If you’d be in charge, how severely would you reduce taxes, or, which fiscal system would you adopt? You can vote for a flat tax or something more complicated.
Since most of it is maintenance, you probably will have to explain which department bodies you’d close.
I presume we all agree on cutting back, but feel free if you think your country/ state actually needs more money.
I heard something about the “Fair tax” on the radio the other day. I haven’t had a chance to research it that much, but it had a lot of components I liked. Kind of a pay as you go. Illegal aliens and drug dealers all pay taxes just like the rest of this. Again, I said I just got one part of the story so don’t flame too bad.
One thing I would get rid of is lobbyists. The senators and congressmen should work for the people not corporations and special interests. City council service would be like jury duty. These are just a few ideas, good thread dude, I’m anxious to hear what others have to say. (Most others anyway.)
Haha I just took my Govt. Revenues exam today. I think your question is more about spending than taxes. The necessary amount of taxation is equal to the amount of spending. That’s not really an opinion, if you run a deficit you have to pay down the debt eventually. At some point in the future you have to run a surplus.
I think everyone feels there’s a lot of wasted money in politics, “pork” etc. so I’ll let others trumpet that cause.
Personally, I think the total tax burden should be an equal % for everyone. However, most taxes other than on income are regressive (are a higher % of the poor’s income than the rich’s) so the income tax should be sufficiently progressive to balance that effect, but not reverse it. But that’s just my opinion.
I’d probably institute a flat tax, payed in FULL in April. No hidden payroll taxes. Let the people see EXACTLY what it costs to create all those lovely welfare programs. Make them pay it in a lump sum. See how long it takes before politicians are promising to cut pork.
@btm: The fair tax once intrigued me, but now I realize it isn’t very fair at all. Trust me when I say a fair tax could be easily avoided by those with the time and resources to do so (the really rich). As well, lobbyists are necessary to provide information to our congressmen. I’d just outlaw things like congressmen getting secured jobs at a lobbying firm, and the whole wining and dining spiel.
I’m for the flat tax. I think there should be a bar set at like $25000 per individual, and $50000 for couples filing jointly, then 15% on everything over that. The $25k bar would be as close to a progressive tax system as I would get. I would also include the 15% deal on inheritances over $2 million, so inheritances would get taxed some, but it shouldn’t have a very large impact on family businesses or small farms.
I would also tax all forms of income, interest from savings, stock dividends, everything. That would mean that unfortunately, we would still have the IRS, but I don’t think it’s fair to only tax income from the sweat of our brows, so to speak.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I’d probably institute a flat tax, payed in FULL in April. No hidden payroll taxes. Let the people see EXACTLY what it costs to create all those lovely welfare programs. Make them pay it in a lump sum. See how long it takes before politicians are promising to cut pork.
[/quote]
I see through this post to the real scheme. If there was no way to prepay through payroll, 90% of Americans would forget to save the proper amount. And then the government would have to collect on all that money.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I’d probably institute a flat tax, payed in FULL in April. No hidden payroll taxes. Let the people see EXACTLY what it costs to create all those lovely welfare programs. Make them pay it in a lump sum. See how long it takes before politicians are promising to cut pork.
I see through this post to the real scheme. If there was no way to prepay through payroll, 90% of Americans would forget to save the proper amount. And then the government would have to collect on all that money. [/quote]
Sadly I didn’t even think of that.
Err… how about a monthly tax date instead of yearly?
Flat tax is socially unviable.
I would put in place a graded income tax, starting at 8% rising to 15% (Federal)
Following this would have to pay a mandatory 3% for your local community tax and a further 2-5% to your state.
Inheritance would be taxed, but about 10 %.
All forms of income would be taxed, variably, but different rules in place for taxing dividends (Commercial or Private investors).
Also, I would not tax savings in a special, “ISA type” account for up to 50’000 dollars.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
@btm: The fair tax once intrigued me, but now I realize it isn’t very fair at all. Trust me when I say a fair tax could be easily avoided by those with the time and resources to do so (the really rich). As well, lobbyists are necessary to provide information to our congressmen. I’d just outlaw things like congressmen getting secured jobs at a lobbying firm, and the whole wining and dining spiel.
