights, libraries, FDA, etc. I see no excuse for even those making $10K, for instance, not paying at least a hundred bucks over the course of a year - that's one percent, surely a small price to pay for the services they get.

I direct this statement not at you or anyone in particular: I don't believe in giving some a free ride just because others can afford it. I do believe the rich should pay more than they do now, but never more than 49.9%, and the poor still should have to pay something, even if it's nominal.

And yes, I know they pay FICA.

[AP]

79. Property tax is good because it discourages hording and not using land.

Property tax shouldn't be oppressive, but it should encourage people to use their land.

[lastliberalintexas]

80. Currently they pay *at least* 7.5%

The RW likes to argue that the poor of this country don't pay "taxes" because the federal income tax usually works out to a zero rate for those making less than about $18,000 or so. Their argument wholly ignores the various taxes paid by employees with money that the employee never even gets to see. It also ignores the various sales taxes across the US, the excise taxes, property taxes (paid either directly or through the landlord to the gov't), etc.

I do understand why you and AP would believe that everyone should pay something, and if we've eliminated payroll taxes then your 1% bracket would perhaps work. But the poor in this country pay so much more than their fair share right now, that I think maybe they are due a few years tax free.

[AP]

83. Just to be clear, I really strongly believe in the EIC which is a -10%....

...rate, approximately (ie, it's lower than a 0% rate).

I believe in it because we have an economy that isn't working and pushes working people into poverty.

I also believe that we could have a functioning economy with no poverty and that could be achieved with a much more fair tax code. And by fair, I mean two things: (1) progressive everywhere -- no flat rates on estates or cap gains or dividends, as we have now, and (2) one that treates different kinds of income differently -- ie, lowest rates on income from work.

I think if we had a tax code like that, we wouldn't need a 0 rate (or the 0 rate would entirely be determined by the fact that it wouldn't be worth processing/filling out returns up to a certain level -- ie, the cost to individuals and the goverment of processing the return would be greater than the tax paid.

[lastliberalintexas]

84. Sorry, I was just being simplistic

when I used the zero rate language. But then, the RWers would love to eliminate the EIC anyway, so that the lowest possible would be zero.


And btw AP- your guy gave an excellent speech at the convention.

[AP]

96. He, party of the reason I like that guy is because his chat on the tax...

...code is so smart.

[Commendatori]

90. You'd never completely avoid poverty

Two reasons: some people don't mind it, and the government is always going to declare the certain bottom x-percent as "poor," because otherwise neither party would have anyone to make promises to. Repugs have some fucked ideas, but when they complain about welfare checks going to people who have cars, Internet access, cell phones and microwaves, all because they fit the definition of "poor," I find myself not nearly economically left wing to argue against it effectively (and not overly motivated to, as my most of leftist leanings are in social matters, not economic ones).

I support limited welfare, but I want it CALLED welfare, not some "earned" "credit."

I support the idea of really, really low taxes for the poor, but not paying no tax AND getting a check. The IRS should not be paying anyone to live here, whether they pay other taxes or not. Just my opinion, and I expect that many here won't agree with it.

[AP]

95. I agree. I just hope that we can for people who work 40 hrs a week.

I like the term EIC more than "welfare" by the way.

But I really think a strong safety net (and not just in the tax code) is really important for a society trying to crate lots of wealth. It encourages peole to take chances that reap higher rewards. That's why they have (literal) safety nets in the first place.

By the way, the IRS isn't paying anyone to live here. It's giving a credit to people who file an income tax return who meet certain requirements. (And I'm almost positive that you're not entiteld to it if you take the 80k credit against foreign earned income, which would be the one situation where people who don't live in the US would be filling out a 1040).

[Commendatori]

99. Well if

someone gets back 100% of taxes witheld plus additional cash, I don't call that a "credit" which is "earned." That's just me. My preferred term "IRS paying people to live here" might be too harsh, but I personally detest the term EIC, EITC or whatever else it is called.

I think we're pretty close overall, though, so the names we assign to this one thing are hardly relevant. :)

[Commendatori]

89. Of course, but so am I...

...when I say 49.9% for the rich, for example, I'm not exempting them from property / excise / sales taxes, either.

