The American tax system.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,179
7,540
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
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.
high employee to profit margins should pay less tax than ones with razor thin margins? whiskey tango foxtrot?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,179
7,540
126
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
I like the sound of a flat tax, does anyone have an argument against it? I have to admit I don't know a lot about it but if everyone pays the same percentage, isn't it fair to all concerned? I'd love it if someone could shed more light on it and tell me the disadvantages to it...
A flat tax will shift tax burden from the upper middle class and upper class to the poor and lower middle classes. It will make YOU pay more taxes.

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.
not hardly. income tax is a just a sales tax on labor and you don't see buinesses stop hiring people because, oh no, they'd have to pay tax!


a sales tax is bad because its almost impossible for it not to be regressive, which would make the economic cycle worse
 

Jadow

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2003
5,962
2
0
or go see the town prostitute (oh yes that would be legal and taxable).

only 1 prostitute per town?
 

Jadow

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2003
5,962
2
0
) No one making any amount of money pays 45% in income taxes. The highest rate is 38.6%.

add a 10% state income tax to that
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
I support a flat tax with no deductions, but the social security tax will have to be part of that flat tax, and not capped.
Since we have a 10 trillion economy and 2 trillion government, that would put the flat tax at 20%.
 

zephyrprime

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,510
2
81
oh yes that would be legal and taxable).
Actually, prostitutes, even though illegal, are already taxable. Crime or all sorts is taxable. That's how they got Capone.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: rahvin
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.
I am not sure that it would crush the housing market as the standard deductions would be larger.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
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.

Why should a family of 4 who makes 36.6K pay no taxes at all?
I think everyone should bear some tax burden, otherwise people have no incentive to vote for politicians who keep government spending under control. Government should not be free for anyone. Noone should be financially isolated from the decisions they make at the voting booth.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
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.

Why should a family of 4 who makes 36.6K pay no taxes at all?
I think everyone should bear some tax burden, otherwise people have no incentive to vote for politicians who keep government spending under control. Government should not be free for anyone. Noone should be financially isolated from the decisions they make at the voting booth.
I agree that everyone should share the some tax burden, but this would not be radically different than what we have today. Only this system would be much more simple.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Not as simple as flat tax. Just divide your income by 5, and that is your tax. Or if you are a product of the US educational system, move the decimal point to the left once, and write two checks for that :)
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Not as simple as flat tax. Just divide your income by 5, and that is your tax. Or if you are a product of the US educational system, move the decimal point to the left once, and write two checks for that :)
I dont see a problem with that either.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
SuperTool,

Why should a family of 4 who makes 36.6K pay no taxes at all?
I think everyone should bear some tax burden, otherwise people have no incentive to vote for politicians who keep government spending under control. Government should not be free for anyone. Noone should be financially isolated from the decisions they make at the voting booth.
Philosophically I agree with you. The fairest system would be a flat tax with no exemptions at all. The tax system should be for raising taxes and not for social engineering. An argument can even be made that exemptions for children are unfair for people that don?t have children. Why should they subsidize someone else?s ?brats?. Realistically, the world and life is not fair. Poor people need help from other more fortunate and or able. Raising children is a large burden on a family?s finances so you give them an exemption on their taxes instead of setting up another huge bureaucracy to give it back to them. Poor people need help so let them keep their federal income tax instead of setting up another bureaucracy to give it back to them through other social programs. They are far from exempt on paying taxes, there is still state taxes, sales taxes and such that they will have to pay.

The simplicity of the system would save the US billions of dollars in unproductive labor costs each year. I still think the Shelby plan is attractive.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,502
1
81
Someone has to pay for all those aircraft carriers and for the Afghan, Iraqi, and the upcoming wars.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,179
7,540
126
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Not as simple as flat tax. Just divide your income by 5, and that is your tax. Or if you are a product of the US educational system, move the decimal point to the left once, and write two checks for that :)
the problem with a truely flat federal tax is that you'd still get a regressive system due to sales taxes on state and local levels. if there is one thing you do not want, it is a regressive tax system.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: etech
SuperTool,

Why should a family of 4 who makes 36.6K pay no taxes at all?
I think everyone should bear some tax burden, otherwise people have no incentive to vote for politicians who keep government spending under control. Government should not be free for anyone. Noone should be financially isolated from the decisions they make at the voting booth.
Philosophically I agree with you. The fairest system would be a flat tax with no exemptions at all. The tax system should be for raising taxes and not for social engineering. An argument can even be made that exemptions for children are unfair for people that don?t have children. Why should they subsidize someone else?s ?brats?. Realistically, the world and life is not fair. Poor people need help from other more fortunate and or able. Raising children is a large burden on a family?s finances so you give them an exemption on their taxes instead of setting up another huge bureaucracy to give it back to them. Poor people need help so let them keep their federal income tax instead of setting up another bureaucracy to give it back to them through other social programs. They are far from exempt on paying taxes, there is still state taxes, sales taxes and such that they will have to pay.

