Help me understand the beliefs here on SF about income tax.

Question:
Do you support progressive tax schemes in general?

Choices:
Yes
No

Question:
At what annual income do you consider a family of 4 to be "rich?"

Choices:
$50k-$100k
$101k-$200k
$201k-$300k
$301k-$500k
>$501k

Question:
Are you in favor of throwing out the current tax code and starting anew?

Choices:
Yes
No

Question:
Do you ever think the USA will get rid of our current income tax scheme?

Choices:
Yes
No

 

quote:

Question:
Do you support progressive tax schemes in general?

Could you clarify this question?

Are you talking about progressive INCOME taxes, or some type of tax system where those who use a service more (in theory) pay more, such as gasoline tax?

quote:

Originally posted by KevinCW:
Are you talking about progressive INCOME taxes, or some type of tax system where those who use a service more (in theory) pay more, such as gasoline tax?

That wouldn't be a progressive tax. That's a use or sales tax. It's flat.

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:

quote:

Originally posted by KevinCW:
Are you talking about progressive INCOME taxes, or some type of tax system where those who use a service more (in theory) pay more, such as gasoline tax?

That wouldn't be a progressive tax. That's a use or sales tax. It's flat.

That's my question, for the purposes of the poll progressive tax system would mean an income tax system like we have now.

quote:

Originally posted by KevinCW:
Could you clarify this question?

Progressive tax schemes = income redistribution efforts.

And yes, I think that is what we have now.

Don't mean to assume what the OP had in mind...

I couldn't complete the poll because I wouldn't answer what income defined "rich". Stupid question.

The current Federal Income tax laws are so complex, so convoluted, so mind-numbingly ambiguous as to deny equal protection of the laws for anyone who tries to complete and file accurate, proper, truthful returns. I believe the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, is unconstitutional on that ground, and for that reason. I would so rule if I found myself sitting as a US District Court judge, which is not the most important reason it will never happen.

When John Connally was Treasury Secretory (Nixon Admin!), he sent a team of Treasury agents around to various income tax preparers with identical stories, same income, same documents, same dependents, etc. The results were staggering to say the least. The returns prepared by these tax preparers varied from a refund of several thousand dollars to additional tax owed of several thousand. The tax code as been revised at least once since then but got only worse.

That said, I don't think Congress is capable of, or motivated to, coming up with a simplified, understandable, satisfactory revision. Congressmen get power from the status quo, "helping" constituents with special private bills etc. intervening, etc. They can't agree on very much, and least of all on something with so many ramifications for their power.

It's not my fault; I haven't voted for an incumbent in Congress in years.

progressive income tax = structure under which tax rates increase with increases in income.

quote:

Originally posted by PistolWhipped:
I couldn't complete the poll because I wouldn't answer what income defined "rich". Stupid question.

Funny - everyone else figured it out.

I guess you would struggle if I asked you what "smart" meant.

Okay let's see...

- Progressive = Good
- Regressive = Bad

Make the high income taxpayers pay more than the low income folks.

Income is not a good representation of wealth, but I picked the >$500k anyway. Besides, it doesn't say "taxable" income...is that what you meant?

Do you really think throwing out the current system and replacing it will bring any long term improvement? Folks ask me all the time what I think of any one of many tax schemes....I think they'll all end up as it is now given the lobbyists prediliction to draft tax law and legislators willingness to offer it up for a vote.

Wait, I'm trying to get back on the chair. Why would government get rid of the current tax scheme? It's so freakin' convoluted that they can pass new laws, abolish old ones, allow others to 'sunset' all without any direct responsibility and get special deals for their contributors at the same time.

....like I just told a room full of people at lunch today, "It's always tax season."

quote:

... make the high income taxpayers pay more than the low income folks.

If everyone paid 10% of income for tax, the people making 2x would pay 2x of what 1x paid, therefore the high income earners DO PAY MORE. That is not "progressive."

Progressive means the RATE changes with income. Get it?

quote:

Originally posted by Monkeyboy:
Okay let's see...

- Progressive = Good
- Regressive = Bad

make the high income taxpayers pay more than the low income folks.

You're kidding, right? Or maybe you just don't actually understand what progressive taxation is?

High income earners would pay more than low income earners under a flat tax system, so do you not see the difference between the two?

I think rich should be $3 million or more

quote:

Originally posted by SIGnified:

quote:

Originally posted by PistolWhipped:
I couldn't complete the poll because I wouldn't answer what income defined "rich". Stupid question.

Funny - everyone else figured it out.

I guess you would struggle if I asked you what "smart" meant.

I couldn't complete the poll either because of this question.

I don't think who is "rich" or not is relevant.

People should be encouraged to become as wealthy as they like.

Penalizing, or taxing at a higher rate, people who make more money is counterproductive in my opinion.

I am for a flat tax system.

This does not seem fair in my opinion.

Flat taxes are very appealing until you consider the impact on someone paying 28% on an income of $22,000/year versus $2 million a year. One can barely eat and will never be a homeowner the other is trading a few zeroes but is pretty much unaffected. That is the justification for a progressive tax.

I'm all for getting folks into the marketplace. We're all better off with 50,000 more people making $50,000/year than we are with 500 more people making $5,000,000/year.

Amount of income and the correlation to rich varies by geography.

In NJ, my household base salary is $185,000/year and I can tell you that we are not much better off than paycheck to paycheck. One major problem from being in deep shit actually.

quote:

Originally posted by Milliron:
Flat taxes are very appealing until you consider the impact on someone paying 28% on an income of $22,000/year versus $2 million a year. One can barely eat and will never be a homeowner the other is trading a few zeroes but is pretty much unaffected. That is the justification for a progressive tax.

I'm all for getting folks into the marketplace. We're all better off with 50,000 more people making $50,000/year than we are with 500 more people making $5,000,000/year.

There are ways around this problem.

Read here...gives a good basic rundown on how a flat tax system could be feasible.

quote:

Originally posted by Mosttoyswins:
There are ways around this problem.

Yeah, like there's no way in hell a flat tax would be set at 28%. If all (or most of) the shelters, credits, and deductions were done away with, a flat tax could be set around 11% and still create a nice increase in the federal revenue.

i want to know what a flat tax will be based on. Will a Dr. that's billing $800k get taxed on that or does he get to deduct his office expenses? Or if my sales are $500k and my COGS is $375k, do I pay tax on the $125k or do I get to deduct my overhead? And then what do I get to deduct?

We need to scrap our current tax code and start over but it will never happen.

I hate to disagree, but there is no such thing as a fair progressive tax

we pay flat taxes in everything else we buy - gas, bread, milk, cars...

doesn't matter if your rich or poor, you pay exactly what everyone else pays

thats fair

penalizing someone for actually working to achieve the American dream is just downright stupid

why strive to be rich - just stay poor - its less work, you have more time off and you're a slave to the government for a shorter period of time

a progressive tax is just a neo-political euphemism for income redistribution

there is nothing fair about making me work so someone else can be a slacker or a leech