New Tax structure

[carlfense]

My thoughts:

1. Maintain the current progressive income tax structure.

2. Tax all income, regardless of source, as ordinary income.

3. Eliminate nearly all deductions/loopholes. (Case by case basis . . . but the vast majority would go.)

4. Given the above changes, maintain revenue as a percentage GDP at or near historical levels (18-20%) by adjusting the rates as needed.

 

Honest question and I'm interested. What deductions/loopholes would you keep?

Charitable donations is the only one that I can think of off hand.

[carlfense]

Depending on how you look at it, that doesn't necessarily create a class that pays and a class that doesn't pay because nobody is paying on that first $50K.

Similar to our current structure . . .

 

 

And while we're at it, do away with all government subsidies. ALL of them. If your business model doesn't let you survive, get a new one. The free market can take care of all of this. I can already hear people saying "but what about the poor farmers. If they don't get help they won't survive" Ya know what? Everyone has to eat- it'll work out. The people it will hurt are those who are not efficient and productive. Isn't that the way it's supposed to be?

[BigRedBuster]

All charitable donations?

[carlfense]

How about the politicians stop spending like drunken sailors?

If we could just figure out a way to keep old people from aging . . .

 

I'd also rather see that everyone actually pays the same percentage. It would at least be fair.

What unfairness do you see in our current tax structure? Serious question . . .

[carlfense]

All charitable donations?

Subject to limitations similar to those currently in place.

[Conga3]

Why cant there just be a flat rate all across the board? 10%. 15%. 20%. it doesnt matter what you invest in. It doesnt matter what your assets are. It's doesnt matter how much you spend on day care. 15% (or whatever figure) of your paycheck is going to income tax. And guess what. Come April?-youre not gettin any back, and youre not payin any in.

 

"Why should I have to pay as much taxes as that rich CEO?".

 

Youre not. Your income is 34,000/yr. Youre paying (15%) 5100/yr in tax. That CEO making 5.6million is paying 840,000/yr. And that 1.2 million dollar bonus he received? He paid 180,000 in tax for that. Now, he can do whatever he wants with his remaining 5,780,000$ after taxes, and it's no one's business but his own.

 

I have yet to be explained to or shown why such a system would not work. Close the loopholes, set a flat rate, and all should be well, right?

Exactly.

 

But for some, taxes represent an opportunity to redistribute wealth through progressive tax rates and minimum incomes.

 

Taxes are meant to pay for government services, defense, and infrastructure we all use. We should all pay, equally - that's the ONLY fair way about it that doesn't give politicians a tool to divide and conquer the masses.

 

Once you open the door to tax one guy more than the other guy, it slides out of control as politicians try to "sweeten" the deal for the majority and ensure they remain in power - or provide special interest groups an advantage in return for campaign contributions.

 

---

Constitutional Amendment

• Congress is limited to generate income from ONE FLAT RATE TAX levied on all voting citizens equally.
  
• No Corporate Tax Rate. Ever.
  
• Income can only be taxed once.
  
• Congress is not able to pass laws that reduces the tax rate for individuals, corporations or organizations.
  
• All sitting Congressmen are not eligible for re-election if spending exceeds 3% revenue during any year of their term - OR - if they fail to pass a budget.
  
• Surplus revenues are immediately distributed back to the citizens in the form of a credit to be applied against future tax returns.
  
• If spending is more than the revenues collected, up to an additional 3% tax over the flat rate will be levied on all citizens equally to compensate for the deficit.
  

---

[Conga3]

I like the flat tax rate and exempting the first $50K +/- of everyone's income. Depending on how you look at it, that doesn't necessarily create a class that pays and a class that doesn't pay because nobody is paying on that first $50K.

 

The problem with allowing ANY exemption, is the politicians will simply move the bar. Why let them tinker with something like this? They will only pervert it for their own gain. (See Congress History)

 

Not to mention, it's not needed. The tax rate isn't going to be very high if it's a flat rate.

 

See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Countries_that_have_flat_tax_systems

 

Even if you have to start it out at 18% or whatever... the motivation for politicians getting elected will become how to spend less, more efficiently, and cut the flat rate tax.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it could get as low as 10% - with programs shifting back to states where they belong.

[BigRedBuster]

I like the flat tax rate and exempting the first $50K +/- of everyone's income. Depending on how you look at it, that doesn't necessarily create a class that pays and a class that doesn't pay because nobody is paying on that first $50K.

 

The problem with allowing ANY exemption, is the politicians will simply move the bar. Why let them tinker with something like this? They will only pervert it for their own gain. (See Congress History)

 

Not to mention, it's not needed. The tax rate isn't going to be very high if it's a flat rate.

 

See : http://en.wikipedia....lat_tax_systems

 

Even if you have to start it out at 18% or whatever... the motivation for politicians getting elected will become how to spend less, more efficiently, and cut the flat rate tax.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it could get as low as 10% - with programs shifting back to states where they belong.

 

 

You have to have a system where all citizens are motivated to only support expenditures that are important and necessary. You can not have a system where a majority of people are pushing for more expenditures and a minority of the people paying the bills.

[Ziggy]

This was a proposal by Rand Paul, that I heard over the weekend on cspan i think? Part of his cpac speech. One of those long drives, need to listen to something. He also had some interesting ideas for various other spending cuts and other proposals, which I think he is starting to seed his run for President in 2016. Anyways, i liked the idea and thought I would present it without saying who proposed it to see how people on both sides reacted to it.