The simplicity of the system would save the US billions of dollars in unproductive labor costs each year. I still think the Shelby plan is attractive.
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Not as simple as flat tax. Just divide your income by 5, and that is your tax. Or if you are a product of the US educational system, move the decimal point to the left once, and write two checks for that :)
the problem with a truely flat federal tax is that you'd still get a regressive system due to sales taxes on state and local levels. if there is one thing you do not want, it is a regressive tax system.
I am sick of you lefties and chicken righties with your wealth redistribution. Can't afford kids? Stop Fvcking. Don't come to me and ask for a tax deduction when your kids are going to public school leaching off my taxes. If you have kids, you should be paying more in taxes, not less. Stop shifting the tax burden to young successful single people. Just because I don't have kids to spend money on, doesn't mean I want to spend money on yours. Pay for your own damn kids.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,179
7,540
126
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: etech
SuperTool,

Why should a family of 4 who makes 36.6K pay no taxes at all?
I think everyone should bear some tax burden, otherwise people have no incentive to vote for politicians who keep government spending under control. Government should not be free for anyone. Noone should be financially isolated from the decisions they make at the voting booth.
Philosophically I agree with you. The fairest system would be a flat tax with no exemptions at all. The tax system should be for raising taxes and not for social engineering. An argument can even be made that exemptions for children are unfair for people that don?t have children. Why should they subsidize someone else?s ?brats?. Realistically, the world and life is not fair. Poor people need help from other more fortunate and or able. Raising children is a large burden on a family?s finances so you give them an exemption on their taxes instead of setting up another huge bureaucracy to give it back to them. Poor people need help so let them keep their federal income tax instead of setting up another bureaucracy to give it back to them through other social programs. They are far from exempt on paying taxes, there is still state taxes, sales taxes and such that they will have to pay.

The simplicity of the system would save the US billions of dollars in unproductive labor costs each year. I still think the Shelby plan is attractive.
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Not as simple as flat tax. Just divide your income by 5, and that is your tax. Or if you are a product of the US educational system, move the decimal point to the left once, and write two checks for that :)
the problem with a truely flat federal tax is that you'd still get a regressive system due to sales taxes on state and local levels. if there is one thing you do not want, it is a regressive tax system.
I am sick of you lefties and chicken righties with your wealth redistribution. Can't afford kids? Stop Fvcking. Don't come to me and ask for a tax deduction when your kids are going to public school leaching off my taxes. If you have kids, you should be paying more in taxes, not less. Stop shifting the tax burden to young successful single people. Just because I don't have kids to spend money on, doesn't mean I want to spend money on yours. Pay for your own damn kids.
wtf? who said anything about wealth redistribution? why don't you address my post instead of pulling some nonsense out of your ass?
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: etech
SuperTool,

Why should a family of 4 who makes 36.6K pay no taxes at all?
I think everyone should bear some tax burden, otherwise people have no incentive to vote for politicians who keep government spending under control. Government should not be free for anyone. Noone should be financially isolated from the decisions they make at the voting booth.
Philosophically I agree with you. The fairest system would be a flat tax with no exemptions at all. The tax system should be for raising taxes and not for social engineering. An argument can even be made that exemptions for children are unfair for people that don?t have children. Why should they subsidize someone else?s ?brats?. Realistically, the world and life is not fair. Poor people need help from other more fortunate and or able. Raising children is a large burden on a family?s finances so you give them an exemption on their taxes instead of setting up another huge bureaucracy to give it back to them. Poor people need help so let them keep their federal income tax instead of setting up another bureaucracy to give it back to them through other social programs. They are far from exempt on paying taxes, there is still state taxes, sales taxes and such that they will have to pay.

