New to TN and PWI

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’d like to see how a Federal Sales and Use Tax would shake out numbers wise. If we care about what’s fair (not sure I do) that’s about the fairest way to tax. I tend to agree that a flat tax on income will not work.

The basic premise:
The more money you make, the more you spend, and consequently you pay more in taxes. It limits the tax burden on the poor while ensuring they actually having skin in the game. It gives individuals the freedom to effectively decide how much to pay in taxes (can reduce tax liability by saving money). It also ensures these “evil” hedge fund managers and “giant evil corporations” pay their fair share as well. The trick will be in determining the rate.

If we continue to tax income I’d like to see a three rate progressive tax system: 10% ($0 - $75K), 15% ($76K-$150K), 20% ($151K+). I’d like to see the same rate structure for C. Corps (perhaps change the dollars). I think it should be based on total family income. I don’t think we need all the classifications (married filing jointly, married, single, head of household, etc…).

Not sure how I’d attack deductions yet. [/quote]

I honestly really like this concept (progressive tax system). Your initial point meant 0 income tax, correct? Just tax on the sale of goods/services?

62

[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’d like to see how a Federal Sales and Use Tax would shake out numbers wise. If we care about what’s fair (not sure I do) that’s about the fairest way to tax. I tend to agree that a flat tax on income will not work.

The basic premise:
The more money you make, the more you spend, and consequently you pay more in taxes. It limits the tax burden on the poor while ensuring they actually having skin in the game. It gives individuals the freedom to effectively decide how much to pay in taxes (can reduce tax liability by saving money). It also ensures these “evil” hedge fund managers and “giant evil corporations” pay their fair share as well. The trick will be in determining the rate.

If we continue to tax income I’d like to see a three rate progressive tax system: 10% ($0 - $75K), 15% ($76K-$150K), 20% ($151K+). I’d like to see the same rate structure for C. Corps (perhaps change the dollars). I think it should be based on total family income. I don’t think we need all the classifications (married filing jointly, married, single, head of household, etc…).

Not sure how I’d attack deductions yet. [/quote]

I honestly really like this concept (progressive tax system). Your initial point meant 0 income tax, correct? Just tax on the sale of goods/services?[/quote]

Yup, no income tax.

63

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I think it should be based on total family income. I don’t think we need all the classifications (married filing jointly, married, single, head of household, etc…).

[/quote]

You’re ass pounding people who get married and have kids, and then pounding them in the ass again when said kids become working age, and get a job at any old place like Mickey D’s.

I Think your rate brackets could use some work too.

And I’m not removing deductions. Not now, nor ever. They are there for a reason.

64

[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:

I honestly really like this concept (progressive tax system). [/quote]

I would imagine that is why we have one, right now, and have, for over 100 years.

65

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:

I honestly really like this concept (progressive tax system). [/quote]

I would imagine that is why we have one, right now, and have, for over 100 years. [/quote]

I was referring to the one that was laid out above…which is different from the one we have right now. But, I get your point about the impact on families, with kids, etc.

66

[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:

I honestly really like this concept (progressive tax system). [/quote]

I would imagine that is why we have one, right now, and have, for over 100 years. [/quote]

I was referring to the one that was laid out above…which is different from the one we have right now. [/quote]

In what way? You said progressive tax system like that isn’t what we have. We do have it, both in letter of the law, and in actual receipts.

67

I hoped you’d add your $0.02.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I think it should be based on total family income. I don’t think we need all the classifications (married filing jointly, married, single, head of household, etc…).

[/quote]

You’re ass pounding people who get married and have kids, and then pounding them in the ass again when said kids become working age, and get a job at any old place like Mickey D’s. [/quote]

How? When you’re married you’re able to pool resources (2+ people need 1 roof for example) for necessities, which means more economic freedom. Why should you get a tax break for being married or having kids?

How about if everyone files an individual return then?

I also didn’t mean to include kids; although, that’s clearly how it reads. Kids that live at home should file their own return.

[quote]
I Think your rate brackets could use some work too. [/quote]
I’m happy to hear alternative brackets.

[quote]
And I’m not removing deductions. Not now, nor ever. They are there for a reason. [/quote]

I think many of them are unnecessary and/or arbitrary, but like I said, I’m not sure what to do with any/all of them yet.

68

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I hoped you’d add your $0.02.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I think it should be based on total family income. I don’t think we need all the classifications (married filing jointly, married, single, head of household, etc…).

[/quote]

You’re ass pounding people who get married and have kids, and then pounding them in the ass again when said kids become working age, and get a job at any old place like Mickey D’s. [/quote]

How? When you’re married you’re able to pool resources (2+ people need 1 roof for example) for necessities, which means more economic freedom. Why should you get a tax break for being married or having kids?[/quote]

You’re reinstitution the marriage penalty that Bush43 largely and finally got rid of, until Obama brought it back. The marriage penalty encourages one spouse not to work, or work less, which is typically the woman. (Shocking that a democrat policy does the opposite of what they say, I know.)

