NationStates Jolt Archive

Would you modify the tax system had you the power, and what changes would you make?

I would prefer to modify the spending, but if I couldn't then I'd slash taxes to ridiculously low levels - starve the beast. Once wasteful spending ended I'd reintroduce minimal taxes to fund essential services on the federal level, and leave local governments to levy taxes to cover any special programs deemed necessary.

Flat tax. Say, 10-20 percent.

I'd retain enough income from the population to take care of the basic stuff like roads, cops, courts, and the basic things every society needs. Anything else is bullshit.

i'd make a 100% income tax. or just get rid of money entirely.

I'd get rid of progressive tax in favor of flat tax.

I would prefer to modify the spending, but if I couldn't then I'd slash taxes to ridiculously low levels - starve the beast. Once wasteful spending ended I'd reintroduce minimal taxes to fund essential services on the federal level, and leave local governments to levy taxes to cover any special programs deemed necessary.
Yeah, that's a tricky situation - whether to slash taxes and then eliminate porkbarrel spending or to eliminate the porkbarrel spending and then slash taxes.

I see the former as a better strongarming technique if you really wanna cut the gov't down. The latter though is probably a less risky method tho.

i'd make a 100% income tax. or just get rid of money entirely.
'How much fer the lady? I'll give ye two chickens and a pig for 'er. '

That is what things were like before money. You go ahead, I'd rather be Hillary Clintons S+M Lackey than do that - and that says ALOT!

I would take as much tax as is needed to provide an outstandinf public school education, good raods, social welfare, health care, police funding, etc...

Anything else should be payed by private companies

i would keep the income tax pretty much as is. id raise the rates a bit (or maybe cut a deduction or 2) in order to bring the budget shortfall down. i dont think it can be balanced without leaving iraq but it could be cut to a more reasonable level.

i dont like "tax for social engineering" so id stop things like the cigarette and liquor tax. gas tax would continue but only for revenues for road maintenence.

Eliminate tax for those under $10 000/yr

Make it so that "contributing to the economy" is not a valid excuse for the rich to avoid paying taxes. (It was one of the media magnates who said this pver here and got away with it. Packer or Murdoch.) I mean, I contribute to the economy too...and I still have to pay taxes.

Eliminate all Federal taxes on individuals and companies.

Go to a consumption based tax system where the local communitie/states decide the rates and then pay some portion to the federal govt.

i'd make a 100% income tax. or just get rid of money entirely.
if i could, thats what i'd do. in practice that wouldn't be too easy (or go down with the population well) so i'd just add 10% to every tax bracket and an extra 5 - 10% on the richest. yay for progressive tax systems!

Would you modify the tax system had you the power, and what changes would you make?
Sure I would. I would close all tax loopholes. I would force anyone who is a citizen of the USA, or an American company to disclose how much money they have in overseas accounts and investments, and tax that too. Failure to accurately disclose your overseas holdings would result in lengthy terms in maximum security prison for any US citizen involved in hiding assets.

Sure I would. I would close all tax loopholes. I would force anyone who is a citizen of the USA, or an American company to disclose how much money they have in overseas accounts and investments, and tax that too. Failure to accurately disclose your overseas holdings would result in lengthy terms in maximum security prison for any US citizen involved in hiding assets.

That sounds exactly like what the U.S. Government plans to do with the new legislation brought by the second Patriot Act (Patriot II). In addition to slashing dozens of other freedoms, it doesn't exactly look to be the last ammendment of it's kind. Happy 1984.

That sounds exactly like what the U.S. Government plans to do with the new legislation brought by the second Patriot Act (Patriot II). In addition to slashing dozens of other freedoms, it doesn't exactly look to be the last ammendment of it's kind. Happy 1984.
I know. The patriot act isn't all bad. Just mostly bad. If they do go ahead and make companies and individuals account for their offshore holdings it will be a good thing.