Also, if I were to sign on to your last idea, which would not be out of the question, I'd be more inclined to support refunds to specific parties rather than a blanket few years for a certain income level. However, those refunds could not match or exceed total taxes paid. I still believe no one should go tax-free, even if they only pay 1%.

[AP]

81. I don't think you could say that rates over 50% would NEVER be appropriate

There could come a time when it became VERY easy to make another 100 million if you already have 100 million.

What the tax code should reflect is the relative ease of making a dollar when you have a certain number of dollars. And there might come a time when it's easy to make more money if you have a lot of money, and the government might want to tax those very high levels of inc on the very few people who earn them in order to create infrastructure that gives more people the opportunity to make that kind of money (and so that you don't end up having a society that allows those few people to get a huge headstart on everyone else and then consolidate their wealth in really unproductive ways -- think, perhaps, Bill Gates). But I think it would be an extraodinary moment in economic history when that would be the case.

For comparison's sake, in the 50s the economy grew faster than at any other time, and there were high rates on very high levels of income. The rockefellers still managed to get very rich, and we were also able to build up a great infrastructure to help many other people get rich too. That was good.

[Commendatori]

86. This is just a difference of opinion, but

I could say that 49.9% of 200 million should be enough of a contribution from one person. I do understand what you're saying, I simply think that it's completely wrong for a the federal government to take half or more based on any idea, much less the idea that so-and-so has x-amount and can make money easier.

If I made $200 million and the government wanted $140 million, I'd live on the $60 million and stop working out of sheer spite. The other option: the government could get $99 million from me for several years in a row.

Again, this is just me and just my opinion. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, I simply don't share it.

[AP]

98. Say that the highest income anyone earns in year X is

300 million, and the rate on that income is 50%. Only three people earn that much. Say the government makes some particular investment in society which the next year ONE guy (one of those 300 mill earners) is able to take advantage of it and is able to turn it into 1 billion in income in year x+1. Say, part of the reason he was able to do that was because the government made sure that there lots of educated people who worked at his business, and lots of wealthy middle class consumers of his product.

I could understand why, in year x+1 the government might be entiled to, say, 59% tax rate on his income from 900mil and 1 bill. And, in fact, this guy should be pleased as punch that the government had given him the infrastructure to do this, because without it, maybe he would have only been able to make 800 mill that year.

People don't realize that often the only way they'd be making huge amounts of money is because the government does a lot of stuff that paves the way for them. I'd rather pay higher rates on higher income than lower rates on less income.

How many people made more money under Clinton's higher tax rates than they're making under Bush's lower rates?

[Commendatori]

107. Fair logic, but my problem with it is

"the government might be entiled to..."

The government is entitled only to what it needs to function, and shouldn't be sitting there licking its chops saying "well, since he cashed in, shouldn't we raise the rate on this guy and get more?"

As for "People don't realize that often the only way they'd be making huge amounts of money is because the government does a lot of stuff that paves the way for them. I'd rather pay higher rates on higher income than lower rates on less income," I do realize that, but I am absolutely against the government taking more than half of what someone earns, no exceptions. Take a look at some of the suggestions we have so far in this thread and you'll see that lower rates on less income are better than higher rates on more. The person who posted immediately below my first (chronologically) post in this thread would allow someone making $500K to keep significantly less than someone making $90K.

There is no circumstance you could name that would get me to agree to the federal government taking more than half of what an individual makes, no matter how much he makes or what could be done with the money. I simply can't subscribe to it. I don't say that you're wrong, and in fact I think your logic is reasonable, it just can't change my mind.

Mind you, I don't think the rich pay enough right now - but if Kerry suggested a rate of 51% on the rich, I would vote third party. My absolute limit is 49.9%, and I cannot begin to imagine a circumstance that could make me budge from that. I do admit, however, that you had a hell of a good attempt there :)

[AP]

111. I think I explain it better below. Bill Gates is better off paying higher

rates on higher income if he's confident that the gov't is spending the money in a way that ensures that he can reach those higher brackets (and he could be if Dems like me were spending his money on building up infrastructure, educationg people, and making sure there was a huge weaalthy middle class).

