The American tax system.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,641
5,134
126
There should be a progressive tax on individuals and corporations up to 100% with tax breaks for social responsibility. Corporations that pay workers well and have high employee to profit ratios would get breaks. Corporations doing service for the nation and its people would get breaks too. No tax on development of social good products like solar energy or pollution free cars. No tax on organic farmers. No tax on cultural preservation and heritage. Free education for a science of man to determine, scientifically, how best to organize life for long term survival and maximizing human potential. Free and mandatory psychological examination of children's living conditions with state support and removal of children from psychologically destructive homes. Childcare and health certificate required for parenting. Focus on the elimination of culturally transmitted mental illness with a recognition that the alternative is human extinction.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We have always been best off as a nation when we progressively heavily taxed the rich. It's good for us and it's good for them. I mean it's good for them and it's good for you.
We don't tax people, we tax dollars. In this way a progressive tax system is totally fair.
 

LeadMagnet

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,348
0
0
A national sales tax would kill consumption and destroy our economy. People would stop consuming, layoffs would occur, people would spend even less, more layoffs. Very very ugly.
Because the poor and middle class spend a larger percentage of their income on essentials the tax burden would fall to them. The rich once they had their wealth would never pay taxes in effect. Essentially this would create a super oligarchy of the very rich and keep them rich. This is what George Washington and Thomas Jefferson didn't want.
Yes, I agree on both accounts. The 2nd point not totally, but at 20% a sales tax would have a catastrophic affect, especially on the poor/lower income segment of society.

Obviously everyone did not read the entire post. The poor would pay almost no taxes since essencials -food ,clothing ,medicne, and low-income rent would NOT be taxed. Now people would have the money (with no income tax) to spend, and when they do spend on the non-essencials in life then they pay the national sales tax. So someone with lots of money spending on $300,00 houses and $40,000 cars would pay more tax on those things as they spend their money.

If anything it would be a boom to small bussiness not having to track employee salary for taxaction, anf the federal goverment would be much smaller with the IRS out of the picture.

Most people belive that the rich and powerfull are in charge of this country - and if that is true then they would have written a tax system favorable to them and not the masses. And that is why national sales tax plan will never be put into place, unless the pions smarten-up and force the elected officals to pass such a law.

Getting rid of the IRS
 

DZip

Senior member
Apr 11, 2000
375
0
0
Do away with all taxes and ask for donations to run the goverment. If that don't bring in enough money, have bake sales and bingo. Eveyone wants to help.
 

Rogue9

Member
Mar 20, 2003
65
0
0
We can never get rid of the income tax by adding a national sales tax. What would REALLY happen is we'd end up paying both taxes, like so many other countries.

Best thing the federal government could do for the country is eliminate the income tax - and replace it with nothing. This would force government downsizing and restore many civil liberties.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,641
5,134
126
Anybody seen that IRS guy who challenged the legality of income tax and hasn't paid in years? For some reason they don't seem to want to touch him.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
There should be a progressive tax on individuals and corporations up to 100% with tax breaks for social responsibility.
Taking Elitist Social Engineering 101? No, you simply pen just laws and penalize those who break them. The government doesn't exist to tell us how to behave but to ensure we have the freedom to behave as we will in accordance to fair laws.

I believe the best route is to guarantee the most freedom of choice to operate as one sees fit, so long as no harm is brought to others and no just law is violated.

It really disspoints me to see so many people going well beyond suggestion and advocacy and into the realm of dictating behavior. This is the principle reason the democrat party seldom gets my vote. You WILL do this, you WILL NOT do that. Sheesh, I thought slavery was abolished long ago!
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,641
5,134
126
Darn, Jelly, are you telling me your idea of government is better than mine. How very elitist of you. I'm shocked. The best rout as you claim is only best if people know what freedom is. They don't. People want freedom without responsibility because they have been put in mental chains and are in rebellion. For a body, that's just like cancer.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
My elitism > yours! One might prefer government more or less fully in control of us while I prefer us being more or less fully in control of government. But you're right, the later can't happen without an understanding of freedom and the value of liberty.

Again I prefer the book to the bat so I would encourage "freedom education". We used to have this when true American history was taught. Of course, today government controls our schools and more and more it seems any history before the modern Civil Rights movement is de-emphasized. (Don't get me wrong, Civil Rights were exceptionally important to achieve but my point is that movement only had a chance to succeed because of more important underlying protection of core rights and basic freedoms.)

The responsibility component of the freedom equation is often made evidenent when one faces the consequences of a bad choice. Thus it stands to reason we actually become less responsible if we're not allowed to make as many choices. If that's not cancer, it's at least an enlarged prostate.
 

zephyrprime

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,510
2
81
$30,000 a year would pay ~20% in federal taxes, and someone making $90,000 would pay ~45%
i1040

$30000 single tax rate = 14.8%
$90000 single tax rate = 23.7%

This isn't even counting any deductions.

