My Tax Plan

[SEVERUSMAX]

I propose that no middle-class American have to pay income taxes, whatsoever. Only those making 100,000 or more a year should have to pay taxes. That should seriously help people with the hard economic times, and stimulate the economy better than some wasteful government program.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SEVERUS

I hate to tell you this, but the income range between $20K and $100K is where the government gets its money. The rich dont pay taxes. The poor dont pay taxes.

Obama is not poor. He has a few million salted away. So, for him to say that he intends to soak the rich is about like him saying he plans to shoot every American tallen than 6 feet....himself included. He isnt gonna harm himself or the Kennedys or the Kerrys or Nancy Pelosi or George Bush.

 

[rgraham666]

Why should only individuals and families pay for the services offered by a nation? Aren't other entities; businesses, unions, special interest groups; protected and helped the same way as individuals?

"I like taxes. They buy me civilization." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ROB

Because mega-corporations and the elites pay protection money to politicians. When are you gonna learn that the Mafia is simply playing monkey-see, monkey do.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I propose that no middle-class American have to pay income taxes, whatsoever. Only those making 100,000 or more a year should have to pay taxes. That should seriously help people with the hard economic times, and stimulate the economy better than some wasteful government program.

SEVERUS

I hate to tell you this, but the income range between $20K and $100K is where the government gets its money. The rich dont pay taxes. The poor dont pay taxes.

Obama is not poor. He has a few million salted away. So, for him to say that he intends to soak the rich is about like him saying he plans to shoot every American tallen than 6 feet....himself included. He isnt gonna harm himself or the Kennedys or the Kerrys or Nancy Pelosi or George Bush.

And $100K / year in California sure as hell isn't rich, by ANY stretch of the imagination.

 

[Belegon]

A flat tax of between 11% and 13% has consistently been touted as being equal to our current tax code. This presupposes major savings in government spending due to the elimination of things like the IRS.

I have not done the major research required to prove/disprove this contention. But I have always contended that there could never be any way of denying that a flat tax was fair.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Why should only individuals and families pay for the services offered by a nation? Aren't other entities; businesses, unions, special interest groups; protected and helped the same way as individuals?

"I like taxes. They buy me civilization." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Because only individuals pay taxes. No matter who you think you are taxing, it's the individual who pays the tax. Raise the taxes on a corporation and the price or the product goes up to cover that increase. It's all passed on to the consumer.

Tax a union and the union members dues increase.

So every time someone says tax the rich corporations, they are actually raising the price of the product that company makes, supplies, to them.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

A flat tax of between 11% and 13% has consistently been touted as being equal to our current tax code. This presupposes major savings in government spending due to the elimination of things like the IRS.

I have not done the major research required to prove/disprove this contention. But I have always contended that there could never be any way of denying that a flat tax was fair.

The current tax system started out as a flat tax, actually still is. 15% and 25%. But the politicians have perverted the code so much that you wouldn't know it. Thousands and thousands of volumes of tax code. What a mess.

 

[rgraham666]

Eliminating the IRS won't accomplish much. It would just make things worse. My understanding is that the federal government in the U.S. loses something like $30 billion every year to uncollected taxes. That was six years ago. Since the current administration has consistently underfunded the IRS it's probably a lot more now.

 

[rgraham666]

The current tax system started out as a flat tax, actually still is. 15% and 25%. But the politicians have perverted the code so much that you wouldn't know it. Thousands and thousands of volumes of tax code. What a mess.

Oh yes. That wonderful law that says A follows B, like gravity.

Oddly, it only happens when costs rise. For example here in Canada the central bank lowered interest rates to improve liquidity.

The banks that people deal with didn't lower their rates at the same amount.

Strange that.

 

[xssve]

A flat tax of between 11% and 13% has consistently been touted as being equal to our current tax code. This presupposes major savings in government spending due to the elimination of things like the IRS.

I have not done the major research required to prove/disprove this contention. But I have always contended that there could never be any way of denying that a flat tax was fair.

Sure there is: the benefits principle.

In short, taxes pay for infrastructure: transportation, communication, regulation, defense and law enforcement, education, etc.

You have to have these things in order to make money in business, you need and educated workforce, you need a way to produce your good and services, market them, and get them to market in a timely and competitive manner, and you need protection from predatory agents, whether than be piracy, theft, foreign invasion, etc. - without these things, the available opportunities to do any business are severely constrained, thus if you are in business, the more business you do, the more dependent you are on all that infrastructure - this is the principle that progressive taxation is founded on.

