quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
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

Yep! +1000

Doing the paperwork for taxes hurts my brain.

I'd really rather see a VAT or flat tax scheme. You pay as you spend.

There was an interesting article in one of the financial publications recently, talking about how the number of people with a net worth of $1 million or more has increased enormously from what it used to be. The part that really struck me was that the consensus among those they interviewed was that the amount of net worth required to consider yourself truly "rich" was $23 million. Anything less is merely "well off."

The problem with scraping the present system, in favor of other general schemes be they a "flat" tax, USA tax, or VAT lies with those whom have payed into the present system.

It would essentially be double taxing retiree's whom paid income taxes for their lives. Upon any dissolution of income tax and implementation of a use or value added tax they would pay 2x on the same income.

Perhaps a "flat" income tax would be possible- but only to the extent that the gov was eviscerated and forced to make due on a potentially significantly smaller tax base. I can't see the gov making the necessary cut backs (be this a positive or a negative).

Throwing out vat's and use taxes, the sole palatable solution for immediate implementation I can think of would be a slow decline of income tax rates and what is considered taxable.
Perhaps in the same fashion the income tax could be dissolved over a period of decades in favor of a use or value added tax. But this would run the danger of higher taxes- increased use/vat while lacking a corresponding decrease in income tax.

I'm shocked at what some people consider "rich."

You know, I've not seen any plan seriously proposed that isn't progressive. Not one.

The only way that you will generate enough public 'angst' to get any changes to the system is to suspend the payroll deduction 'scheme'.

If everyone had to write quarterly big checks to the government for a year - there would be a ground swell.

The way the system will be changed is when the "rich" either take a couple of years off, or move their assess offshore. Suddenly there will be no more "rich" people paying taxes and there will be a lot of politicians wondering whom they will be taxing next.

everyone is doing their part

I agree, let the rich move their assets offshore

bring the feds to their knees

start culling out the wasteful programs, eliminate pork, send a few congresscritters to prison for misappropriation of the people's money

this country has already spent itself into bankruptcy - we just keep changing the definition so that its not apparent

something has to give, and it can't be the people any longer

we've given enough

I am in favor of a flat income tax and retaining the earned income credit at an increased level.

Taxable income == income from whatever source derived minus a personal exemption.

Abolish corporate income taxes. Tax retained earnings as constructive dividends.

The market is harmed when individuals and corporations make decisions based on tax considerations.

quote:

Originally posted by Dallas239:

The market is harmed when individuals and corporations make decisions based on tax considerations.

In some ways, I suppose, but one of the things good about the system is that by granting and closing exemptions (loopholes), Congress can stimulate some desired activity and discourage other activity. Home ownership is an example, favored by the mortgage interest deduction. Education is another.

If Congress wants to reduce dependence on foreign oil, just to pick a goal, the easiest, fastest way is to come up with a schedule of tax breaks for those who act in the desired way. There are some tax breaks for solar power systems on homes and buildings, for example. Maybe a tax deduction for alternative fueled vehicles, tax incentives for drilling and producing (oh, wait, that is prohibited by other legislation!...... idiots!)

I don't think they'll ever get rid of the current tax system in favor of a simplified tax plan. There are too many IRS employee, accountant and tax attorney jobs at risk.

quote:

Originally posted by sdf:
I'm shocked at what some people consider "rich."

+1

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Dallas239:

The market is harmed when individuals and corporations make decisions based on tax considerations.

In some ways, I suppose, but one of the things good about the system is that by granting and closing exemptions (loopholes), Congress can stimulate some desired activity and discourage other activity. Home ownership is an example, favored by the mortgage interest deduction. Education is another.

Right, those are examples of deliberately manipulating bahavior away from what market forces would otherwise dictate. The efficient result will not always be the "right" result, unless you define it that way.

Defining "rich" is a necessity, since some politicians want to tax the "rich." Somehow I always end up in that category when tax time comes.

Mr. Mosttoys:

Your graphic is excellent, the top 1% of the wage earners pay 40% of the fed income taxes (but they make only 19% of the income). The top 50% income earners pay 97% of the taxes. That means Congress could eliminate all fed income taxes for half of the workers in the U.S. and cut their take by only 3%. When liberals decry "tax cuts for the rich", just how do you cut taxes on the half of Americans who pay less than a pittance in taxes in the first place??

One of my favorite quotes, don't remember who said it first, is "taxes are nothing more than robbing Peter to pay Paul, which will assure you get votes from Paul".

quote:

Originally posted by SIGnified:

Funny - everyone else figured it out.

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

Actually, thats a pretty crummy response to a legitimate question. You just assume, like the current crop of politicians, that rich should be defined on an income basis. I don't agree with that assumption.

I don't even know how to define rich, but I'd be indebted if you or anyone else "smart" would explain it to me. I can see 3 ways to define the status everyone seems so in love with. You could say its income, but a lot of very high income people have little real wealth as defined in assets. Or you could define it as total or net assets. But there are many people that have discovered the knack of having little taxable income but very large fortunes. And finally, you could define rich as in how much people spend each year. Some seem to live at a very high level by spending money they don't have. By most measures they live at a high level without much income or financial assets.

By making some decision to tax only income when the other two measures are ignored only tends to discriminate against high earners, not the others. The high earners are in many cases the most productive. Why would we want to punish those? We'd be better off punishing the non-productive.

Even using a measure like net assets isn't a good measure of wealth. If one's assets are tied up in fallow land or McMansions, they can't use the value. But do we really want to punish those that have earned and saved some of their income (the small part the various levels of government allow us to keep?)

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
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....

It was a couple of decades ago the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee (where all tax bills must originate) once stated he can't do his own taxes as the tax law is too complicated for him to understand - he hires professionals to do the job for him.

It's simply not fair to place a higher tax on americans who make a higher income. I didn't bust my ass for 8 years of schooling so that once i got out, i could be penalized for making a few extra dollars. If someone who makes more money has to shell out more (based on percentages) money for taxes, where is the justice in that? I mean what's the motivation to strive for more if you are just going to get penalized for it!

And here's another flaw...when i see/treat a medicaid patient i almost lose money because the fees medicaid pays are so low. Then, i have to pay a medicaid tax which is essentially paying for these patient's treatment. Then, i am taxed (at a higher percentage mind you) on the "money that i made" treating this patient. No offense to anyone who is on Medicaid....i just feel that the system is greatly flawed!