IF you have two single people in NYC and one makes 100k and the other makes 75k, they stay unmarried, they pay combined 22,500 in tax. Once they get married their household income becomes 175k and they now pay 35,000 in tax, a $12,500 a year penalty for getting married.

Incentivizing marriage means intact families, and intact family means less shit head delinquents. Less shit heads means a more functional society.

Would have to in order to not punish people for becoming a family.

[quote]
I’m happy to hear alternative brackets. [/quote]

You jump to 15% and 20% far too quickly IMO is my main issue. And I’d like to see a flat rate for investment income, and relief for retirees and people under 20.

I’d also like to see a much more significant student loan deduction. (NOT A CREDIT.) It’s government’s fault shit costs as much as t does, they should bear the brunt of it too.

Things like DPAD, etc are also good.

[quote]

[quote]
And I’m not removing deductions. Not now, nor ever. They are there for a reason. [/quote]

I think many of them are unnecessary and/or arbitrary, but like I said, I’m not sure what to do with any/all of them yet. [/quote]

You just have to be wary of throwing the baby out with the bath water here.

Start with what you would eliminate, and I can offer a counter point (if I disagree.)

69

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And I’d like to see a flat rate for investment income, and relief for retirees and people under 20.
[/quote]

Why is 20 your suggested age ceiling? Why not, say, 23 or 25?

70

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I hoped you’d add your $0.02.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I think it should be based on total family income. I don’t think we need all the classifications (married filing jointly, married, single, head of household, etc…).

[/quote]

You’re ass pounding people who get married and have kids, and then pounding them in the ass again when said kids become working age, and get a job at any old place like Mickey D’s. [/quote]

How? When you’re married you’re able to pool resources (2+ people need 1 roof for example) for necessities, which means more economic freedom. Why should you get a tax break for being married or having kids?[/quote]

You’re reinstitution the marriage penalty that Bush43 largely and finally got rid of, until Obama brought it back. The marriage penalty encourages one spouse not to work, or work less, which is typically the woman. (Shocking that a democrat policy does the opposite of what they say, I know.)

IF you have two single people in NYC and one makes 100k and the other makes 75k, they stay unmarried, they pay combined 22,500 in tax. Once they get married their household income becomes 175k and they now pay 35,000 in tax, a $12,500 a year penalty for getting married.

Incentivizing marriage means intact families, and intact family means less shit head delinquents. Less shit heads means a more functional society. [/quote]

That’s a fair point, but isn’t it true married families tend to have more deductions?

The only thing I’ll say, which is related to your last sentence, is that you could argue having a stay at home parent (either) has the potential to keep family intact / have less shit head delinquents. Do I necessarily have data to corroborate that, no. So, monetarily speaking, it’s a penalty. I get that, but I think it also incentives a dual income household, which I think is fine (It’s what I’m a part of and our kid will go to daycare), but isn’t necessarily the best option for families. Basically, I’m not so sure it’s as black and white as your statement suggests.

[quote]

Would have to in order to not punish people for becoming a family. [/quote]

That would be fine with me. That could be tricky too though.

[quote]

[quote]
I’m happy to hear alternative brackets. [/quote]

You jump to 15% and 20% far too quickly IMO is my main issue. And I’d like to see a flat rate for investment income, and relief for retirees and people under 20. [/quote]

I donno man, I’m looking at the 2014 rates and a lot of people would be paying less in taxes at what I suggested.

I’m not sure how I feel about investment income. I prefer the sales and use tax I wrote about earlier because I think it solves the problem without even addressing it. I don’t think you should be penalized for investing. It isn’t just shuffling money like a lot of people will say.

Anyway, we could potentially have a graduated system here too; although, I’m not sure I like it. Id we use a flat rate I’d like to see it around 10%-15% and no more.

[quote]
I’d also like to see a much more significant student loan deduction. (NOT A CREDIT.) It’s government’s fault shit costs as much as t does, they should bear the brunt of it too.

Things like DPAD, etc are also good. [/quote]

I’m okay with that I guess, but it just shifts the burden to you and me. It doesn’t hurt the government at all.

[quote]

[quote]

[quote]
And I’m not removing deductions. Not now, nor ever. They are there for a reason. [/quote]

I think many of them are unnecessary and/or arbitrary, but like I said, I’m not sure what to do with any/all of them yet. [/quote]

You just have to be wary of throwing the baby out with the bath water here.