In praxis, SCOTUS has declared that "a tax is a tax", and thus FICA, or payroll taxes which are in fact a flat 15% give or take, is effectively a flat tax that the top quintile does not pay at all, for the most part, as common economic consensus is that if the employer were not paying half, than it would be used to compete in the labor market - i,.e., it would be distributed in the form of wages, and thus the burden of this tax lies on labor rather than management.

Payroll taxes effectively comprise more than half of total federal revenues, income taxes, tariffs and fees are called general revenues, general revenues plus payroll taxes are called total revenues - now the surplus that was being trumpeted at the end of the Ninties was a surplus in total revenues, realized by balancing on budget expenditures or discretionary spending - that is, the federal budget excluding SS, medicaid, medicare, etc., which are called off budget or mandatory expenditures.

The surplus, therefore was never in general, or income tax revenues, it was in total revenues, and it was comprised of payroll taxes exclusively, which, as I say, is effectively a de facto flat tax on the lower four quintiles. This becomes established if you manage to legislate mandatory expenditures, SS, medicaid, etc., (labor market infrastructure investments) completely out of the picture, as the republicans appear to wish to do.

The effect of the SCOTUS decision, is that payroll revenues can be spent by congress in any way they deem fit, whether for war or to fund income tax cuts, or whatever, which is exactly what was and is being done.

Given that the tax cuts for the top quintile mean that for many in the upper one half of the upper one percent effectively pay no taxes at all, what we have here is patently regressive taxation.

The argument is, of course, a supply side one, i.e., this free ride for the top one half of one percent represents investment liquidity - and you can see how that goes, as it appears to have been mainly invested in outsourcing and diseconomic speculation, including much investing in tax free Treasury bonds to fund the ballooning debt, the interest on which is paid out of discretionary revenues, and is currently hovering at about 25% of those income tax revenues - i.e. it is possible, if you have enough money (treasury bonds are sold in 200K blocks), to buy enough bonds to offset any taxes you do pay with tax free interest on those bonds, shifting both the taxation and the debt burden... somewhere else.

i.e., the debt itself is essentially the worlds biggest tax shelter, and revenues slated for SS and healthcare are being used to fund the daily operations of the government.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Why should only individuals and families pay for the services offered by a nation? Aren't other entities; businesses, unions, special interest groups; protected and helped the same way as individuals?

"I like taxes. They buy me civilization." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

The argument for many is that they aren't represented, so can't be taxed.

The argument for me is that they aren't people per se, so don't have the right to choose how they are taxed.

Mind you, an underfunded IRS isn't going to make me lose sleep, given their abuses and arrogance, as demonstrated by "civil forfeiture".

I would abolish the IRS, merge its remnants with the ATF, disband the paramilitary side of the ATF, and leave tax collection to this new streamlined agency, thus erasing the redundancy of having two tax-collection agencies at the federal level.

I would also scrap the DEA and end the "war on drugs" once and for all. I'd end "mandatory minimum" sentences for purely narcotic offenses and grant a general amnesty for them. That's the most the President could do until Congress finally repeals the federal narcotics statutes (doubly unconstitutional on both Federalist and civil-libertarian grounds). The President has a greater duty to enforce the Constitution than any dubious and invalid acts of Congress.

I would further offset the revenue losses by replacing incarceration with fines and restitution for white-collar crimes. The fines would be heavy, but since they replace prison time, they wouldn't be excessive, especially given the ruined and devastated lives of their victims. I'm no flaming Red, but I oppose corruption and theft in all forms, including by the real "robber barons"- embezzlers and insider traders, etc.

And I would jack up tariffs on outsourced goods, thus creating a disincentive for taking American jobs abroad. Of course, I'd have to repeal GATT to do so, but that's no skin off my back. The WTO has an inherent double standard in dealings against the USA.

I'd also abolish tax audits and 1040 forms. And I'd end all deductions. Tighter collection doesn't need an oppressive agency. It just needs to eliminate all tax loopholes. That would ensure that the rich couldn't escape paying through using confusion in the tax code.

I'm not a liberal, but I won't lose sleep over lawyers paying more taxes, to cite an example. Especially if it means that those they parasitically drain can keep their houses, not mention their shirts.

I'd just rather it was done through more efficient collection, to catch more cheaters, than by the less effective method of raising top rates.

