Lets really cut taxes fairly (my ideas)

[sportage]

Hey... I have an idea(s) on tax cutting. And especially for the new republican congress. Why not totally eliminate the child tax credit. Isn't that some $3000+ for each child?
Why should everyone feel the tax burden just because others chose to have a baby, or have kids. If elected officials want to cut taxes, and pretend to be so against socialism, isn't collecting taxes from people and families with no children and passing it out to families with children the very heart of socialism? Eliminate the child tax credit. That would save billions in tax refunds. If someone choses to have a kid, why should others have to pay for that personal decision?

More?... Isn't it time to start taxing the church, just as a business?
And also drop the tax exemption for American Indian reservations,
and casino's on those reservations while at it?
Like the war between settlers and Indians ended a long long time ago.
Isn't it time reservations were taxed like everyone else.
We don't give blacks tax breaks because that race was once enslaved in America.
Whats the deal with giving American Indian's tax breaks.. still today?

I'd rather see the child tax credit dumped, see the church taxed on income and property, and reservations taxed the same as everyone else. And then create new tax breaks for all seniors with some of the tax savings. Allow all retired seniors to live "property tax free" in their homes, nation wide. Give seniors a break in their golden years as recognition for their life long contributions to society. Eliminate property taxes for every retired, SS collecting senior over 70 with current total income, say, under $50,000.
Then start taxing those little brats and the parents that pop out kids just for the tax break.
Parents usually don't spend any of the refund money on the actual kid anyway...

Or... stop giving child tax credits in the form of cash refunds, and instead give refunds in the form of school tax credits applied towards their property taxes, or clothing credits, or credits applied only to child health care costs i.e. employer insurance family plans, co-pays, childcare costs. Or credits only used toward college education saving plans.
If the child / parent does not use the credit for education purposes, then they lose that credit when the child reaches a certain age. Or let the child retain the credit for life to be used at any time, as long as it only goes towards further education.

Hell... That education tax credit earned as a child might alone solve some of the high unemployment rate in the country, by allowing laid off and displaced employees to go back to school and learn new trades.

Now that would be real and fair tax reform...

 

[Ns1]

cuz it's OKAY to bitch about rich people getting tax cuts, but it's NOT okay to bitch about JoeSchmoe and his 6 kids and his tax credits.

BTW, I agree with you.

If you can't afford the kids dont' have them.

 

[Fear No Evil]

If you are going to tax churches, I think all non-profit's should be included as well.

 

[IronWing]

I'm okay with getting rid of the tax breaks for breeding but I see no reason to turn around and give additional tax breaks to seniors. If anything, the current breaks for seniors need to be abolished as well.

Of course, the elephant in the tax code is the special tax rate for capital gains. We give the biggest tax break of all to the very highest income folks. Tax capital gains as regular income.

 

[ShawnD1]

Hey... I have an idea(s) on tax cutting. And especially for the new republican congress. Why not totally eliminate the child tax credit. Isn't that some $3000+ for each child?
Why should everyone feel the tax burden just because others chose to have a baby, or have kids. If elected officials want to cut taxes, and pretend to be so against socialism, isn't collecting taxes from people and families with no children and passing it out to families with children the very heart of socialism? Eliminate the child tax credit. That would save billions in tax refunds. If someone choses to have a kid, why should others have to pay for that personal decision?

In other words you want to lower taxes on people who have the most job mobility and potential while increasing taxes on people who have a considerably higher cost of living?

More?... Isn't it time to start taxing the church, just as a business?

This is difficult to do because most churches really are non-profit organizations. You see super rich fucks like Kent Hovind raising millions of dollars in their mega churches, but that's the rare exception. Most priests are not ballers. They don't wear suits or drive fancy cars. They rely on donations to pay the utilities and feed themselves.
Some churches really should have their non-profit status removed. Scientology is not a real church; it's obviously a for-profit organization and should be taxed as such.

And also drop the tax exemption for American Indian reservations,
and casino's on those reservations while at it?