I know. The patriot act isn't all bad. Just mostly bad. If they do go ahead and make companies and individuals account for their offshore holdings it will be a good thing.
It is a dual edged sword - If US companies have to claim all income earned (and taxed) at foriegn sources then would a foreing company doing business in the US have to pay income on their income earned in their home country? The elimination of imports would wreak havoc on the economy, yet excluding foreign income only for foreign companies would be grossly unfair to US domiciled companies. Taxes should be paid at the rate of the nation in which they are earned. There need not be double taxation due solely to domicile.

For the people who'd like to see the corporations and wealthy elite get more tax breaks, do what the State of Texas did ... Lottery!

We voted a while back to either have a State Income Tax or a Lottery. We chose the Lottery. Only poor people play the Lottery, so it's like a tax on the poor only.

Nice, eh? Enjoy!

As for what I'd do, I'd take away everyone's money, burn it, and dance naked around the pyre. Let's see what people measure worth in then.

As for what I'd do, I'd take away everyone's money, burn it, and dance naked around the pyre. Let's see what people measure worth in then.

Penis/Breast size, duh. :p

Penis/Breast size, duh. :p

Hehehehe ...

Milk, eggs, cilantro, block of cheese ... that'll be 7.3 inches, please.

Hehehehe ...

Milk, eggs, cilantro, block of cheese ... that'll be 7.3 inches, please.

Or a C cup. :p

I would enact a 4 tier tax system
10% on income and earnings (there is a difference) from 20,000 to 65,000 dollars
20% from 65,001 to 120,000 dollars
35% from 120,001 to 300,000 dollars
50% from 300,001 on up

there would be no deductions and write-offs

I do not know enough about large coorperations to propose taxes on them yet

welfare would become workfare
single mothers could not collect anything untill the identity of the father of each child they had was known

all drugs would be legal, taxed, and doctors and hospitals would be prohibited from treating overdoses, the problem would be self eliminating

I agree with Frank Zappa.

1) Flat tax around 13%. +/-

2) Tax the f*ck out of the churches!

Raise it! Raise it!

'How much fer the lady? I'll give ye two chickens and a pig for 'er. '

That is what things were like before money. You go ahead, I'd rather be Hillary Clintons S+M Lackey than do that - and that says ALOT!

are you saying that's bad, or did i miss something? and also, i'm for communism, no private property.

Megh, I'm going to act as a moderator and post my views later.
Here is an interesting chart I found.

Source: National Taxpayers Union

Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What

For Tax Year 2002

Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%
$285,424
33.71

Top 5%
$126,525
53.80

Top 10%
$92,663
65.73

Top 25%
$56,401
83.90

Top 50%
$28,654
96.50

Bottom 50%
<$28,654
3.50

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service




For Tax Year 2001

Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%
$292,913
33.89

Top 5%
$127,904
53.25

Top 10%
$92,754
64.89

Top 25%
$56,085
82.90

Top 50%
$28,528
96.03

Bottom 50%
<$28,528
3.97

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service




For Tax Year 2000

Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%
$313,469
37.42

Top 5%
$128,336
56.47

Top 10%
$92,144
67.33

Top 25%
$55,225
84.01

Top 50%
$27,682
96.09

Bottom 50%
<$27,682
3.91

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service




For Tax Year 1999

Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%
$293,415
36.18

Top 5%
$120,846
55.45

Top 10%
$87,682
66.45

Top 25%
$52,965
83.54

Top 50%
$26,415
96.00

Bottom 50%
<$26,415
4.00

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

I would like to see either a flat tax with absolutely no deductions, or a national sales tax. If we go with a national sales tax, groceries, medical, and primary residence purchases would be the only exemptions. If a flat tax, anyone making less than $10,000 or $15,000 a year would be exempt.

I'd make it so that a ridiculous amount of tax goes into the salaries of members of parliament ... oh wait, it already does.

I would take away all the "no taxes on income above X amount" rules.

I'd probably make other changes - but that would most likely be first. The whole "If you make five million dollars, you only have to pay taxes on a small percentage of it" thing is bull.

I would take away all the "no taxes on income above X amount" rules.


