Edwards nails it: Tax Fairness

Superfreak said:
You all want a simple tax code...

Keep the same tax brackets as we have now. Eliminate ALL deductions and loopholes other than a standard deduction to protect the lower income families. All income treated the same... regardless of the source.

No corporate subsidies, no tax shelters, eliminate the bulk of fraud, eliminate the bulk of the IRS
Click to expand...

I can deal with a complicated tax code. What I can't deal with is congress wasting my money on a bridge to nowhere in Alaska and occupying foreign countries without cause.
 
LadyT said:
I can deal with a complicated tax code. What I can't deal with is congress wasting my money on a bridge to nowhere in Alaska and occupying foreign countries without cause.
Click to expand...
Death to earmarks.
 
LadyT said:
I don't like that either. What about mortgage interest deductions?

If you're going to have a flat tax I'd suggest reducing the rate then flattening it.
Click to expand...

For your first... keep the standard deduction high enough and it won't matter. Make it something like $25k per adult. Families then would not pay on the first $50k of income. Then the tax brackets kick in. Low income families would be protected. Mid income families would be better off.

Second part of your above post... I have no problem going with a flat tax without the "progressive" portion.... as this would be a truly fair tax.
 
Superfreak said:
For your first... keep the standard deduction high enough and it won't matter. Make it something like $25k per adult. Families then would not pay on the first $50k of income. Then the tax brackets kick in. Low income families would be protected. Mid income families would be better off.

Second part of your above post... I have no problem going with a flat tax without the "progressive" portion.... as this would be a truly fair tax.
Click to expand...

So people earning under $25K pay no taxes?
 
LadyT said:
I can deal with a complicated tax code. What I can't deal with is congress wasting my money on a bridge to nowhere in Alaska and occupying foreign countries without cause.
Click to expand...

Personally I want both eliminated. Personally I think there should be a Congressional site that shows every earmark and the individual(s) that put the earmark in place. With details on what the benefits of the project are to the country.
 
Superfreak said:
Personally I want both eliminated. Personally I think there should be a Congressional site that shows every earmark and the individual(s) that put the earmark in place. With details on what the benefits of the project are to the country.
Click to expand...

I don't know about completely simplifying the code. I'd want to leave flexibility to encourage or discourage unforseen things in the futre. But I definitely agree about publicly disclosing earmarks and their benefits to the entire country and the originater of the bills.
 
LadyT said:
So people earning under $25K pay no taxes?
Click to expand...

Correct. It protects the poor and lower middle income families. Gives them a chance to get ahead. But it is also provided to everyone, so it is "fair". By eliminating the other deductions and loopholes, the wealthy will not be able to get their effective tax rates lower than that of the middle class...
 
LadyT said:
I don't know about completely simplifying the code. I'd want to leave flexibility to encourage or discourage unforseen things in the futre. But I definitely agree about publicly disclosing earmarks and their benefits to the entire country and the originater of the bills.
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand what you are referring to in the first part of the above. If they need to raise revenues for say a Katrina like event... then do so. But make it a one time deal and not a permanent part of the tax code. The public would not object to that.
 
LadyT said:
like 401ks only you don't get taxed at all when you take it out for retirement?
Click to expand...

Trog... we have them... they are called Roth 401ks and Roth IRAs.

Now, the Roth 401k is new and many companies do not offer it yet. Will not be a big benefit to those closer to retirement.... but for those of us that have 20+ years till retirement, it would be pretty damn sweet .... talk to your company HR person and see if they are looking into it.
 
ib1yysguy said:
"tax increase" isn't an objectionable term anymore. Most Americans support paying higher taxes to secure social security, improve health care, etc.

I hope there is a tax increase on the right people and tax cuts for the right people (me and you). It baffles me how morons like BB and Whacko get so upset when you suggest raising taxes on the super wealthy, as though they're ever going to be effected by it in any way. It's the sign of PURE brain washing.
Click to expand...

Sheesh. People start going against the war for two seconds and you socialists start railing on about blowing up the government. The majority of Americans are fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and all the Democrats want to spew out is a social conservative socialist.
 
Cypress said:
I suspect the ultra-wealthy are paying a lower percentage of their income in tax NOW, than middle class working stiffs are.

Paris Hilton, and Warren Buffet make most of their income from investments not payroll wages. Investment income is typically taxes at a lower rate than payroll wage income: Taxes on dividends are never higher than 15% effective rate, the effective tax rate on capital gains, is around 20% (I think), and the fed tax on interest income on municipal and state bonds is ZERO.
Click to expand...

Warren Buffet also basically has to pay the corporate tax while he holds ownership over part of the corporation, so it's REALLY around 30%.

Also, you assume that everyone out there is an investor. There are PLENTY of doctors who make more the 200K who get it all in income. CEO's get most of it in income. You're really just throwing out terrible assumptions. Most of the investors out there are just average joes.
 
LadyT said:
200K a year in Jersey is a lot different than 200K a year in alabama. That is not rich by any stretch of the imagination for a family of 4.
Click to expand...

It's not rich for an individual to make 200,000 a year? Tiana, that's honestly like 4 times what the average person makes in New Jersey.
 
LadyT said:
Well, the article said "per family". Which to me means a combined income. Yes, there could only be one wage earner in the family, but if there are two, then you're getting screwed imo.
Click to expand...

If there were two individual income makers who pushed it above 200K it wouldn't push them into that bracket, Tiana. Only individual income is counted towards what bracket you're in.
 
LadyT said:
"marginal" is a generic term. Do you know where I could find definitive numbers on exactly how much he's talking about? If you're making $250K a year and $50K is subjected to an increase, that would cost you approx $500 per percentage increase. I wouldn't consider an additional $2000 a year in taxes "marginal". That's a new water heater, a few credits, a vacation, property taxes, landscaping, medical deductibles, etc.
Click to expand...

BOOOHOOOO!

You can't have a vacation and landscaping! Oh the horror! Think of how bad those guys have it, filling up their hummer!

We haven't had a vacation since I was 10, Tiana.
 
Watermark said:
If there were two individual income makers who pushed it above 200K it wouldn't push them into that bracket, Tiana. Only individual income is counted towards what bracket you're in.
Click to expand...

No. The article specifically stated "per family". Married couple filing jointly are considered a family. If each of them makes over $125K then they are going to be subjected to it.

Unless I read it wrong. SF what are you thoughts? Am I reading that incorrectly?
 
Superfreak said:
Trog... we have them... they are called Roth 401ks and Roth IRAs.

Now, the Roth 401k is new and many companies do not offer it yet. Will not be a big benefit to those closer to retirement.... but for those of us that have 20+ years till retirement, it would be pretty damn sweet .... talk to your company HR person and see if they are looking into it.
Click to expand...
Mine already has it in works. I fully fund a Roth, and drop additional money beyond that into a 401(k) I am not the subject of the idea here, I can take care of myself quite well.

Am I wrong to think that a lot of lower income folks don't have access to a Roth or any type of deferred account? Let's do something simple and open an avenue. The $2000 limit was not a per year number but rather an absolute size - that was years ago, and the Japanese may have raised the limit or allowed multiple accts. As a bank acct rather than "locked' investment, the owner has access at will. My thought is that maybe we just try something different. Different does not have to mean complex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top