Can't do this because they have full legal control of their reservations. The guys who settled a long time ago agreed to "buy" an entire country worth of land in exchange for some piece of shit reserves and exemption from many laws such as taxes and hunting licenses. You're not required to give them infinite amounts of free shit, but at the same time it feels wrong to take things away from them. Just let them run their own little countries with tax-free casinos.

We don't give blacks tax breaks because that race was once enslaved in America.
Whats the deal with giving American Indian's tax breaks.. still today?

Blacks never owned America. It was never their land. They don't get treaties because they didn't sell anything to you.




If you really wanted to cut gubment spending on children, what you could do is give out vouchers for things. Instead of having free school and hiding the cost, privatize (and heavily regulate) the education system and give parents a $5,000 voucher for every child. Voucher money that isn't used is rolled over into the next year. This is to encourage you to pick a cheaper school and save the money for college. If you want to blow all of it and pay full price for college, that's cool too.
$5000 is actually really cheap compared to what yalls is paying right now in some places. Education in Detroit is about $10,000 per year. Some places are actually higher than that. It's unbelievable. In a well regulated private system, bloated pieces of shit like that would fail because no parent wants to pay all of their 5k voucher for a school with 30 administrators and no teachers.

 

[charrison]

I have a better idea. How about we reform the tax code so 90% of the population can file on a 1 page form?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Why not kill all those educational credits also.
It is going to the parents, not the students.

And tax scholarships, if you are going to get an education that will improve yourself, start to pay for it ASAP.

Those educational and child along with energy credits were not available 20 years.

Every loophole/credit/deduction has a reason for it (both commercial and private).
You need a qualified person to look at it and determine has it outgrown the purpose and it the purpose valid.

 

[ElFenix]

Why not kill all those educational credits also.
It is going to the parents, not the students.

And tax scholarships, if you are going to get an education that will improve yourself, start to pay for it ASAP.

Those educational and child along with energy credits were not available 20 years.

Every loophole/credit/deduction has a reason for it (both commercial and private).
You need a qualified person to look at it and determine has it outgrown the purpose and it the purpose valid.

i don't have any idea why someone looked at the college funding situation, decided that it was too expensive, and then decided the best way to make it less expensive was to increase demand.

 

[ShawnD1]

I have a better idea. How about we reform the tax code so 90% of the population can file on a 1 page form?

Makes sense.

Basically it would just be a list of income sources.
Money from regular work = ?
Capital gains from bonds = ?
Capital gains from stock = ?
Other income sources = ?


All other things would need a separate application. If you want shawn's education voucher, you talk to the private school and have them help you fill it out and send it it. They want that money too, so they'll be sure to help you with this. It would be like how the people at the dentist take care of my insurance forms for me; they want that money just as much as I do.

i don't have any idea why someone looked at the college funding situation, decided that it was too expensive, and then decided the best way to make it less expensive was to increase demand.

It's only a problem if you fund private schools, which you sort of don't. Guys going to Harvard pay the full price, and it's something crazy like 40k per year. College funding is why state schools are so damn cheap.

Here in Canada our universities are generally cheaper than US state universities. The way we cope with increased demand is increased standards. If demand for a program is high, it's harder to get in. I had to write a report about electrical engineering before they would allow me to enroll in it; it's just to prove that I understand what this program is about and I'm not taking a program I shouldn't be in. Worthless programs with no demand (ie woman studies) do not require high marks or early application or a report about that field of study.

 

[MotF Bane]

i don't have any idea why someone looked at the college funding situation, decided that it was too expensive, and then decided the best way to make it less expensive was to increase demand.

You fail Government Logic 101.

 

[charrison]

Makes sense.

Basically it would just be a list of income sources.
Money from regular work = ?
Capital gains from bonds = ?
Capital gains from stock = ?
Other income sources = ?

I am not sure it would be a good to differentiate income sources as that is the path back to complexity. A large standard deduction and a single tax rate. I

All other things would need a separate application. If you want shawn's education voucher, you talk to the private school and have them help you fill it out and send it it. They want that money too, so they'll be sure to help you with this. It would be like how the people at the dentist take care of my insurance forms for me; they want that money just as much as I do.