Are you talking about social security/payroll taxes?


I'd probably make other changes - but that would most likely be first. The whole "If you make five million dollars, you only have to pay taxes on a small percentage of it" thing is bull.


And where does it work like that?

And where does it work like that?

For one, in GA. There is an absolute income cutoff, above which you cannot be taxed.

I'd tax myself 2000%.

Flat tax. Say, 10-20 percent.What is the argument for taxing the very rich, and those who can barely get by at the same rate?

I would make taxes much more progressive with a graduated rate depending on income which would be nothing for people on low wages but would eventually rise to 90% for the highest earners. For businesses I would increase taxes to 90% on all profits for the largest companies although this would be lower for small businesses. I would also introduce a tax rate of 98% for unearned income such as money inherited or made from buying and selling shares (this was the case in the UK until 1979).

What is the argument for taxing the very rich, and those who can barely get by at the same rate?
You have a problem with equality?

You have a problem with equality?I have a problem with taxing people into bankrupcy when they can barely put food on the table and afford necessities for their families.

I would decrease taxes on lower income people, eliminate them on anyone earning less than $10,000(except for a token $1 to make it as if they did pay tax). I would also increase it on the rich. They don't even use it. Also, I would offer tax breaks to companies who achieve certain environmental standards. In addition, I would add tax onto gasoline to make it go from $2 to $6.

I'm assuming this is in the US.

For one, in GA. There is an absolute income cutoff, above which you cannot be taxed.

Okay, good point. ut the fed govt is still gonna eat its progressive chunk of this guys income. And since you can offset state income taxes against Federal income taxes(dollar for dollar) there is no net savings to the guy. Whatever he is saving on GA taxes, he is losing(by means of a deduction) on his Federal taxes.

He comes out the same with or without the income cap. They only differance is that the state gets a smaller bite than the feds.

I have a problem with taxing people into bankrupcy when they can barely put food on the table and afford necessities for their families.
So then, you are against sales taxes.

You have a problem with equality?

Some are more equal than others. Are you fond of equality?

I would decrease taxes on lower income people, eliminate them on anyone earning less than $10,000(except for a token $1 to make it as if they did pay tax).

That would actually result in a substantial tax INCREASE (much more than $1) for those people under the current tax. (Consider tax credits)

Flat tax. Say, 10-20 percentI actually want to know the rationale for this...several people seem to be in favour of a flat tax.

So then, you are against sales taxes.making incremetal, income-based sales tax systems isn't practical. Income tax is done on a private, personal basis. I'm talking federal taxes anyway.

I have a problem with taxing people into bankrupcy when they can barely put food on the table and afford necessities for their families.

if they won't or can't make enough money to survive then they deserve to die.

I actually want to know the rationale for this...several people seem to be in favour of a flat tax.

i'm in favour of a 100% flat tax! :)

What is the argument for taxing the very rich, and those who can barely get by at the same rate?

a) there would be floors, meaning those who are barely subsisting would be exempt.

b)everyone gets to contribute the same percentage to the society(lets hear it for equality)

c) the rich would still pay far far more in taxes, whats your hang up

d) No tax loopholes..do you know what that means??? A huge reduction in special interest lobbyist desire to corrupt politicians.

e) a huge drop in compliance costs.. from tax accountants to the IRS. This runs into the tens or hundreds of Billions of dollars per year. Money that could be better spent.

f) forces the govt to spend our money a little wiser because if they want to raise taxes to cover their spending, they have to pinch everybody instead of a small group.

g) Its working great in many eastern European countries, it has removed a lot of money from the underground economy. Give it a chance.

h) people would spend more time thinking about how to wisely deploy their income/time instead of wondering about the tax advantages/disadvantages.

I) think of all the high tech scumbag tax lawyers that would be out of work.. this reason is justification in itself if you ask me.