In a lot of ways, this is what's going on today. Bush chopped the top tax rates, and now we see that lots of people are falling out of those top rates (and their children will never make it into those top rates) thanks to the government services we're losing, and the people who are getting richer are people who are both doing things that hurt the economy, and who will ensure that there will be less opportunity for creating wealth for others.

It's better to have higher rates on higher levels of income when the tax revenue is being spent in a way that ensures people can move up into those higher brackets.

Now, I'm not saying that those high rates are justified today (I'd really need to see the data, know what I mean?). But I am saying that you can never say never.

So once again, I say to you only a fool would want lower rates on income if those lower rates meant that they'd have lower income. If you told me that I could make another 100million but only if I agreed to be taxed 66% on that additional 100 mil, I'd be a fool to say no on the grounds that I refuse to pay 66 million to earn 100 million. 33 million is a lot more than 0.

[Yupster]

142. I tend to agree Oyster

with the idea that if you're a working citizen, you should contribute something in taxes, even if it's just a token payment. I think it a bad thing if too many people think that taxes are for other people to pay, not them.

[RichardRay]

58. I don't know, what are people getting for it?

If I'm getting guaranteed complete health care coverage, solid security after retirement, education as required to keep up with the marketplace, dependable national infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.), effective environmental safeguards, a place to crash if things go totally south and the government stays out of my personal life then I'd support VERY high tax rates for everybody including the bottom brackets presented.

If I have to take home enough money to manage a lot of those things myself then it changes. Income received in exchange for work should be tax exempt when spent on things like health care, education, food and shelter. Only after those things are paid for should there be a graduated tax rate.

Income created by actually making or building something personally should also be taxed very lightly; income from arbitrage should be taxed more heavily.

So I don't think it's just about brackets....

Richard Ray - Jacksn Hole, WY

[lastliberalintexas]

67. Very good point

Even 0.000000000001% is too much if it means that my tax dollars go towards the invasion of Iran and Syria. But 50% is still great if I get Euro style benefits in exchange.

[quaker bill]

59. Here is a shot at it

For the first 20,000 - no income tax, social security only.

for the next 60K, average 10 percent on a sliding scale + social security

for the next 120K average 25 percent on a sliding scale + social security (no cap).

for the next 300K average 45 percent on a sliding scale + social security (no cap)

All income beyond the first 500K 65 percent flat rate + social security (no cap)

This would partially restore tax rates to post WWII levels where the highest tax bracket paid a 90 percent rate.

I would eliminate almost all loopholes and apply the rate to investment income as well. I would leave in a provision that would allow investments that directly purchased plants and equipment in the US to employ Americans as an income deduction and to put people on a more even footing with business, allow first home mortgages (principal and interest) or rent paid for housing as an income deduction.

[AP]

66. Why stop at 500K? Don't people agree that a doctor or lawyer who makes

500k per year is working much harder for the next 500k in income than a CEO who negotiates stock options which make him millions even though he's driving his company into the ground?

Why would you tax the income from the doctor, lawyer, director, book author's hard labor at the same rate as unearned income from the sale of stock that might be worth a lot of money even thought the CEO is not working hard and is ruining his or her company?

You have to tax different kinds of income at different rates, and if you did this, we probably wouldn't even need to tax ANY income at rates as ridiculously high as 65%.

[Mr.Green93]

65. 90% everything over 40k and a 5% net wealth tax

[RivetJoint]

68. LMAO

[AP]

73. People here seem to hate everyone who makes more money than they do

Don't you see that if you want society to work, you have to reward work with wealth.

Why would anyone want to become a doctor (to treat your cancer) or a lawyer (to protect your rights) or devote a year to write a beautiful book if there was no reward?

[sangh0]

88. How did you detect hatred for ALL rich people?

I didn't see a word about how the poster FEELS about the rich. I just read an opinion about tax rates.

[AP]

101. They want punitive tax rates at income levels that I presume are higher

than their own.

[sangh0]

124. Thanks for the response

.

[dumpster_baby]

91. I do hate rich people, at least as a group

THey have manipulated and exploited us, lo, these many decades.

I do not find anything wrong with hate, in general. It all depends on which the hate is justified.