...it is not taxing the real money makers in this country (corporations and millionaires) that get paid by stock options.
This is true to an extent but the captital gains rate for rich people is 20% which is the same rate as your sales tax idea so there'd be no change.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Just going through recent Buesinessweek articles and found some interesting stats on tax:

In 1965, corporate tax accounts for 4% of GDP,
In 2000, 2.5% and
In 2002, 1.5%

In 1940, company and individual each paid about 50% of federal income tax collected
Now (2003), companies paid 13.7% and individuals 86.3%

It sure sucks in this country if you earn your income from salary and you don't own stock.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
SHELBY INTRODUCES FLAT TAX LEGISLATION

"...
Like President Bush?s plan, S.1040 eliminates the double taxation of dividends, but it goes further by creating a single tax rate for all taxpayers ? seventeen percent when the tax is fully implemented. The legislation would also eliminate the many marginal rates, all itemized deductions and credits, the alternative minimum tax, and the taxation of Social Security benefits. In place of itemized deductions, each taxpayer would be given a standard deduction of $12,790, or $25,580 in the case of a couple filing jointly. Taxpayers would receive an additional $5,510 standard deduction for each dependant. Therefore, a family of four would need to make over $36,600 before they would pay a single penny of taxes
..."

I'm still attracted by the idea of a flat tax. It seems as if it would solve many of the problems with current version. It would save billions of man-hours in filling out tax returns and make the entire system much more fool proof. With the generous deductions the poor would still get their free ride err protection from taxes.

What's the problem besides certain groups would never let the control of the masses escape their clutches
 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,875
0
76
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
What about a flat tax on income? Say...20% (probably not enough), if you make 10,000 per year you pay 2,000. If you make 1,000,000 per year you pay $200,000. Would this be fair? Of course I know its not that simple though.
No, it won't be fair. That $2k means ALOT more to the poor family then to the family making $1 mil and losing 200k. $2k could cost the poor family food and other requirements, while the family making $1 mil will cost them a Jaguar and less tennis lessons for Buffy.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: etech
SHELBY INTRODUCES FLAT TAX LEGISLATION

"...
Like President Bush?s plan, S.1040 eliminates the double taxation of dividends, but it goes further by creating a single tax rate for all taxpayers ? seventeen percent when the tax is fully implemented. The legislation would also eliminate the many marginal rates, all itemized deductions and credits, the alternative minimum tax, and the taxation of Social Security benefits. In place of itemized deductions, each taxpayer would be given a standard deduction of $12,790, or $25,580 in the case of a couple filing jointly. Taxpayers would receive an additional $5,510 standard deduction for each dependant. Therefore, a family of four would need to make over $36,600 before they would pay a single penny of taxes
..."

I'm still attracted by the idea of a flat tax. It seems as if it would solve many of the problems with current version. It would save billions of man-hours in filling out tax returns and make the entire system much more fool proof. With the generous deductions the poor would still get their free ride err protection from taxes.

What's the problem besides certain groups would never let the control of the masses escape their clutches
This would be worth it just for the simplication in the tax code it would bring.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
I have always wondered how many billions of dollars a simple tax plan such as Shelby's proposal would save the US each year.

Millions of trees would not have to be cut down for the forms. There would be a greatly smaller IRS. Tax lawyers and tax accountants who don't contribute anything to the GDP would have to find productive work.

I still like the idea.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
3
0
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
$30,000 a year would pay ~20% in federal taxes, and someone making $90,000 would pay ~45%
i1040

$30000 single tax rate = 14.8%
$90000 single tax rate = 23.7%

This isn't even counting any deductions.

...it is not taxing the real money makers in this country (corporations and millionaires) that get paid by stock options.
This is true to an extent but the captital gains rate for rich people is 20% which is the same rate as your sales tax idea so there'd be no change.
I think this needs to be reiterated. Shellby's plan will place a larger burden on lower-middle class, much larger when you factor in losing deductions like mortgage interest, state property taxes, etc.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
I think this needs to be reiterated. Shellby's plan will place a larger burden on lower-middle class, much larger when you factor in losing deductions like mortgage interest, state property taxes, etc.
I just did a rough calculation on how Shelby's plan would affect my taxes.

It was close to the same or just slightly better. I don't see the much larger burden you are talking about when you factor in the larger standard deduction. Care to explain?
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
3
0
Originally posted by: etech
I think this needs to be reiterated. Shellby's plan will place a larger burden on lower-middle class, much larger when you factor in losing deductions like mortgage interest, state property taxes, etc.
I just did a rough calculation on how Shelby's plan would affect my taxes.

It was close to the same or just slightly better. I don't see the much larger burden you are talking about when you factor in the larger standard deduction. Care to explain?
First you need to tell me how much you make, and whether you own any taxable property and have a mortgage. :)

The quick answer is, $30000 x 14.8% < $30000 x 17%. Factor in the lost deductions, the difference grows.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Originally posted by: etech
I think this needs to be reiterated. Shellby's plan will place a larger burden on lower-middle class, much larger when you factor in losing deductions like mortgage interest, state property taxes, etc.
I just did a rough calculation on how Shelby's plan would affect my taxes.