I would make taxes much more progressive with a graduated rate depending on income which would be nothing for people on low wages but would eventually rise to 90% for the highest earners. For businesses I would increase taxes to 90% on all profits for the largest companies although this would be lower for small businesses. I would also introduce a tax rate of 98% for unearned income such as money inherited or made from buying and selling shares (this was the case in the UK until 1979).


SO exactly what incentive would there be for people to work hard? Or invest in the capital markets?

Those who are already wealthy would remain so, and those who are poor but smart and hard working could never rise up because the moment they tried to they would be taxed to death.

Do you not understand that high taxes hurt the rich(relatively) far far less than those who are up and coming?

I actually want to know the rationale for this...several people seem to be in favour of a flat tax.
There's a feeling among many people that with the negative effects of having so much taxation, combined with the huge costs of administration that complicated tax codes result in, a country would be much better off with a simple flat tax rate.

This is difficult, its hard to say. In Canada, they have a ginourmous sales tax, or so I heard, but a low (or no) income tax, while here in the US its the opposite.

Canada system: Pros
Workers keep more money
Cons:
People will work less since they are allowed to keep more of their money.
buying stuff will be expensive, people wont buy as much, thus hurting their econemy.

American system pros:
People will work more, harder, since they cant keep as much of their money.
people will buy more helping the econemy.
Cons:
Workers get less money to keep

However, this is an idealist idea and depending on the person will differ. Plus Im not sure if this is how it is, with the Canadian and American system of taxing, but pretend it is for this post anyway.

I would make taxes much more progressive with a graduated rate depending on income which would be nothing for people on low wages but would eventually rise to 90% for the highest earners. For businesses I would increase taxes to 90% on all profits for the largest companies although this would be lower for small businesses. I would also introduce a tax rate of 98% for unearned income such as money inherited or made from buying and selling shares (this was the case in the UK until 1979).
That's pretty much the best way of making sure the largest employers in America leave and never come back. Their workers would be forced into unemployment. Family business would be dissolved upon the death of the principal yet the survicors would be bankrupt because they could only retain 2% of the sales price of the business yet would owe 98% of it's value in tax.
The 'highest earners' would simply stop earning after a certain level - dropping production of our most productive citizens.

So you'd end up with a nation full of unemployed bankrupt people. Want to guess how much tax you'll be collecting?

Okay, good point. ut the fed govt is still gonna eat its progressive chunk of this guys income. And since you can offset state income taxes against Federal income taxes(dollar for dollar) there is no net savings to the guy. Whatever he is saving on GA taxes, he is losing(by means of a deduction) on his Federal taxes.

He comes out the same with or without the income cap. They only differance is that the state gets a smaller bite than the feds.

The Feds put limits on certain taxes as well.

This is difficult, its hard to say. In Canada, they have a ginourmous sales tax, or so I heard, but a low (or no) income tax, while here in the US its the opposite.This is not the case. Here in Canada, there are high income tax, and sales taxes. My family (in the higher earning bracket) pays about 45-50% income tax. The federal sales tax is 7%, the provincial sales tax is 7.5% in British Colombia for a total of 14.5% on purchases.

This is difficult, its hard to say. In Canada, they have a ginourmous sales tax, or so I heard, but a low (or no) income tax, while here in the US its the opposite.

Canada system: Pros
Workers keep more money
Cons:
People will work less since they are allowed to keep more of their money.
buying stuff will be expensive, people wont buy as much, thus hurting their econemy.

American system pros:
People will work more, harder, since they cant keep as much of their money.
people will buy more helping the econemy.
Cons:
Workers get less money to keep

However, this is an idealist idea and depending on the person will differ. Plus Im not sure if this is how it is, with the Canadian and American system of taxing, but pretend it is for this post anyway.

Buddy, you have your economics backward(mostly).

When people get to keep more of their money they work more not less.