[AP]

102. I hardly think someone making 40k is rich. And if you're looking for the

rich people who are ruining your life, they're not the ones who are getting 90% or more of their income from working for a living, almost regardless of their income.

[dumpster_baby]

110. when did I say 40K was rich!? I would be rich, if so!

rich == at 200K over a period of years.

Now, I would assume that your made the above post based on my proposed tax rates, and that you would say that I categorize 40K as rich based on my tax brackets. However, I based mine on the tax rates paid in NW Europe. yes, those are about the same rates as paid in Germany, Denmark, etc.

And that, BTW, is the little bit of reality that conservatives/rich people/wannabe rich people always seem to conveniently forget: there is an entire little universe available for a reality check: EUROPE.

Those rates are very much in line with what europeans pay.

[AP]

112. Only in society were 99.999% of people made less than 40K would

that tax rate make sense.

[Kellanved]

129. well

I'm only familiar with the basic German tax system. That one puts "rich", i.e. the highest taxation at €52k and above. €104k for registered couples (at the moment not for gay couples, but that legislation is underway).

One has to factor in that one making €41k+ is not required to join the public health system etc. .

There are studies and statistics putting the actual average level of direct, indirect and hidden taxation at being lower than in the US.

[cosmicvortex20]

134. Pretty common view... but,

believe it or not, some people actually get rich via just plain smart hard work...

Most of this talk I hear here sounds like it stems from jealousy - after all, (usual internal thought process inserted here) Im a good person and Im not rich, therefore someone that is rich must not be a good person.

Nice logic - they MUST have done something wrong to get all that money right?

[dumpster_baby]

151. don't care if they are the most virtuous, hardworking people in the world

All I know is that rich people have for decades, centuries, used their power over those who are poorer than them to gain advantage. They are the lion to our lamb. They are the predators in our society. They are the alpha male lion that drives out the lesser lions and kills the pups from all other lions. Rich people and corporations use their power to DISempower the little guy, and I HATE them for it. I really don't care if they work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and if they are vegetarian saints.

Accumulated power almost ALWAYS disempowers whomever it can. Wealth in human society is almost always RELATIVE. Rich people can only be rich if someone else has less. Wealth is relative, to a great degree.

[MUSTANG_2004]

167. Rich people != Evil

I'm not sure where you're coming from, but I've worked for two companies where the founders were (or soon became) rich. In both cases, your description is inaccurate, as I found them to be very generous to their employees and in the community.

One in particular was *extremely* generous to the employees. Far from "disempowering" people, his annual bonuses and stock options gave many of the rank and file enough money to buy their homes. As anyone who has been burdened with a monthly mortgage payment knows, making it possible for people to own their home free and clear is about the most empowering thing someone can do for a person.

[cosmicvortex20]

181. nice, straw men are always useful

I see you didnt address WHY you believe such nonsense.... its obvious to 99% of the population that being rich doesnt HAVE to make one evil except for you... you cant tell the difference between economic accumulated wealth and political power.

Theres no discussion with such dogmatic thinking, so good day. Take your anti-free trade ferver to someone else that feels like talking to a wall.

[mr_du04]

182. would that include rich democrats as well?

Like John Kerry and Bill Clinton? Who have they exploited? How have they disempowered the little guy last time I checked they were the ones fighting for the little guy. I agree that a lot of rich people do fit that mold like chimpy and the gang but, to say that all rich people are like that is a bit narrow minded.

[Yupster]

145. It depends

I have no probem at all with Jason Kidd making $ 16 million per year. He earns every bit of it, and I don't think he steals it from anyone.

[JanMichael]

118. No reward in helping solve problems? It's like saying that a Actress...

...who is denied $25,000,000 for flashing her tits and sucking someones tongue would rather collect garbage if it paid the same?

Wait, she probably would, good for her parents.

[AP]

123. Who makes that much for doing that? And actors who make millions

for themselves, are making millions more for theaters, film distributors, and a whole host of other people who get paid by consumers who make conscious choices about how they want to be entertained.

I have no problem with actors and actresses getting paid a lot of money to do their jobs dilligently and effectively.