[/quote]
It wouldn’t just be avoided by the rich. People would simply start buying everything online.
mike
I would never rely on the Fair Tax:
http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_12_23-2007_12_29.shtml#1198966908
I’m going to assume a perfect world in which I could do whatever I please - so, flat tax of somewhere between 15 - 20% on all income, irrespective of the source, with no deductions for anything, including mortgages. No corporate income tax - so no deductions for corporations for anything either, including benefits (the idea is salaries would rise and people would buy their own benefits because it’s no longer cheaper for them to get them through corporations - corporate benefits are a relic of wage controls from WWII). Do allow tax credits for children and dependents.
Reform of medical insurance - allow anyone from any state to buy insurance from any state, including his/her own.
I have more ideas for cuts, but we’re stepping out so I’ll need to get back to that later - suffice it to say they involve social security, medicare, and a lot of the federal work force.
Paying for the infrastructure that every third world country wishes they had is taxing at the best of times.
I’d begin on the spending side. I prefer a flat(ter) tax generally, but my priority is to reduce and limit spending - I could live with a progressive tax if the federal government just consumed less of the income.
I don’t want to do a white paper here, but I’d start with foreign aid. I’d consider slashing it by 50% - arbitrary number, but something large.
Mirroring Boston’s recipe, I’d reform Medicare/Medicaid - push the job of public insurance back to the states. I don’t have a problem with some level of minimum public insurance for the needy, but get the federal government out of the business of it.
Modify Social Security to reflect its original premise, and therefore adjust eligibility and payouts accordingly. SS was never meant to be a retirement slush fund for retirees, and if we are going to keep it, heavy reform of its payouts will be necessary.
Outlaw earmarks.
Get a 10% budget cut across the various government agencies. As a starting point.
Competitive bids in every government contract.
Some ideas for a start.
Also, I am an old-school fiscal conservative, which means I would like to not only reduce spending, but I would like to retire some of the outstanding debt. I like low taxes as a fundamental rule of government, but I also like the idea of only “spending what you earn”, and before I would - theoretically - like a couple of rounds of surplus to get some debt off the books.
Beyond that, a flat tax - and I would consider pairing a carbon tax with an income tax if (1) it worked in terms of policy benefits and (2) the income tax would be reduced in proportion to the carbon tax’s revenue take - no new layers of taxes merely for the sake of “fairness”, merely a different way to bring in revenue that might have added policy dividends.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
If you’d be in charge, how severely would you reduce taxes, or, which fiscal system would you adopt? You can vote for a flat tax or something more complicated.
Since most of it is maintenance, you probably will have to explain which department bodies you’d close.
I presume we all agree on cutting back, but feel free if you think your country/ state actually needs more money.
[/quote]
No taxes are necessary at all. A former Fed Chairman has said that all government functions can be financed by fiat money and that the only purpose of taxation is to wield a club over the middle class.
Since that method is a slippery slope, I’d make it voluntary. Pay what you want. Don’t want to fund the war? Don’t pay. Don’t want the FBI? Don’t pay.
Freedom is cool!
Flat income tax above a base exemption of $15,000. 30% for every “entity” (person, corporation, or trust) no matter what the income source.
Income-splitting for married couples.
No sales taxes.
50% of all new fiat money created every year by the central bank to be deposited into the Federal Treasury; debt-free, interest-free.
Government debt spending restricted to central bank, low-interest (1-3%) financing, and only up to the amount of the other 50% of new fiat money created in a year.
The board of governors of the central bank’s primary duty shall be to maintain inflation between 1-3%. If at year’s end the inflation has fallen out of this range, they are sacked and their previous years’ salary revoked.
NO UNIONIZED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES!!!
Public competitive bidding on all government contracts.
No taxes whatsoever on revenue from renewable, no-emissions, non-biological energy sources (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and tidal power).
Extraction royalty on all non-renewable resources. Not sure what % just yet.
Reduce or elminiate restrictions on “accredited investor” status. The highest-yield investments out there should not be legally restricted to the upper class.
No member of any legislative body shall own any shares in any corporation. Upon taking office they must sell all corporate assets in exchange for 10% compounding Legislator’s Bonds. Our legislators’ only interest must be in the prosperity of the electorate, not in abusing the state to pad their portfolio.
No all-encompassing trade agreements such as FTA, NAFTA, and SPP. The GATT and WTO structure works just fine.
Steadily increase the child tax credit by $1000 every year until the birth rate matches the death rate.
