Obama Is Smart At Least Regarding Taxes

Thornicus said:
So long as there is an income tax, it should be a single-rate tax. This would be much simpler, and according to several economists, it would generate far greater revenue than the current tax system.

Put a tax of, say, 20% on all income exceeding $45,000. So if you make $50,000 per year, you would end up paying $1000 in taxes. If you make $70,000, you'd pay $5000 in taxes. Someone making $250,000 per year would pay $41,000 in taxes. You get the idea.

I hate the income tax, but so long as we have it, it ought to be simple and should not place a heavy burden on the lower and middle class.
Click to expand...

A single 20% tax on income above 45000 won't be enough to feed the government without signifigant tax cuts.


What do you plan to cut, and by how much, to make up the difference? Because with you're plan there will probably be about a 1.5 trillion dollar shortfall.
 
I think we should have a consumption type income tax that doesn't tax savings until they are withdrawn. There should be no deductions at all and the rates will be the same, except with a 45% tax on income above 10 million a year. The brackets will also be set to inflation, so that we won't have the yearly tax raise we get now due to inflation.
 
Watermark said:
A single 20% tax on income above 45000 won't be enough to feed the government without signifigant tax cuts.


What do you plan to cut, and by how much, to make up the difference? Because with you're plan there will probably be about a 1.5 trillion dollar shortfall.
Click to expand...

Cutbacks would be great, but the 20% proposal would NOT replace payroll taxes, capital gains, etc. Only the personal income tax. In FY2006 gross collection from the personal income tax was about 1.2 trillion. It was only slightly higher in FY2007, as I recall. But the flat rate would generate FAR greater revenue because there would be no deductions, no loopholes, and after all is said and done, the superrich will pay more than under the current tax system.
 
Thorn you have the Germ of an idea. Have regressive flat tax brackets and reintroduce paygo. Can't increase spending unless tax revinues are increased or cut from other programs.
 
Watermark said:
I think we should have a consumption type income tax that doesn't tax savings until they are withdrawn. There should be no deductions at all and the rates will be the same, except with a 45% tax on income above 10 million a year. The brackets will also be set to inflation, so that we won't have the yearly tax raise we get now due to inflation.
Click to expand...

so in rescessionary times no one buys much and the govt gets very little taxes when they perhaps need it most ?
 
Mottleydude said:
Have regressive flat tax bracket
Click to expand...

Regressive?

A 20% tax on all income over $45,000.

Anyone at or below 45k would pay NO tax.

Therefore, someone making 60k would pay 5% of their total income.
Someone making 90k would pay 10% of their total income.
For a person who is making, say, 250k, they'd pay 16.4% of their total income.

While a flat rate, the result would be progressive - arguably more progressive than the current system. :)

Can't increase spending unless tax revinues are increased or cut from other programs.
Click to expand...

Precisely.
 
Last edited:
uscitizen said:
so in rescessionary times no one buys much and the govt gets very little taxes when they perhaps need it most ?
Click to expand...

The government will collect less revenue during a recession regardless of the tax system. If people are experiencing hard times, they're less likely to spend money. That means business will suffer, and thus, less revenue from taxes on business.

When we the people need to cut back on spending, the government should follow suit.
 
Last edited:
I go for about a 10% tax on all income. Perhaps it can be less. this would pretty much do away with billions in tax collection and filing costs. Too bad for HR Block though.
But then they are largely a parasitic industry living off of taxes.
 
uscitizen said:
I go for about a 10% tax on all income. Perhaps it can be less. this would pretty much do away with billions in tax collection and filing costs. Too bad for HR Block though.
But then they are largely a parasitic industry living off of taxes.
Click to expand...
I read a study on the idea of a flat tax rate, about 6 years ago. I forget where. But there were several ideas incorporated into the study. First, as has been suggested many times in many places, was to have a standard flat tax on income above a certain level. I forget the exact figures, but it was something like $25K per adult and $10K per child in the household. The second idea was to treat all personal income the same, regardless of source. and third was to get rid of all exclusions, shelters and other deductions except the standard per-capita deduction.

The article went into a lot of analysis of current taxes under the current system in comparison to what would be generated by a flat tax on all income system. They ended up with the claim that with such a system the federal tax could be set at between 12-14% to match that year's revenues from the current system. While that seems a bit low (I very often see proposals in the 20% range as on this thread) the numbers - which came straight form the IRS - looked solid. Without tax shelters, a LOT of personal income would be taxed, making up for the lower tax rate.
 
The thing that "costs" in calculating the tax isn't its progressiveness. It would take no more time to calculate a simple progressive tax than it would to calculate a simple flat one.
 
Watermark said:
I go for the no exemptions no deductions system of a progressive tax.
Click to expand...

Graduated-rate taxation is retarded. It is a waste of time, and as everyone in business knows, time equals money. It is also unfair. Why should someone be penalized for making more money? Hell, I know several people in Canada who end up making more by making less. Graduated rates are lunacy.

People who say a flat tax would be regressive are absolute morons. If anything, the effect would be more progressive than the current system.

I'm so tired of liberals fucking up my country. They should be shipped off to a faraway island, or perhaps to a distant star. Or better yet, to the bottom of the ocean. :)
 
Thornicus said:
Graduated-rate taxation is retarded. It is a waste of time, and as everyone in business knows, time equals money. It is also unfair. Why should someone be penalized for making more money? Hell, I know several people in Canada who end up making more by making less. Graduated rates are lunacy.
Click to expand...

Maybe if you say it enough it will be true. However, even Adam Smith said that it was perfectly reasonable for the rich to pay more in proportion.

Also, it takes no more time to calculate. The thing that takes the most time our system is calculating deductions. The calculation of graduated rates is trivial. If it takes more than five seconds more time for a person to calculate it then that person is so retarded I can't imagine them making enough money to have to worry about it anyway.

People who say a flat tax would be regressive are absolute morons. If anything, the effect would be more progressive than the current system.
Click to expand...

This contradicts your first statement.

I'm so tired of liberals fucking up my country. They should be shipped off to a faraway island, or perhaps to a distant star. Or better yet, to the bottom of the ocean. :)
Click to expand...

Maybe then this abominable empire will finally be driven into the ground conservatives have been sending it to for 30 years.
 
Watermark said:
This contradicts your first statement.
Click to expand...

No, it does not. I am in favor of progressive taxation. However, I am opposed to graduated rates. The effect of the flat-rate tax proposed above would be progressive. Someone making 90K would end up paying 10% of their total income; someone making 250K would pay 16.4%; and so forth.

A flat-rate rate is inherently progressive. Unfortunately, liberals are too stupid to comprehend simple mathematics.

Maybe then this abominable empire will finally be driven into the ground conservatives have been sending it to for 30 years.
Click to expand...

Why have you chosen to become an idiot?
 
Thornicus said:
No, it does not. I am in favor of progressive taxation. However, I am opposed to graduated rates. The effect of the flat-rate tax proposed above would be progressive. Someone making 90K would end up paying 10% of their total income; someone making 250K would pay 16.4%; and so forth.

A flat-rate rate is inherently progressive. Unfortunately, liberals are too stupid to comprehend simple mathematics.
Click to expand...

Why should people be penalized just for making more? Why do you DISCRIMINATE against the rich by giving the lazy bastards at the bottom a free ride?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top