[JanMichael]

125. Am I the only one that knows what Google is?

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/03/1038712928635.html?oneclick=true

:-)

[AP]

128. Care to summarize?

That site requires registration.

[Commendatori]

72. Never more than 49.9%, even for Bill Gates

If I'm ever well off enough that the government takes half of what I earn, I stop working and it gets shit from that point on.

These "no one should be allowed to keep more than $Xthousand" posts are, to me, insane. I don't believe ANYONE should go tax free, unless they can prove that they've never been protected or served by any government program or service (down to libraries and traffic lights), so I spit at programs like the EITC. "Earned," my ass. Someone actually getting back more from the IRS than they had witheld is something I would never permit, and would never call a "earned" "credit." Let's just be reasonable and call it what it is - welfare. I have few problems with welfare until it's hidden with a bullshit title.

However, as uch as I believe everyone should pay some sort of tax (well, everyone who works or owns land), no matter how much one makes, the feds taking half or more is just fucked.

Then again, I think the income tax is fucked to begin with. Wealth and / or consumption should be taxed, not income.

[AP]

103. If I were Bill Gates and I knew that paying 75% on my next 100 mil in...

....income would mean that I could make another 100 mil income that I wouldn't otherwise make (because that money would be used to build an infrastructure and a wealthy middle class to buy my products), I'd definitely be happy about paying that income tax.

He has 0 more dollars at 50%, and 25 million more at 75%. Easy choice.

[leftyandproud]

163. Are you sure you are a dem?

No offense, but you sound like one of those Libertarian FREAKS

[LanternWaste]

85. My (non-taxed) 2 cents

$10,000 -20,000 0%
$20,001-30-000 3%
$30,001 - 40,000 7.5%
$40,001 - 99,999 13%
$100,000 - 250,000 28.3%
$250,001 - 500,000 52%
$500,000 + 88%

[antiwarprofiteer]

106. re: my (non-taxed) 2 cents

$10,000 -20,000 0%
$20,001-30-000 3%
$30,001 - 40,000 7.5%
$40,001 - 99,999 13%
$100,000 - 250,000 28.3%
$250,001 - 500,000 52%
$500,000 + 88%

Did you do the math on that? Under that system, after taxes, somebody making $99,000 would wind up with about $26,000 more than somebody making $500,000. Also, 28.3% for somebody making $250,000 would be gigantic tax cut.

[LanternWaste]

109. Simply averaged some numbers...

Simply took the medians of the listed brackets of two periods- just prior to and just after a sustained and serious economic expansion of five different cultures in history and averaged them to the above numbers :)

No doubt it's filled with flaws-- much like all the other opinions here. If it lacked mistakes, then I'd probably be working in the field of economics! :think:

[Liberty2001]

108. Holy Shmokes!!!

I find it hard to believe that people are advocating taking such whopping percentages of income. I mean really ... 88% over $500k!!!!!

You will only encourage (1) capital flight, (2) increased black markets, (3) bartering (which is near impossible to capture), (4) unproductive use of capital ... I could go on.

Really, let's say your overtime pay was taxed at a staggering 90% ... how would YOU like it? ... would you want to work overtime? ... be honest. That extra hour of work ... instead of making $22.5 ($30 w/ 25% tax rate for arguments sake) ... you make $3 ($30 w/ 90% tax rate.)

Some concentrations and accumulations of wealth aren't all bad ... Rich people can afford to build factories, businesses, create jobs ... poor people generally can't.

Hey, and don't forget to kill any incentive for foreigners to come here and invest their wealth either.

Sheesh, c'mon people.

[LanternWaste]

113. See my other reply...

See my other reply...

Additionally, I'm not saying accumulation of wealth is an absolute bad, I think you're simply inferring that. On the other hand, I don't think that accumulation of wealth is an absolute good, either.

[UdoKier]

147. Yes, that is a bit much but present rates are extremely low...

and the cuts in taxes on the wealthy over the last 25 years have largely been offset by hikes in more regressive state/local taxes and fees.

I would prefer that more of the overall tax burden be based on income and progressive than on other things.

The wealthy pay a big chunk of the INCOME taxes, but their share of the OVERALL tax burden is quite low.