Decriminalize possession of personal-use amounts of recreational drugs to a stiff fine, rather than jail time. Reduces costs of housing the prison population and increases revenue at the same time.
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Steadily increase the child tax credit by $1000 every year until the birth rate matches the death rate.
[/quote]
The birth rate per woman is currently at 2.09. I think that’s about as steady as you can ask for.
mike
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Flat income tax above a base exemption of $15,000. 30% for every “entity” (person, corporation, or trust) no matter what the income source.
Income-splitting for married couples.
No sales taxes.
50% of all new fiat money created every year by the central bank to be deposited into the Federal Treasury; debt-free, interest-free.
Government debt spending restricted to central bank, low-interest (1-3%) financing, and only up to the amount of the other 50% of new fiat money created in a year.
The board of governors of the central bank’s primary duty shall be to maintain inflation between 1-3%. If at year’s end the inflation has fallen out of this range, they are sacked and their previous years’ salary revoked.
NO UNIONIZED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES!!!
Public competitive bidding on all government contracts.
No taxes whatsoever on revenue from renewable, no-emissions, non-biological energy sources (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and tidal power).
Extraction royalty on all non-renewable resources. Not sure what % just yet.
Reduce or elminiate restrictions on “accredited investor” status. The highest-yield investments out there should not be legally restricted to the upper class.
No member of any legislative body shall own any shares in any corporation. Upon taking office they must sell all corporate assets in exchange for 10% compounding Legislator’s Bonds. Our legislators’ only interest must be in the prosperity of the electorate, not in abusing the state to pad their portfolio.
No all-encompassing trade agreements such as FTA, NAFTA, and SPP. The GATT and WTO structure works just fine.
Steadily increase the child tax credit by $1000 every year until the birth rate matches the death rate.
Decriminalize possession of personal-use amounts of recreational drugs to a stiff fine, rather than jail time. Reduces costs of housing the prison population and increases revenue at the same time.[/quote]
HAHAHAHAHA. and you think santa clause exists too? all the peons on capital hill would die of laughter at these suggestions.
in all seriousness, while this isn’t exactly what i’d do, it would all be a major step in the right direction. these are surely solid, “common sense” things that should be done. (see, i do appeal to common sense some of the time).
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I have more ideas for cuts, but we’re stepping out so I’ll need to get back to that later - suffice it to say they involve social security, medicare, and a lot of the federal work force.[/quote]
Hear, hear!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
If you’d be in charge, how severely would you reduce taxes, or, which fiscal system would you adopt? You can vote for a flat tax or something more complicated.
Since most of it is maintenance, you probably will have to explain which department bodies you’d close.
I presume we all agree on cutting back, but feel free if you think your country/ state actually needs more money.
No taxes are necessary at all. A former Fed Chairman has said that all government functions can be financed by fiat money and that the only purpose of taxation is to wield a club over the middle class.
Since that method is a slippery slope, I’d make it voluntary. Pay what you want. Don’t want to fund the war? Don’t pay. Don’t want the FBI? Don’t pay.
Freedom is cool!
[/quote]
Total nonsense.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
Steadily increase the child tax credit by $1000 every year until the birth rate matches the death rate.
The birth rate per woman is currently at 2.09. I think that’s about as steady as you can ask for.
mike
[/quote]
OP asked “if you were in charge”, not “if you were President”. 
Canadian birth rate is 1.57 children born/woman (2008 est.).
We have been importing people like you wouldn’t believe, under the guise of “Multiculturalism” – a cheap Liberal ploy to pad the minority vote.
ElbowStrike
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
If you’d be in charge, how severely would you reduce taxes, or, which fiscal system would you adopt? You can vote for a flat tax or something more complicated.
Since most of it is maintenance, you probably will have to explain which department bodies you’d close.
I presume we all agree on cutting back, but feel free if you think your country/ state actually needs more money.
No taxes are necessary at all. A former Fed Chairman has said that all government functions can be financed by fiat money and that the only purpose of taxation is to wield a club over the middle class.
Since that method is a slippery slope, I’d make it voluntary. Pay what you want. Don’t want to fund the war? Don’t pay. Don’t want the FBI? Don’t pay.
Freedom is cool!
Total nonsense.
[/quote]
Freedom is nonsense? Why?