You want a education tax credit, file it with DoEdu
Want a energy tax credit credit, file it with DoEnergy
Want a credit for getting a hybird, file it with the DoT...

 

[ElFenix]

It's only a problem if you fund private schools, which you sort of don't. Guys going to Harvard pay the full price, and it's something crazy like 40k per year. College funding is why state schools are so damn cheap.

you obviously have no idea how University of Phoenix makes money

Here in Canada our universities are generally cheaper than US state universities. The way we cope with increased demand is increased standards. If demand for a program is high, it's harder to get in. I had to write a report about electrical engineering before they would allow me to enroll in it; it's just to prove that I understand what this program is about and I'm not taking a program I shouldn't be in. Worthless programs with no demand (ie woman studies) do not require high marks or early application or a report about that field of study.

standards for a lot of public universities are kept fairly high. there's simply not enough supply. it doesn't help that college is seen as a necessary and vital part of growing up nowadays, and that colleges can continue to raise pricing because the federal government is practically giving away financial aid. feds need to focus on increasing supply.

 

[ShawnD1]

you obviously have no idea how University of Phoenix makes money

Wat funding are they getting? Every source I've ever seen shows University of Phoenix being as expensive as real universities like Princeton. One of the reasons it keeps making the news is because education loans stay with you even after you've filed for bankruptcy. People go there, learn fuck all, go bankrupt, and they are still required to pay back all federal loans. So basically the school doesn't get any gubment money. The get your money based on a loan, and you owe that for the rest of your life.

State schools get direct funding. An undergraduate (normal 4 year) degree is $8701 per year at University of Washington. I'm not going to google every single state, but you get the idea. State schools get direct funding and are affordable. Bullshit private schools like university of phoenix do not get direct funding, they're expensive as hell, and you need to pay back all of that gubment loan even if it takes half a century.

standards for a lot of public universities are kept fairly high. there's simply not enough supply. it doesn't help that college is seen as a necessary and vital part of growing up nowadays, and that colleges can continue to raise pricing because the federal government is practically giving away financial aid. feds need to focus on increasing supply.

Don't worry about it. The free market can handle this. When there's a shortage of engineers and fresh grads are getting ridiculously good pay, private universities will expand their programs and fill the gaps and more students will want in on that cash money. If industry has a sudden demand for womens studies and humanities, then.... ok that will never happen, I won't even pretend that will happen.

So far Canada seems to be doing pretty ok with low supply. Engineering hasn't really expanded much in the past 50 years even though the population has gone way up. Demand is still low enough that private universities are extremely rare here. It's possible that this is because a lot of our engineering work isn't actually done by engineers. Lots of guys just have a 2 year ticket saying they know how to use autocad and they can do basic first year calculus and understand basic electrical theory. Some of the guys at my work probably don't even have that. This one guy does design work and he can't even use a computer; he puts design on paper and I autocad it for him. Nobody questions him about it because he's pretty damn good at it and his designs work. The office only needs 1 engineer to review the final copy and put a stamp on it; the rest of the office can be high school dropouts as far as the law is concerned.

Want a energy tax credit credit, file it with DoEnergy
Want a credit for getting a hybird, file it with the DoT...

Why the hell would you get an energy credit? Is this the soviet union? Do you want food stamps too? Nevermind that actually does exist. No you should not get subsidized energy. Suck it up and wear a sweater if you can't afford shit.
And no I'm not going to pay for your car either. You're not 12 years old and this isn't Christmas.

 

[Craig234]

There's one division that matters, the ultra rich who are getting far more than their share of the economy, and everyone else.

It doesn't matter what flavor you pick for increasing taxes on the lower 98%, whether it's home mortgage interest deduction, or FICA, or child deduction or any other flavor.

We need to shift the balance - through whatever balance of estate, capital gains, top tier rate, and so on.

 

[EagleKeeper]

There's one division that matters, the ultra rich who are getting far more than their share of the economy, and everyone else.

It doesn't matter what flavor you pick for increasing taxes on the lower 98%, whether it's home mortgage interest deduction, or FICA, or child deduction or any other flavor.