Start with what you would eliminate, and I can offer a counter point (if I disagree.)[/quote]

I think it would take someone with more experience with the code to come up with good recommendations. I’m not a big fan of the mortgage interest deduction for example. Why should you get a deduction because you took a loan out to buy a house? It incentives home buying, which is a good idea in theory, but I think we’ve seen that’s not always a good idea. I’m not absolving the banks or the home buyers at all, so don’t take it that, but I don’t like code that incentives one activity over another.

71

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And I’d like to see a flat rate for investment income, and relief for retirees and people under 20.
[/quote]

Why is 20 your suggested age ceiling? Why not, say, 23 or 25?[/quote]

Because when I say relief here, I mean 0% (with some sort of mean’s testing, much like they do with SS now). I don’t think we need that upwards into your mid 20’s.

72

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And I’d like to see a flat rate for investment income, and relief for retirees and people under 20.
[/quote]

Why is 20 your suggested age ceiling? Why not, say, 23 or 25?[/quote]

Because when I say relief here, I mean 0% (with some sort of mean’s testing, much like they do with SS now). I don’t think we need that upwards into your mid 20’s. [/quote]

I could see 22 since most people graduate college at 22. I don’t follow what’s special about 20. I was an E-4 in the Marine Corps at 20.

73

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Basically, I’m not so sure it’s as black and white as your statement suggests. [/quote]

Sure. Nothing is.

But I think anything we as a society can do to foster a two parent household is the best move at the moment. Being a single parent is very difficult, and often leads to much less financial stability than dual income homes, and the stats bear out that kids of single parents make up the bulk of criminals in the country.

[quote]
That could be tricky too though. [/quote]

Nothing about playing with the tax code isn’t tricky.

Again, it all ended up in there for a reason, and no, contrary to typical leftist nonsense it wasn’t to “give breaks to the rich” or “hook up their buddies”. That is all utter bullshit.

It ended up this way the same reason GAAP went from principle based to rule based. Complications over time, and an attempt by the government to smooth over rough patches, even the playing field, and prevent creative people from working around the code.

I don’t care how much you take a hatchet to the IRC. As long as their is in income tax, we’ll end up right back were we are within 2 administrations at this point. We live in a complex world, that requires a complex tax code. Best we just work within the framework we have.

[quote]
I donno man, I’m looking at the 2014 rates and a lot of people would be paying less in taxes at what I suggested. [/quote]

I didn’t graduate on your brackets, and I’m not sure if I did the result would be any less of a penalty, but you have to graduate on that picture.

The first 10k isn’t taxed, the next 10k taxed at 5%, the next 10k at 10% etc etc etc.

Maybe your brackets do tax less than is… However, taxable income in that picture, means a much higher W2 income than you propose, because of deductions and exemptions.

[quote]I’m not sure how I feel about investment income. I prefer the sales and use tax I wrote about earlier because I think it solves the problem without even addressing it. I don’t think you should be penalized for investing. It isn’t just shuffling money like a lot of people will say.

Anyway, we could potentially have a graduated system here too; although, I’m not sure I like it. Id we use a flat rate I’d like to see it around 10%-15% and no more. [/quote]

I’m fine with it being as high as 20%. But build in layers.

If you make less than 75k total, 0% (unless all your income is investment.)
If you make less than 150k total, 10% on investment.
Everyone else 20%. This includes interest, dividends, rents (for non-real estate professionals), royalties, Cap Gains and other portfolio income.

Build in some means testing in the layers so wealthy people still pay tax, and lower and middle people can actually build some fucking wealth without the democrats making it fucking impossible to have mobility.

It’s one of the reasons many can afford a home in the first place. Outside of the government pushing housing to the point of creating a bubble (which burst in 2008) when people own, everyone wins.

People take much better care of their homes than the homes they rent, and the neighborhood improves as a result.

74

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And I’d like to see a flat rate for investment income, and relief for retirees and people under 20.
[/quote]

Why is 20 your suggested age ceiling? Why not, say, 23 or 25?[/quote]

Because when I say relief here, I mean 0% (with some sort of mean’s testing, much like they do with SS now). I don’t think we need that upwards into your mid 20’s. [/quote]

I could see 22 since most people graduate college at 22. I don’t follow what’s special about 20. I was an E-4 in the Marine Corps at 20. [/quote]

I’m okay with 22 I guess. I pulled 20 out of my ass, not wanting to go as high as 24.

75

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Basically, I’m not so sure it’s as black and white as your statement suggests. [/quote]

Sure. Nothing is.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Two Words. Michael. Jackson.

76

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Basically, I’m not so sure it’s as black and white as your statement suggests. [/quote]

Sure. Nothing is.

But I think anything we as a society can do to foster a two parent household is the best move at the moment. Being a single parent is very difficult, and often leads to much less financial stability than dual income homes, and the stats bear out that kids of single parents make up the bulk of criminals in the country. [/quote]

Agreed.

[quote]

[quote]
That could be tricky too though. [/quote]

Nothing about playing with the tax code isn’t tricky.