[Dorian Gray]

114. I am sure that you are joking about the 88%

Right?

As pointed out, If I made 500,000$ a year, I would be paying $420,000 a year in taxes, leaving my net worth at $80,0000.

What's the incentive to work?

Wow! This is an interesting discussion, but we have to be realistic.

Right now, I live in NYC. I pay 8+% in state income taxes, plus 39% in federal. Which puts me at 47% of my income. I don't complain about it ever. But, to pay much more than that would really leave me with little to live on. I pay rent here, which is amazingly expensive for an unimpressive apartment. I eat food here, which is amazingly expensive, even when I buy a crate of Ramen Noodles to subsist on. I have a car, which I pay for gas. (I usually drive to New Jersey to fill up, as it is a lot less expensive.)

And my savings are really non-existant. And, I have a bunch of friends living the same lifestyle, despite salaries that are higher than the norm in other cities/regions.

[LanternWaste]

115. See post #109.

eom

[Liberty2001]

164. Actually ...

The way the progressive income tax works the amount a person making $500,000 would be taxed under the proposed amounts works out to exactly $180,000 (for an effective rate of 36%.)

Once you get over $500,000 each dollar is taxed at the 88% rate ... that means the NEXT $500,000 would net only $60,000!!!!

Yeah, tell me how many people would really go for that. What's the point of working extra if almost 9 of every 10 dollars gets taken? Seriously!!!!

A really simple scenario for the Average Joe if HE was taxed at those rates ...

Imagine the Average Joe gets paid $20/hour. Imagine that anything over $40,000 is taxed at 90% (this means that, basically, any overtime work is taxed at 90%.) That means that overtime pay ($30/hour nets the worker $3.)

How many working people would work overtime if they knew that the government was going to step in and take 90% of the money. Basically, you're working for the government at that point. Hmmm ... overtime nets you $3/hour ... then pay the babysitter $5 an hour ... hmmm ... at that point, your LOSING money for overtime work.

We WANT people to work and earn money because that increases the available tax base ... we do not want to give them every incentive not to work.

[MAlibdem]

93. Here's mine...

You forgot $1-10,000 who I would tax at 2% to ensure all have an investment of somekind in the economy and taxation process. Clearly, these people would be receiving large social services that would wipe out this small contribution.
$10,000 -20,000 5% (Will get back that and a lot more in services)
$20,001-30-000 10% (Will get back that and more in services)
$30,001 - 40,000 15% (Will get back that and a bit more in services)
$40,001 - 99,999 20% (Will get that back in services)
$100,000 - 250,000 30%
$250,001 - 500,000 40%
$500,000 + 50%

[yankeedem]

122. Try this

$0-50k: 0%
$50-100k: 10%
$100k-200k: 25%
$250k-500k: 40%
$500k-1m: 55%
$1m+: 65%

This is income tax:
Why no tax under 50k? Between payroll tax (14%) and sales, excise, and other taxes, lower income families are ALREADY paying nearly 25% in taxes, state, federal, and local. Income tax is just piling on.

The brackets really ratchet up after $100k, because around $100k is when SS tax is retired. That is 14% tax that the high income earner doesn't pay on their income after $100k.

What else? Home interest deduction phases out over $150k. Deductions for kids and investment losses also phase out. I'm not interested in subsidizing $1million dollar houses at the expense of someone buying a $100,000 house.

[dumpster_baby]

127. What are the EFFECTIVE tax rates in USA and NW Europe currently???

Great thread, but let's make sure we have everything in perspective.

We should establish what are the effective tax rates right now for USA and NW European countries.

Have you noticed how, in this age of computers and the internet, how hard it is to establish some ballpark figures for effective tax rates for America and for other western nations? Why is that?

Once we know what our effective tax rates are right now, and what they are in other countries, we can improve this discussion. ANd I think this discussion should be at the forefront of the national political. But instead it is not, not even close. Why is that?


I have misplaced most of my tax rate urls, but here is one:
http://ctj.org/html/margfaq.htm
But these studies always seem to disregard the 15% paid by every worker on less than 80K of salary (about 7.5% paid by both worker and employer, but actually it comes out of the worker's salary, ultimately).

[Bombtrack]

130. I'd like to tax ecumulated income more and lighten up on both small

bussiness workers and the type of income on the self employed professions where a person might make alot one year and not so much the next and so on and so forth.

But I'm a big believer in Warren Buffet's and Bill Gates Sr.'s new movement for increases on Estate Taxes and on all sorts of "unearned" income.

the GOP's scheme on shifting taxes from wealth to work is the theme from which are arguments need to come.

[UdoKier]

140. Okay...

This is accuming NO deductions or loopholes except a $3K deduction for each child....

$10,000 -20,000 = 3%
$20,001-30-000 = 3%
$30,001 - 40,000 = 5%
$40,001 - 99,999 = 15%
$100,000 - 250,000 = 30%
$250,001 - 500,000 = 40%
$500,000 + = 50%


And other, more regressive taxes should be repealed where possible.

And I would favor lower rates on capital gains to encourage investment.

A repeal on capital gains on primary homes under $500K...

[Steely_Dan]

148. FLAT TAX - 13%

I've always believed in a flat tax format....of around 13% to 20%. As Jerry Brown stated: "You could do your entire tax return on the back of an envelope."

-P

[dumpster_baby]

150. what is so complicated about more complicated tax brackets?

It is not graduated tax brackets that make it complicated--it is the exemptions and deductions, which they should do away with for the most part.

[Zan_of_Texas]

159. Lively discussion.

I'm glad DUers brought in capital gains, inheritance, and corporate taxes. Social Security taxes should also be looked at -- they are basically flat, but become regressive at high income levels, because they top out.

Lots of working people pay more in SS than in federal income tax.


If you look at the entire federal budget excluding SS, half the money goes to the military (including veterans benefits).

The way to lower the the entire tax burden is to audit the Department of Defense. This is one of the elephants in the room. One-quarter of the military budget vaporizes -- cannot be audited, cannot be tracked. One quarter. Imagine fixing THAT little loophole.

The Pentagon's own inspector general has admitted that the department could not account for more than a trillion dollars of past spending. A congressional investigation reported that inventory management in the army was so weak it had lost track of 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 missile launchers.
"There's no accountability," said Danielle Brian, head of the Washington budget watchdog, Project on Government Oversight. "Any other agency would be closed down but the Pentagon is Teflon. Any challenge to the Pentagon is seen as unpatriotic." -- "So Much for the Peace Dividend," Guardian Unlimited, Julian Borger in Washington and David Teather in New York, May 22, 2003,
The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk>

"The Defense Department can't account for one-quarter of its money in any given year. Now, that's getting close to $100 billion, lost, we don't know where, in one year. That dwarfs many of the big bankruptcies that rocked the nation. <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/printable325985.shtml)>

The IRS estimates (2001) we are losing $70 billion a year in IRS revenue because of offshore tax havens.

"Tax havens are one of the world's great growth industries. There are more of them than ever, from Liechtenstein to Panama to Vanuatu, a tiny rock sticking out of the Pacific, well-wired into the world financial system. And the amount of money they harbor around the globe is staggering--as much as $5 trillion, according to the U.S. State Department. The Cayman Islands (pop. 35,000) has more than $800 billion on deposit--fully one-fifth as much as the entire U.S. banking system. And those Cayman deposits are swelling by an estimated $120 billion a year. Not all offshore money is linked to crime or terrorism. Much of it belongs to wealthy people who are avoiding taxes in ways that often are legal under current law or--as the ads for "asset protection lawyers" on CNBC make blatantly clear--are shielding money from business partners and spouses.
The Internal Revenue Service estimates these deposits are costing the U.S. alone $70 billion a year in uncollected taxes."
<http://www.webguild.com/SENTINEL/banking_secrecy.htm> Banking on Secrecy <> Monday, Oct. 22, 2001 <> "Banking On Secrecy: Terrorists oppose scrutiny of offshore accounts. And so do many U.S. bankers and lawmakers," By ADAM COHEN.

Still reading? Congratulations.