The only time this changes are when peoples lives cannot substantially change by working/earning more. For example. A long while back in India the govt in one state subsidized rice(the taple food) to the poor so cheap, that people stopped working more than 2 days a week(farm laborers) this happened because their staple food became so cheap that they could work 2 - 3 days and still have enough money for food and maybe some country alcohol. Even if they worked 5-6 days a wekk, they couldnt make enough to improve their lives because everything else was so expense relative to what they made. They wouldnt have able to afford a better house oor more than a bicycle anyway, so what was the point of working harder.

a) there would be floors, meaning those who are barely subsisting would be exempt. Well, at least that.

b)everyone gets to contribute the same percentage to the society(lets hear it for equality)
c) the rich would still pay far far more in taxes, whats your hang up Do these two statements contradict each other? My claim is that the leveling that takes place with a progressive tax system is more important that the superficieal "equality" of a flat tax

d) No tax loopholes..do you know what that means??? A huge reduction in special interest lobbyist desire to corrupt politicians.

e) a huge drop in compliance costs.. from tax accountants to the IRS. This runs into the tens or hundreds of Billions of dollars per year. Money that could be better spent.I don't know the American system well, but I can definately see a reduction in administration and loopholes.

f) forces the govt to spend our money a little wiser because if they want to raise taxes to cover their spending, they have to pinch everybody instead of a small group. Yeah, everybody, including those who can't afford [privatized] healthcare and basic needs.
g) Its working great in many eastern European countries, it has removed a lot of money from the underground economy. Give it a chance.I you can get this passed in government, it will be given a chance. I'd rather not go there.

h) people would spend more time thinking about how to wisely deploy their income/time instead of wondering about the tax advantages/disadvantages.I doubt people would be any wiser and financially responsible. Greed and laziness are universal.

I) think of all the high tech scumbag tax lawyers that would be out of work.. this reason is justification in itself if you ask me.I'll grant you that!!

making incremetal, income-based sales tax systems isn't practical. Income tax is done on a private, personal basis. I'm talking federal taxes anyway.
Who said anything about income tax? You specifically said that you 'have a problem with taxing people into bankrupcy when they can barely put food on the table and afford necessities for their families'. These people are not exempt from sales tax, therefore you would have to take a stand against the current sales tax in order to be consistent. In most places it averages 6%-7%, in Canada it is more than twice that.

households under $25,000 gross income pay no FEDERAL taxes, so according to your own stated standards you have no problem with the current income tax, only sales tax.

The Feds put limits on certain taxes as well.

Only payroll and SS. Not positive about unemployment and medicade/medicade. Not perfectly clear on this becaue I have for the most part been paid on a K-1 from an LLc.

In any case, SS and payroll are more or less transfer taxes anyway. you are supposed to get out what you put it(by some perverse govt definition of "getting out")
So tell me what Fed govt taxes have a top end cap other than these(if all of them do indeed have a cap)?

Who said anything about income tax? You specifically said that you 'have a problem with taxing people into bankrupcy when they can barely put food on the table and afford necessities for their families'. These people are not exempt from sales tax, therefore you would have to take a stand against the current sales tax in order to be consistent. In most places it averages 6%-7%, in Canada it is more than twice that.

households under $25,000 gross income pay no FEDERAL taxes, so according to your own stated standards you have no problem with the current income tax, only sales tax.We've been mis-understanding each other. I don't have a problem with the Canadian tax system as it is. I was bringing up the hypothetical situation of the flat income tax, and the problems the working poor would face in that sutuation. Yeah, getting rid of the GST would be nice, but I don't expect the Liberals to ever deliver on that promise.

I would slash taxes, and what tax was left would be a flat tax. I would remove funding for the NHS and privatize it, but put restrictions on costs, so people could use the money they were saving from tax towards it, (its what the rich do anyway, they don't use the NHS). I would do the same with schools, i would give the rest of the money left to remaining public services, administration costs and i would lower the maternity leave and give money to the businesses so that they weren't forced to pay cus some dodgy woman liked shagging. simple.

We've been mis-understanding each other. I don't have a problem with the Canadian tax system as it is. I was bringing up the hypothetical situation of the flat income tax, and the problems the working poor would face in that sutuation. Yeah, getting rid of the GST would be nice, but I don't expect the Liberals to ever deliver on that promise.
I'm not sure about the canadian proposal, but in the US the flat tax would have a floor, around $10 or $20 thousand as I recall.