The simplicity of the system would save the US billions of dollars in unproductive labor costs each year. I still think the Shelby plan is attractive.
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Not as simple as flat tax. Just divide your income by 5, and that is your tax. Or if you are a product of the US educational system, move the decimal point to the left once, and write two checks for that :)
the problem with a truely flat federal tax is that you'd still get a regressive system due to sales taxes on state and local levels. if there is one thing you do not want, it is a regressive tax system.
I am sick of you lefties and chicken righties with your wealth redistribution. Can't afford kids? Stop Fvcking. Don't come to me and ask for a tax deduction when your kids are going to public school leaching off my taxes. If you have kids, you should be paying more in taxes, not less. Stop shifting the tax burden to young successful single people. Just because I don't have kids to spend money on, doesn't mean I want to spend money on yours. Pay for your own damn kids.
wtf? who said anything about wealth redistribution? why don't you address my post instead of pulling some nonsense out of your ass?
What, the sales tax? I don't see how it's regressive if you exclude the basics. A rich guy buying a mercedes pays more sales tax than a poor guy buying a chevy. Not that there is anything wrong with regressive taxes. You pay $1 in taxes or $1M, the government is still providing the same roads, national defense and infrastructure for you.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,179
7,540
126
Originally posted by: SuperTool
What, the sales tax? I don't see how it's regressive if you exclude the basics. A rich guy buying a mercedes pays more sales tax than a poor guy buying a chevy. Not that there is anything wrong with regressive taxes. You pay $1 in taxes or $1M, the government is still providing the same roads, national defense and infrastructure for you.
and a rich guy saving money pays no sales tax on that savings, whereas a poor guy who, simply due to the cost of living of the modern world, pays out most of his income, pays sales tax on all that.

and a regressive tax is bad because when you're in a recession it hits harder and makes a recession worse.
 

NesuD

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,999
106
106
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
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.
Now that is a prime example of how to use the tax system to promote social engineering. Surprised you haven't thrown your hat in the ring with Gebhardt, Kerry, and sharpton Moonie.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: SuperTool
What, the sales tax? I don't see how it's regressive if you exclude the basics. A rich guy buying a mercedes pays more sales tax than a poor guy buying a chevy. Not that there is anything wrong with regressive taxes. You pay $1 in taxes or $1M, the government is still providing the same roads, national defense and infrastructure for you.
and a rich guy saving money pays no sales tax on that savings, whereas a poor guy who, simply due to the cost of living of the modern world, pays out most of his income, pays sales tax on all that.
Rich people will pay more in sales taxes than someone who isn't. Money will eventually be spent. You can't take it to the grave with you. You either have a flat tax, or you go into the social engineering business.
But I would also exclude basic goods like food and medicine.
 

Mister T

Diamond Member
Feb 25, 2000
3,439
0
0
are you really rich if you have millions in the bank and spend no money? thats what you anti-sales tax people are pissed about right? Rich people hoarding money to avoid paying taxes... Sounds foolish if you ask me. The point of working hard and becoming well-off is not to flaunt your schwab account balance, but to enjoy the luxuries of life.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,179
7,540
126
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: SuperTool
What, the sales tax? I don't see how it's regressive if you exclude the basics. A rich guy buying a mercedes pays more sales tax than a poor guy buying a chevy. Not that there is anything wrong with regressive taxes. You pay $1 in taxes or $1M, the government is still providing the same roads, national defense and infrastructure for you.
and a rich guy saving money pays no sales tax on that savings, whereas a poor guy who, simply due to the cost of living of the modern world, pays out most of his income, pays sales tax on all that.
Rich people will pay more in sales taxes than someone who isn't. Money will eventually be spent. You can't take it to the grave with you. You either have a flat tax, or you go into the social engineering business.
But I would also exclude basic goods like food and medicine.
exluding the basics doesn't necessarily make a sales tax a flat tax. its most likely to be regressive or progressive. and yes, there are people who just sit on money and will take it to their graves and never spend it, where do you think inheritances come from?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,179
7,540
126
Originally posted by: Mister T
are you really rich if you have millions in the bank and spend no money? thats what you anti-sales tax people are pissed about right? Rich people hoarding money to avoid paying taxes... Sounds foolish if you ask me. The point of working hard and becoming well-off is not to flaunt your schwab account balance, but to enjoy the luxuries of life.
so really rich people are just going to have a $0 balance all the time? they're not going to have a nice sum in the bank "just in case?" we're not talking rappers here
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: SuperTool
What, the sales tax? I don't see how it's regressive if you exclude the basics. A rich guy buying a mercedes pays more sales tax than a poor guy buying a chevy. Not that there is anything wrong with regressive taxes. You pay $1 in taxes or $1M, the government is still providing the same roads, national defense and infrastructure for you.
and a rich guy saving money pays no sales tax on that savings, whereas a poor guy who, simply due to the cost of living of the modern world, pays out most of his income, pays sales tax on all that.
Rich people will pay more in sales taxes than someone who isn't. Money will eventually be spent. You can't take it to the grave with you. You either have a flat tax, or you go into the social engineering business.
But I would also exclude basic goods like food and medicine.
exluding the basics doesn't necessarily make a sales tax a flat tax. its most likely to be regressive or progressive. and yes, there are people who just sit on money and will take it to their graves and never spend it, where do you think inheritances come from?
Well, inheritances would be taxed as income, and then if the kids spend it, they'll pay tax.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY