New Tax structure

[krill]

All taxes for people who make under 150k or so should follow the state lottery model, i.e. all our taxes should be in game form, and all gas stations and bars should have government run casinos attached to them.

[Conga3]

But SCOTUS says a company is a person.....

In the courtroom, yes, so what is your point?

 

We don't allow them to vote though...so the concept I'm advancing in the thread - that if you have 1 vote, you have 1 tax rate doesn't apply to the "personhood" granted corporations in our court system.

Not just in the courtroom . . . corporations recently gained constitutional rights.

Please help with a link. I have no clue what you are referencing if it's not 'corporate personhood' - which is nothing new and not anything more than a legal/courtroom thing.

 

And after you help with a link, please explain why it's relevant to taxing corporations like citizens who can vote.

 

Thanks!

[carlfense]

But SCOTUS says a company is a person.....

In the courtroom, yes, so what is your point?

 

We don't allow them to vote though...so the concept I'm advancing in the thread - that if you have 1 vote, you have 1 tax rate doesn't apply to the "personhood" granted corporations in our court system.

Not just in the courtroom . . . corporations recently gained constitutional rights.

Please help with a link. I have no clue what you are referencing if it's not 'corporate personhood' - which is nothing new and not anything more than a legal/courtroom thing.

No problem at all.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-205P.ZO

 

And after you help with a link, please explain why it's relevant to taxing corporations like citizens who can vote.

I disagree with your premise so I'm not sure why the relevance to your theory needs to be explained . . .

[Conga3]

double post. grrr.

[Conga3]

No problem at all.

http://www.law.corne.../pdf/08-205P.ZO

Oh, that. Thanks for link...

And after you help with a link, please explain why it's relevant to taxing corporations like citizens who can vote.

I disagree with your premise so I'm not sure why the relevance to your theory needs to be explained . . .

... but if you're not continuing the discussion I was having with strigori, just interjecting a quick little relevant tidbit, I'll leave ya alone

[carlfense]

... but if you're not continuing the discussion I was having with strigori, just interjecting a quick little relevant tidbit, I'll leave ya alone

If you're serious about this it's going to be a nice little tax break for a lot of felons . . .

[Conga3]

... but if you're not continuing the discussion I was having with strigori, just interjecting a quick little relevant tidbit, I'll leave ya alone

If you're serious about this it's going to be a nice little tax break for a lot of felons . . .

I'm sure you can imagine a system that could close that loophole and continue to tax felons who have lost their right to vote from criminal activity.

 

If that's the biggest hole you can poke in my idea...it must be better than I thought.

----

The principle I'm basing this off of is not very radical. It's kinda how this whole thing got started in the first place - no taxation without representation.

 

I'm also not a big fan of elected officials using hidden taxes to tug and pull our societies puppet strings to advance their agenda and generate revenue for the government.

 

Taxes need to hurt when you pay them. They should stick in the back of your mind when you step into a voting booth because you are aware at how much you're paying in taxes.

 

If you raise the taxes on corporations, it's simply passed on to the citizens who buy their products/services... but it doesn't show up on the sales receipt.

[carlfense]

If that's the biggest hole you can poke in my idea...it must be better than I thought.

I don't know if that's the biggest . . . but it's the first one that popped into my head.

 

To reiterate, the basic structure of our current tax code (not the loopholes, the complexity, the random deductions, etc.) is acceptable and fair.

[74Hunter]

 

To reiterate, the basic structure of our current tax code (not the loopholes, the complexity, the random deductions, etc.) is acceptable and fair.

This is incorrect.

[carlfense]

 

To reiterate, the basic structure of our current tax code (not the loopholes, the complexity, the random deductions, etc.) is acceptable and fair.

This is incorrect.

Still waiting . . .

 

If you don't simply understand how taxes are currently bracketed, then there is no sense in discussing them with you. Go take a look at irs.gov, maybe you will become educated on how the system works.

Specifically, what unfairness do you see in marginal rates? I have a sinking suspicion that you don't really understand how they are structured . . . That said, I do hope that you understand our system of marginal rates and actually have some insightful comments about why they are unfair.

[strigori]

But SCOTUS says a company is a person.....

In the courtroom, yes, so what is your point?

 

We don't allow them to vote though...so the concept I'm advancing in the thread - that if you have 1 vote, you have 1 tax rate doesn't apply to the "personhood" granted corporations in our court system.

Not just in the courtroom . . . corporations recently gained constitutional rights.

Please help with a link. I have no clue what you are referencing if it's not 'corporate personhood' - which is nothing new and not anything more than a legal/courtroom thing.