I've heard this guy speak but haven't read his book yet. I'll bet it's good:

David Cay Johnston -- Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else

[AP]

161. Seriously. You look at a table to get your tax on AGI. If it's a constant-

ly variable rate, a flat rate, three brakets or 300 brakets, it doesn't make anything more complicated. You're just looking up a number on a table and moving your finger across to the correct column.

[ProfessorGAC]

165. 13% Is WAY Too Low

That's not revenue neutral. 13% of the $15.4 trillion in wages and income that changes hands on an annual basis is only $2.002 trillion in gov't revenues. That's a $400 billion dollar deficit!

Compound that with the fact that to keep it fair, you'd have to raise the standard deduction to about $20k. Someone making $18k a year paying $2340 a year in fed taxes is a real sting. $200 per month for someone at that income level is quite a financial burden to absorb.

Do that, though, and on 120 million income earners, that would bring the taxable base down to $12 trillion. Now, the revenue stream is less than $1.7 trillion. Now the deficit is over $700 billion.

The rate needs to be much higher. Probably around 25% on the first $400k, with no taxes on the first $30k, and 35%, no exceptions, on anything above $400k would be revenue neutral.
The Professor

[AP]

175. But then you lose that revenue again when people stop transferring wealth

as wages.

If we ONLY taxed wages, nobody who had a choice about how to receive their money would do it through wages.

Execs would be paid in one-time stock paymetns that would be taxed as income, but when these preferred stocks paid out their dividends or were sold, that added value wouldn't be taxed at all.

If we only taxed earned income, less money would pass as earned income.

[ProfessorGAC]

177. Not Disputing That

I can't because i didn't give that much thought before i wrote that post. I was just referring to the original post in this subthread regarding a 13% flat tax.

I don't promote flat tax, but i have considered some ways to create a revenue neutral approach that is ALMOST flat.

I wasn't promoting income or wages at all. I think we should continue to tax income, the way we do now.

I am for a continuously progressive tax rate. Simple polynomial equation that changes the rate very slightly for slight improvements in income. That way, someone doesn't suddenly get to a cusp wherein they hit a marginal rate point and the increase in wages is almost totally consumed by the change in rate.

The Professor

[On the Road]

178. Ok, Here's a Shot

I'm assuming these are federal income tax brackets, meaning someone at the top of the scale would pay a mixture (a lower rate for the first $10,000 than the last).

$10,000 -20,000            5%
$20,001-30-000             10%  
$30,001 - 40,000           15%
$40,001 - 99,999           25%
$100,000 - 250,000         30%
$250,001 - 500,000         40%
$500,000 +                 50%

One reason I wouldn't set it much higher is that other taxes, including state income tax, can be significant.

[Xithras]

180. A LOT of people here advocating confiscatory taxes here seem to forget..

...that Americans tend to be taxed on multiple levels. Those of you advocating confiscatory federal taxes in the 90+% range for very high incomes need to remember that the STATES need to tax between 2-10% to keep your local highways up, keep your local schools open, and to keep our state services running. On top of that, many municipalities charge a small income tax to help pay your local police and firefighters, fix your potholes, and keep the street lights burning.

If you allow the federal government to perform what is essentially asset seizure on the top 1%, state and local services would be decimated by the loss of tax revenue to the feds. I know that some her would simply say that the federal government should dole out the money for those things, but ask yourself this...do you really want the funding to fix the pothole in front of your house to be held hostage by partisan bickering in Washington? Last winter the street drain in front of my house clogged and remained blocked for two weeks despite numerous calls to the city about it. I finally got sick of it, drove downtown, and yelled at the mayor about the problem. Three hours later a city crew had the problem fixed. I DON'T want those types of decisions being delegated to some Washington bureaucrat.

Besides, confiscatory taxes simply lead to capital flight, which deprives all levels of government adequate taxation. You can pass all the laws you want against it, but ultimatly there's no way to stop someone from shifting their assets offshore as long as there are nations willing to accept it (and most poor nations are quite welcoming to foreign millionaires and billionaires).

Fair taxes must be fair for all, even the rich. No citizen of any economic class should be discriminated against, because nobody is equal until everybody is equal.

[I_Hug_Trees]

184. The bottom 50%

should pay no taxes what so ever. The top 50% should pay it all.

*save a life--hug a tree*