[strigori]

Why cant there just be a flat rate all across the board? 10%. 15%. 20%. it doesnt matter what you invest in. It doesnt matter what your assets are. It's doesnt matter how much you spend on day care. 15% (or whatever figure) of your paycheck is going to income tax. And guess what. Come April?-youre not gettin any back, and youre not payin any in.

 

"Why should I have to pay as much taxes as that rich CEO?".

 

Youre not. Your income is 34,000/yr. Youre paying (15%) 5100/yr in tax. That CEO making 5.6million is paying 840,000/yr. And that 1.2 million dollar bonus he received? He paid 180,000 in tax for that. Now, he can do whatever he wants with his remaining 5,780,000$ after taxes, and it's no one's business but his own.

 

I have yet to be explained to or shown why such a system would not work. Close the loopholes, set a flat rate, and all should be well, right?

Exactly.

 

But for some, taxes represent an opportunity to redistribute wealth through progressive tax rates and minimum incomes.

 

Taxes are meant to pay for government services, defense, and infrastructure we all use. We should all pay, equally - that's the ONLY fair way about it that doesn't give politicians a tool to divide and conquer the masses.

 

Once you open the door to tax one guy more than the other guy, it slides out of control as politicians try to "sweeten" the deal for the majority and ensure they remain in power - or provide special interest groups an advantage in return for campaign contributions.

 

---

Constitutional Amendment

• Congress is limited to generate income from ONE FLAT RATE TAX levied on all voting citizens equally.
  
• No Corporate Tax Rate. Ever.
  
• Income can only be taxed once.
  
• Congress is not able to pass laws that reduces the tax rate for individuals, corporations or organizations.
  
• All sitting Congressmen are not eligible for re-election if spending exceeds 3% revenue during any year of their term - OR - if they fail to pass a budget.
  
• Surplus revenues are immediately distributed back to the citizens in the form of a credit to be applied against future tax returns.
  
• If spending is more than the revenues collected, up to an additional 3% tax over the flat rate will be levied on all citizens equally to compensate for the deficit.
  

---

 

That is a bad, bad plan. No corporate rate? Really? Why should they be immune to paying taxes?

 

Define 'income only taxed once' You are calling to protect investment income. BS. Income ins income is income, regardless of source. It is not taxed twice. As the guy getting the investment income did not pay taxes on it before. And he didn't work for it either.

 

Good plan, punish the general population when the Congressmen are fools. Or when some disaster strikes.

 

 

I'm not opposed to a flat tax in theory. I just don't think it would be implemented correctly. As you post shows. Investment income can not be exempt from taxation. And that is going to be a sticking point.

[strigori]

I like the flat tax rate and exempting the first $50K +/- of everyone's income. Depending on how you look at it, that doesn't necessarily create a class that pays and a class that doesn't pay because nobody is paying on that first $50K.

 

The problem with allowing ANY exemption, is the politicians will simply move the bar. Why let them tinker with something like this? They will only pervert it for their own gain. (See Congress History)

 

Not to mention, it's not needed. The tax rate isn't going to be very high if it's a flat rate.

 

See : http://en.wikipedia....lat_tax_systems

 

Even if you have to start it out at 18% or whatever... the motivation for politicians getting elected will become how to spend less, more efficiently, and cut the flat rate tax.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it could get as low as 10% - with programs shifting back to states where they belong.

 

 

You have to have a system where all citizens are motivated to only support expenditures that are important and necessary. You can not have a system where a majority of people are pushing for more expenditures and a minority of the people paying the bills.

But a system where the very small minority have most of the money is just fine? The minority's only focus seems to be on amassing more money, not on making the country a better place, or even a functioning place.

[74Hunter]

But a system where the very small minority have most of the money is just fine? The minority's only focus seems to be on amassing more money, not on making the country a better place, or even a functioning place.

Yes, it is just fine. Why are you jealous of people who have achieved and earned, and why do you think that you have a right to other peoples' money?

[74Hunter]

How about the politicians stop spending like drunken sailors?

If we could just figure out a way to keep old people from aging . . .

Lame, as if people aging has caused our current debt and deficit. It hurts, but has absolutely nothing to due with pet pork projects, earmarks, waste, and ineptitude by our government.

 

Besides, Obamacare's death panels may end some lives prematurely.

 

I'd also rather see that everyone actually pays the same percentage. It would at least be fair.

What unfairness do you see in our current tax structure? Serious question . . .

Lets see, just off the top of my head, deductions and loopholes, the current uneven tax rates, and taxing certain moneys multiple times.

 

I totally agree with you on getting rid of most, if not all deductions and loopholes, only if it goes along with either a flat tax or a national sales tax/user fee that eliminates income tax.

 

Or maybe if we continue with the current tax rates, we should have votes correlate directly to the amount of taxes you pay. Every dollar gets you 1 vote. That way those that are paying for everything can actually have a say in how their money is spent (wasted.).

[Whistlebritches]

 

Besides, Obamacare's death panels may end some lives prematurely.

 

 

You have got to be trolling. Do people really still believe this?

[ZRod]

Lame, as if people aging has caused our current debt and deficit. It hurts, but has absolutely nothing to due with pet pork projects, earmarks, waste, and ineptitude by our government.

You realize that Social Secruity and Medicare/Medicaid makeup one of the single largest portions of the national debt right? Somewhere in the neighborhood of 40%, and they have almost everything to do with people getting older...