Remember, the income tax started out as a tax solely on the rich, and was once a status symbol. With any luck, that can happen again.

The top rate would be 20%, followed by 10%, and the bottom rate, or tax floor, of 2%.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

The argument for many is that they aren't represented, so can't be taxed.

The argument for me is that they aren't people per se, so don't have the right to choose how they are taxed.

Mind you, an underfunded IRS isn't going to make me lose sleep, given their abuses and arrogance, as demonstrated by "civil forfeiture".

I would abolish the IRS, merge its remnants with the ATF, disband the paramilitary side of the ATF, and leave tax collection to this new streamlined agency, thus erasing the redundancy of having two tax-collection agencies at the federal level.

I would also scrap the DEA and end the "war on drugs" once and for all. I'd end "mandatory minimum" sentences for purely narcotic offenses and grant a general amnesty for them. That's the most the President could do until Congress finally repeals the federal narcotics statutes (doubly unconstitutional on both Federalist and civil-libertarian grounds). The President has a greater duty to enforce the Constitution than any dubious and invalid acts of Congress.

I would further offset the revenue losses by replacing incarceration with fines and restitution for white-collar crimes. The fines would be heavy, but since they replace prison time, they wouldn't be excessive, especially given the ruined and devastated lives of their victims. I'm no flaming Red, but I oppose corruption and theft in all forms, including by the real "robber barons"- embezzlers and insider traders, etc.

And I would jack up tariffs on outsourced goods, thus creating a disincentive for taking American jobs abroad. Of course, I'd have to repeal GATT to do so, but that's no skin off my back. The WTO has an inherent double standard in dealings against the USA.

I'd also abolish tax audits and 1040 forms. And I'd end all deductions. Tighter collection doesn't need an oppressive agency. It just needs to eliminate all tax loopholes. That would ensure that the rich couldn't escape paying through using confusion in the tax code.

I'm not a liberal, but I won't lose sleep over lawyers paying more taxes, to cite an example. Especially if it means that those they parasitically drain can keep their houses, not mention their shirts.

I'd just rather it was done through more efficient collection, to catch more cheaters, than by the less effective method of raising top rates.

Remember, the income tax started out as a tax solely on the rich, and was once a status symbol. With any luck, that can happen again.

The top rate would be 20%, followed by 10%, and the bottom rate, or tax floor, of 2%.

Have you looked into the HR 25? It does everything you propose and eliminates payroll taxes. All of them - at the federal level.

 

[rgraham666]

So what you're saying Sev, is that organizations have the rights of individuals but none of the duties?

Nice work if you can get it.

 

[DesertPirate]

What I have seen says a 15% on everyone and every business would work. The dodge of moving the mailbox offshore is gone because you will pay 15% of every bit of business done in this country. No deductions, no loopholes, no exceptions, no excuses, everyone pays and the Govt. has more money than ever coming in.

 

[rgraham666]

What I have seen says a 15% on everyone and every business would work. The dodge of moving the mailbox offshore is gone because you will pay 15% of every bit of business done in this country. No deductions, no loopholes, no exceptions, no excuses, everyone pays and the Govt. has more money than ever coming in.

That I could easily live with, and I'm pretty sure that it would cover federal expenditures and more.

It's never going to happen though. Every business and business person that could would run screaming "Communism!" at the top of their lungs.

Ironically most of them would probably run to China.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

What I have seen says a 15% on everyone and every business would work. The dodge of moving the mailbox offshore is gone because you will pay 15% of every bit of business done in this country. No deductions, no loopholes, no exceptions, no excuses, everyone pays and the Govt. has more money than ever coming in.

Actually all the lobbyist on "K" street would be firmly against it, getting loopholes put in the tax code is their job.

 

[DesertPirate]

That I could easily live with, and I'm pretty sure that it would cover federal expenditures and more.

It's never going to happen though. Every business and business person that could would run screaming "Communism!" at the top of their lungs.

Ironically most of them would probably run to China.

Between what they actually pay and what they spend on accountants and lawyers, it would cut the expenses by a substantial amount.

Of course there would be a lot of CPA's and lawyers looking for honest work

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

So what you're saying Sev, is that organizations have the rights of individuals but none of the duties?

Nice work if you can get it.

I don't recall saying that.

And would a 15% tax work? Perhaps, if you can avoid deductions. It's still easier on the middle class, already under assault from the far left and the far right, than the present tax rates which they have a harder time avoiding than do the rich or poor. Bear in mind that Obama's plan provides "tax relief" to folks who don't actually pay ANY income taxes! Tell me how that makes sense.