 

And after you help with a link, please explain why it's relevant to taxing corporations like citizens who can vote.

 

Thanks!

So only taxing 'voting eligible' citizens mean felons don't pay taxes? Long term visa persons, who live and work here? If an entity makes money, then it should be taxed.

 

Side note, using foreign tax shelters to hide income needs to have much nastier penalties. Like escalating it to a felony, with a fine equal to the amount being hidden.

[74Hunter]

 

To reiterate, the basic structure of our current tax code (not the loopholes, the complexity, the random deductions, etc.) is acceptable and fair.

This is incorrect.

Still waiting . . .

 

If you don't simply understand how taxes are currently bracketed, then there is no sense in discussing them with you. Go take a look at irs.gov, maybe you will become educated on how the system works.

Specifically, what unfairness do you see in marginal rates? I have a sinking suspicion that you don't really understand how they are structured . . . That said, I do hope that you understand our system of marginal rates and actually have some insightful comments about why they are unfair.

And you can continue to wait, First, I have a life and responsibilities to take care of, I don't spend much of my free time behind a computer. Second, its an extremely simple concept, so I don't know why you are having such difficulty grasping it and are asking for an elaborate answer. Other posters aren't having difficulty understanding it. But anyhow, everyone should pay the same tax rate for money earned from employment. I don't care if they are progressive taxes or marginal rates, etc., when one person has to pay a higher percentage of his income because he is more successful, its not fair to tax payers. It's also not fair that some people don't pay any income tax, yet they get to benefit from what us taxpayers have funded.

 

Penalizing ingenuity, hard work and success is not productive nor is it fair.

 

Your suspicions display your ignorance. I realize that irs.gov may be a pain to navigate, so here is a wiki link that might explain how taxes are bracketed and computed. Even though it may not be 100% accurate, its very simply laid out, so it will be a nice starting point for you.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ncome_tax_rates.

 

You're welcome in advance.

[carlfense]

But anyhow, everyone should pay the same tax rate for money earned from employment.

We do.

 

I don't care if they are progressive taxes or marginal rates, etc.,

Possibly because you don't understand the difference.

 

when one person has to pay a higher percentage of his income because he is more successful, its not fair to tax payers.

A billionaire pays the exact same tax rate on his first $8,925 as a person who only makes $8,925 total.

 

The same billionaire pays the exact same tax rate on his first $36,250 as someone who makes $36,250 total.

 

Etc. (Hypothetical using regular income and not accounting for carried interest, capital gains, etc.)

 

Your suspicions display your ignorance. I realize that irs.gov may be a pain to navigate, so here is a wiki link that might explain how taxes are bracketed and computed. Even though it may not be 100% accurate, its very simply laid out, so it will be a nice starting point for you.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ncome_tax_rates.

 

You're welcome in advance.

You took the time to write that out but you won't (or can't) explain why marginal tax rates are unfair.

[TGHusker]

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?

agree 100%. However, the reason it won't happen - the politicians - Repub and Dems use the tax code to reward and or benefit their pet special interests.

My concern wt the current debt situation is that congress will tack on a VAT (Value added Tax) on top of the current tax. Wt states and cities in deeper financial trouble, they too will be looking for additional sources of revenue. We don't have a tax problem (not enough tax revenue) but a spending problem. I am open to the idea of a national sales tax as long as it is tied to the abolishment of the income tax.

[TGHusker]

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?

 

More and more I am seeing that pushing for a full straight tax rate without any below poverty line adjustments is never going to happen, so I thought the proposal to start at 50k+ was a pretty easy solution and a good compromise for both side of the political spectrum. As BRB mentions, the us govt will have a fairly good idea of what taxes are going to come in, people will have a pretty good idea of how much they are going to make, and we don't have people not able to pay taxes on April 15th, because they will already have them taken out of every paycheck.

 

 

The reason this will never happen is that the amount of the population below $50,000 is too low. Meaning, the voter base this would cater to is not enough and a politician pushing for it wouldn't be elected.

 

The Dems were brilliant in their design of the tax increase for the top 1-2 percent. That gives them a voter base of 98% of the population that wouldn't be negatively affected by that proposal.

 

The vast majority of Americans were hearing..." ahhh..haaa....Tax the other guy."

 

I think every citizen should pay taxes. There should be a 'cost' for citizenship - to enjoy the rights of being a citizen in a free society. It gives them a vested interest & may prompt all to consider carefully how they vote. Completely disabled/dependant might be exempted.