We need to shift the balance - through whatever balance of estate, capital gains, top tier rate, and so on.

Eventually the government will start spending so much money that they will have to reach into YOUR pocket.

This is OK for you because it is the progressive government that knows what to do best with your money

 

[QuantumPion]

the ultra rich who are getting far more than their share of the economy

So if I work 16 hours and you work 8 hours, I unfairly stole half of your wages?

 

[CycloWizard]

There's one division that matters, the ultra rich who are getting far more than their share of the economy, and everyone else.

It doesn't matter what flavor you pick for increasing taxes on the lower 98%, whether it's home mortgage interest deduction, or FICA, or child deduction or any other flavor.

We need to shift the balance - through whatever balance of estate, capital gains, top tier rate, and so on.

How do you decide what is fair? How can the bottom 47% pay less when they are already paying nothing?

 

[LunarRay]

Taxation ought to be based on the notion that the more one economically benefits from citizenship (or non citizen earner) the more they should pay for that condition.
The very poor - for what ever reason - benefit the least and therefore should pay the least... AND there should be a threshold called poverty that does not demand any taxation.
At the end of the day the total revenue in should equal the total expenditure out... Except for infrastructure creation and economic stimulus needs.... Lt Debt is a fine source but with a pay down scenario included... Wars ought to be waged at the expense of the warrior minded and those who'd benefit from that endeavor with the only exception being one where we've been attacked in a real sense.

Society in general should not ask for more of what they already know some folks have none of... but neither should society be 'forced' to contribute to the needs of the very poor beyond some reasonable point... And that point considers the revenue/expenditure aspect of reality.

 

[HomerJS]

I thought the GOP considered this fair...

 

[EagleKeeper]

There are people that state that those that benefit the most should pay the most.

Conversly if a reduction should happen those that have been hit the hardest by social gerrymandering should also be able to have the burden reduced, not added.

Taking money from the very wealthy for the poor may be a noble concept, but the government has no scruples; they will also take from the middle class and give to those that WILL NOT need it/abuse the system.

Maybe it should be for every $ that is taxed; there must be a corresponding $ reduction in spending.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

There's one division that matters, the ultra rich who are getting far more than their share of the economy, and everyone else.

It doesn't matter what flavor you pick for increasing taxes on the lower 98%, whether it's home mortgage interest deduction, or FICA, or child deduction or any other flavor.

We need to shift the balance - through whatever balance of estate, capital gains, top tier rate, and so on.

Once again, the jealousy shows through.
The "super Rich" already pay a disportionate amount of taxes as it is on income, plus they pay taxes on other sources of income, AND higher property taxes.

Just because you are to lazy or not smart enough to go out and become a millionaire is no reason to hate on those that are.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

I think child tax credits are actually needed. You can't improve or increase an economy with a shrinking population.
And lets face it. People of all economic ranges are going to have kids whether they can afford it or not. So giving the parent(s) a tax break may just be the difference between that family applying for all sorts of government programs that will cost a lot more than the tax credit.

 

[Scotteq]

Eliminate Child Tax Credits??

Bad idea: Old, Rich people don't F*ck







More seriously: The Maximum credit is $1K per child. And you don't qualify at all if you earn more than $110,000 (Married, Filing Jointly), $75K (Single, Head of HH), or $55K (Married, Filing Separately.

So eliminating Child Tax Credits does nothing to increase the burden on the Rich, and would be a direct increase of the burden on the Working Classes, and therefore you should shove your idea up your ass.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p972.pdf

 

[jiggahertz]

Eliminate Child Tax Credits??

Bad idea: Old, Rich people don't F*ck







More seriously: The Maximum credit is $1K per child. And you don't qualify at all if you earn more than $110,000 (Married, Filing Jointly), $75K (Single, Head of HH), or $55K (Married, Filing Separately.

So eliminating Child Tax Credits does nothing to increase the burden on the Rich, and would be a direct increase of the burden on the Working Classes, and therefore you should shove your idea up your ass.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p972.pdf

Yes, only poor people should get incentives to have children.

 

[Scotteq]

Yes, only poor people should get incentives to have children.

Exactly