I'm certainly no Marxist. I'll go for any plan that avoids the pitfalls of most "progressive" taxation: penalizing the middle class and putting it at risk, not to mention allowing both rich and poor to soak the rest of us.

It sounds nice, as long as you can also scrap the IRS and its many Gestapo powers. Let Customs collect the taxes at home as well as abroad.

And I still favor a protective tariff, but only on those who discriminate against American goods, as well as an outsourcing penalty for those companies who forget that workers are the consumers and that even in the Information Age, we still need to make things!

I certainly don't mind taxing lobbyists. It might give them more pause on their various demands for more federal spending.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

In fact, I thought that I was saying the opposite.

But, oh, well.

The main issue for me is taking more of the tax burden off the middle class and ensuring that those who use tax loopholes to avoid their share of taxes stop doing so.

That and ending the abuses of power by the IRS and other Gestapo-like Federal agencies with broad police powers.

I'm all for law-and-order (more than most, in fact), but I have serious doubts that we need Federal paramilitary police to enforce most laws. Given what happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge, I believe that even when innocent (and I have doubts about both cases) the Feds can still become too high-handed with their police powers and paramilitary tactics.

But I digress.

The main point for me is ending tax evasion, government abuses, and a crushing burden on the most productive segment of American society. Not that I want to redistribute wealth. In fact, that's what I'm trying to avoid. What's happening right now is wealth redistributed upward through corporate welfare and downward through corrupt and bloated social services. I'm trying to undo that, and stop feeding the parasites at our expense.

A truly fair and transparent revenue system, which also balances the budget and allows for those government services truly necessary for the nation would be ideal.

If that means taxing organizations as well as individuals, well, as I said before, those organizations don't have the right to demand representation as the price for taxation. Since they often benefit from the public coffers, it wouldn't hurt them to help fill them, too.

 

[rgraham666]

Well, in my mind organizations certainly are represented, by lobbies. In fact considering the power of lobbyists you could say organizations are better represented than people.

And, as I understand it, organizations are granted the rights of being a citizen; freedom of speech, freedom of association, the right to own property, etc. Given this they should, in my mind, have the duties of a citizen as well.

Of which I think paying taxes is one of them.

You might also consider some progression in your tax plan. For example my disability pension is $8,136 a year. 15% of that is $1,220.40. Needless to say that's a big chunk out of my funds. I'd be reduced to no more than living. I'd have enough money to house and feed myself. I doubt I'd be able to afford internet access. Or the occasional book. Or to go anywhere even on the bus.

That sort of isolation wouldn't be good for my health. I'd likely end up in a hospital or in jail which would cost society a great deal more than $8,136.

Things just aren't that simple, Sev.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Well, in my mind organizations certainly are represented, by lobbies. In fact considering the power of lobbyists you could say organizations are better represented than people.

And, as I understand it, organizations are granted the rights of being a citizen; freedom of speech, freedom of association, the right to own property, etc. Given this they should, in my mind, have the duties of a citizen as well.

Of which I think paying taxes is one of them.

That is true, yes. But more relevant to me is that they don't have the same rights as people. Individuals are people. Organizations are not.

You might also consider some progression in your tax plan. For example my disability pension is $8,136 a year. 15% of that is $1,220.40. Needless to say that's a big chunk out of my funds. I'd be reduced to no more than living. I'd have enough money to house and feed myself. I doubt I'd be able to afford internet access. Or the occasional book. Or to go anywhere even on the bus.

That sort of isolation wouldn't be good for my health. I'd likely end up in a hospital or in jail which would cost society a great deal more than $8,136.

Things just aren't that simple, Sev.

This was a factor in my original tax plan. As it was with Morry Taylor's two-rate plan back in 2000. He advocated a 2% rate for the lower half and a 17% one for the higher stratum. That was an influence on my idea, though not the only one.

The 15% deal is a nice alternative, provided that we exempt people who simply can't afford to pay that tax. Either a lower rate or total exemption would be nice. That's one scenario.

I still prefer my plan, however. Especially with the hardships of the housing/mortgage crisis. The poor and middle class still would pay taxes, just not income taxes. This would not so much redistribute the wealth, as Marx intended (and I am no fan of Marx, for certain), as undo the upward redistribution of the wealth and class warfare waged by some through corporate welfare and tax loopholes.