Again, it all ended up in there for a reason, and no, contrary to typical leftist nonsense it wasn’t to “give breaks to the rich” or “hook up their buddies”. That is all utter bullshit.

It ended up this way the same reason GAAP went from principle based to rule based. Complications over time, and an attempt by the government to smooth over rough patches, even the playing field, and prevent creative people from working around the code.

I don’t care how much you take a hatchet to the IRC. As long as their is in income tax, we’ll end up right back were we are within 2 administrations at this point. We live in a complex world, that requires a complex tax code. Best we just work within the framework we have. [/quote]

I agree the IRC will end up right back where it is even if we whole sale dismantle it for the reason you mention. It’s exactly why the IFRS / GAAP conversion has been so slow. IFRS isn’t built for complex issues.

I still contend a federal and state sales and use tax is a viable alternative. I don’t think, on it’s face, an income tax is the best way to do it and I hate the corporate income tax.

[quote]

[quote]
I donno man, I’m looking at the 2014 rates and a lot of people would be paying less in taxes at what I suggested. [/quote]

I didn’t graduate on your brackets, and I’m not sure if I did the result would be any less of a penalty, but you have to graduate on that picture.

The first 10k isn’t taxed, the next 10k taxed at 5%, the next 10k at 10% etc etc etc.

Maybe your brackets do tax less than is… However, taxable income in that picture, means a much higher W2 income than you propose, because of deductions and exemptions. [/quote]

I’m a fan of increase economic freedom. If that means what we currently have, then fine, but I have a hard time believe that’s the case. Just looking at the 2014 brackets 32K-89K is @25% (graduate of course). I don’t think anyone should pay over 25% ever. It might be an arbitrary line, but over 25% just seems crazy to me.

[quote]

[quote]I’m not sure how I feel about investment income. I prefer the sales and use tax I wrote about earlier because I think it solves the problem without even addressing it. I don’t think you should be penalized for investing. It isn’t just shuffling money like a lot of people will say.

Anyway, we could potentially have a graduated system here too; although, I’m not sure I like it. Id we use a flat rate I’d like to see it around 10%-15% and no more. [/quote]

I’m fine with it being as high as 20%. But build in layers.

If you make less than 75k total, 0% (unless all your income is investment.)
If you make less than 150k total, 10% on investment.
Everyone else 20%. This includes interest, dividends, rents (for non-real estate professionals), royalties, Cap Gains and other portfolio income.

Build in some means testing in the layers so wealthy people still pay tax, and lower and middle people can actually build some fucking wealth without the democrats making it fucking impossible to have mobility. [/quote]

I like the layers. I personally would rather give the lower and middle class a better chance to build wealth at the expense of tax revenue from the wealthy or the professional investor. What you wrote is probably fine. I just don’t want capital gains tax to inflate necessary rates of return or risk. I want to promote investing not the other way around.

The deduction is why many can afford a home in the first place, I’m not sure I believe that. Do you have anything I can read on that? Reducing the tax burden in general would have the same effect, no?

77

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The deduction is why many can afford a home in the first place, I’m not sure I believe that. Do you have anything I can read on that?[/quote]

Nothing but personal observation and may a tax return that I can’t send you without losing my job.

[quote] Reducing the tax burden in general would have the same effect, no?

[/quote]

Yes

78

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t think anyone should pay over 25% ever. It might be an arbitrary line, but over 25% just seems crazy to me. [/quote]

I agree. But this will never sell politically. I mean look at what any tax relief is called now “tax breaks for the wealthy”. And the morons in the public eat that shit up, failing to actually look at the data and see that it is the wealthy paying all the fucking tax, so yes, a reduction in tax is a “break for the wealthy” because the poor don’t pay shit. (I know you know this, just saying it again for the lefties reading along.)

So end of the day, we need to find a politically sellable idea, which includes fleecing the rich, because people no a days are addicted to their envy and want revenge for not being rich.

79

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I still contend a federal and state sales and use tax is a viable alternative. I don’t think, on it’s face, an income tax is the best way to do it and I hate the corporate income tax.

[/quote]

My only reservation here is the velocity of money…

I don’t want to see less money being spent, because our economy is all smoke and mirrors propped up by low Fed rates and money printing, which is keeping us artificially out of the depression we’ve been in since 2008/9…

80

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I still contend a federal and state sales and use tax is a viable alternative. I don’t think, on it’s face, an income tax is the best way to do it and I hate the corporate income tax.

[/quote]

My only reservation here is the velocity of money…

I don’t want to see less money being spent, because our economy is all smoke and mirrors propped up by low Fed rates and money printing, which is keeping us artificially out of the depression we’ve been in since 2008/9… [/quote]

I think that’s a fair concern, but I also think Americans like to spend money.