Regardless, for all of my conservative values, I do believe in a progressive tax. The current rate is too high, but I agree that the burden should be bourne by those most able to bear it. I also think that even the lowest income people should be paying something- just a token amount so as not to be excluded.
Finally, I think payroll deductions should be ELIMINATED. Everyone should have to file quarterly returns - many already do. If more Americans had to WRITE A CHECK every three months payable to the IRS then they may pay closer attention to how it is spent and wasted in Washington.
Of course, I also believe most federal progams should be transferred to the states with a commensurate drop in Federal income tax, with the states picking up their own tax structure to continue programs they choose to continue or create.

Well, at least that.

Do these two statements contradict each other? My claim is that the leveling that takes place with a progressive tax system is more important that the superficieal "equality" of a flat tax

No contradiction. Just depends on how you want to look at it. And I dont see leveling as either a function of government or a good thing. What I want is that everyone that is willing and able to rise up, not the best and hardest working forced down.

Keep in mind that there is only 1 tax that taxes wealth and that is the inheritance tax. And the truly rich dont every pay that. Hell, even the moderately well off dont pay it.

My family's "wealth" is locked into living trusts and large dollar life insurance. My parent's estates arent going to pay much if anything in inheritance taxes(assuming the tax is back when they pass). And let me tell you, at best, AT BEST we are middle to upper class 1st generation immigrants.

Do you think Bill Gates or the Kennedys are hit with significant inheritance taxes? You dreaming.

The only people who really get whacked with this tax a small business owners who are often forced to sell their business to pay the tax, is this what we should do to improve the economy?

So that leaves us with income taxes. This only taxes people trying to move up the ladder. It doesnt really affect those on the top because they already have their wealth which isnt taxed. Why would we want to stifle this group? This is the group that benefits society the most. These are your doctors lawyers, corporate execs and small business owners. They guys that create 80% of the jobs in the US. Thats why progressive income taxes are bad news.


Yeah, everybody, including those who can't afford [privatized] healthcare and basic needs.

Thats the whole point!!! This forces the politicians to spend wisely. Because if they dont, they people who need the money and services most are going to vote them out office and politician is going to know that.

Think about how it is now, politicians can spend like drunk sailors knowing that in the worst case they will have to raise taxes on a small minority of the voting public. If Everyone was taxed equally, they would have to raise taxes the same percentage on the people who could least afford it. Come election time, that politician would pay for it. Instead of funding any stupid program, they would have to take care and weigh the benefits vs cost because the entire electorate is going to have to pay. Its a way to keep these free spending politicians in check.


I doubt people would be any wiser and financially responsible. Greed and laziness are universal.


People are people no doubt. But things can only improve when people have an active interest in behaving in positive was vs being indifferant.

Interesting. Like I said before, I don't know much about the American system. Why are there no inheritance taxes? I know that my grandfather's estate will be paying serious taxes when he dies(in Canada).
Anyway, I don't really see what you Americans are complaining about, isn't the highest income taxe over there like 20%!?

Interesting. Like I said before, I don't know much about the American system. Why are there no inheritance taxes? I know that my grandfather's estate will be paying serious taxes when he dies(in Canada).
Anyway, I don't really see what you Americans are complaining about, isn't the highest income taxe over there like 20%!?

You forget that Canadians have what is arguably the best healthcare system in the world. Americans save on taxes but are mostly left to die when they come down with a nasty flu. And yes, Americans are taxed for inheritance. Severely. (like 40% i believe) It's a sad state of affairs.

And we Americans are people too. People complain about things. Unfortunatley, our government wants the world to believe that what we want most usually involves petroleum and the utter obedience of nations like yours. Sorry about all that. Our politicians are corporate puppets. Doesn't mean we can't be friends. I do like Canada. Colin Machery is brilliant.