It was close to the same or just slightly better. I don't see the much larger burden you are talking about when you factor in the larger standard deduction. Care to explain?
First you need to tell me how much you make, and whether you own any taxable property and have a mortgage. :)

The quick answer is, $30000 x 14.8% < $30000 x 17%. Factor in the lost deductions, the difference grows.
Married with two kids, house paid off.

Are you calculating that on a total of 30K? If so you are forgetting the standard deduction of $12,790, or $25,580 in the case of a couple filing jointly.

single
30,000 -12,790 = 17210 * 17% = 2,925.7
vs.
30,000 * 14.8 % = 4,440

now you have to add in the deductions a single person making 30K would get but I don't think they would add up to that much.

I'll leave it to you to do the married couple with two kids. Try it for say, 30K to 90K, that should match the average American family. I don't think you will see the great increase in burden that you are claiming.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Originally posted by: etech
I think this needs to be reiterated. Shellby's plan will place a larger burden on lower-middle class, much larger when you factor in losing deductions like mortgage interest, state property taxes, etc.
I just did a rough calculation on how Shelby's plan would affect my taxes.

It was close to the same or just slightly better. I don't see the much larger burden you are talking about when you factor in the larger standard deduction. Care to explain?
First you need to tell me how much you make, and whether you own any taxable property and have a mortgage. :)

The quick answer is, $30000 x 14.8% < $30000 x 17%. Factor in the lost deductions, the difference grows.

I bought a house this past year, the interest/prop taxes were less than the standard deduction. The low interest rates right now are really killing that deduction. Or maybe I just should have bought more house :)

A 17% tax rate would not greatly change my tax bill either.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
3
0
If the difference in the proposed standard deduction makes up for the otherwise lost deductions, then you may very well come out ahead or better. If that's the case for most people with Shelby's plan, I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it.
 

przero

Platinum Member
Dec 30, 2000
2,060
0
0


Cost of government divided by the number of citizens equals the fair amount of tax each person should pay.

You guys miss the point of this idea. If EVERYONE paid equally, there would be such clamor from the masses that the Federal Government would have to become more efficient. No more free rides for anyone. the greatest trick the Gov't ever played on us was Payroll Tax Withholding.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
If the difference in the proposed standard deduction makes up for the otherwise lost deductions, then you may very well come out ahead or better. If that's the case for most people with Shelby's plan, I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it.

"Like President Bush?s plan, S.1040 eliminates the double taxation of dividends, but it goes further by creating a single tax rate for all taxpayers ? seventeen percent when the tax is fully implemented. The legislation would also eliminate the many marginal rates, all itemized deductions and credits, the alternative minimum tax, and the taxation of Social Security benefits. In place of itemized deductions, each taxpayer would be given a standard deduction of $12,790, or $25,580 in the case of a couple filing jointly. Taxpayers would receive an additional $5,510 standard deduction for each dependant. Therefore, a family of four would need to make over $36,600 before they would pay a single penny of taxes
"

I also like the last sentence.

"a family of four would need to make over $36,600 before they would pay a single penny of taxes"

I'd still be paying taxes but it looks like it would only take five minutes or so to fill them out. That makes it a very interesting plan all by itself.


 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
If the difference in the proposed standard deduction makes up for the otherwise lost deductions, then you may very well come out ahead or better. If that's the case for most people with Shelby's plan, I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it.

"Like President Bush?s plan, S.1040 eliminates the double taxation of dividends, but it goes further by creating a single tax rate for all taxpayers ? seventeen percent when the tax is fully implemented. The legislation would also eliminate the many marginal rates, all itemized deductions and credits, the alternative minimum tax, and the taxation of Social Security benefits. In place of itemized deductions, each taxpayer would be given a standard deduction of $12,790, or $25,580 in the case of a couple filing jointly. Taxpayers would receive an additional $5,510 standard deduction for each dependant. Therefore, a family of four would need to make over $36,600 before they would pay a single penny of taxes
"

I also like the last sentence.

"a family of four would need to make over $36,600 before they would pay a single penny of taxes"

I'd still be paying taxes but it looks like it would only take five minutes or so to fill them out. That makes it a very interesting plan all by itself.
Ooo lookey, a bill that would raise my taxes and crush the housing market in one fell swoop.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: etech
I think this needs to be reiterated. Shellby's plan will place a larger burden on lower-middle class, much larger when you factor in losing deductions like mortgage interest, state property taxes, etc.
I just did a rough calculation on how Shelby's plan would affect my taxes.

It was close to the same or just slightly better. I don't see the much larger burden you are talking about when you factor in the larger standard deduction. Care to explain?
Mine was a little worse, but a trade of if we simplified everything.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY