Were are Taxes going to go next?

imported post

I know!! We can just have the employers send our paycheck to the fed and they can give back what they feel we need to live on. That's fair for everyone.

imported post

Edit to add something on topic: I think taxes are going to go up. Primarily for the 6 figure+ crowd, but I predict everybody making over 30k a year will get a least a mild hike.

On the abolition of federal income taxes, at my current (admittedly limited) understanding, and really only in accordance with how that would affect me, I'm not seeing many downsides.

The last couple of years I got minimal as far as money back from my tax return (I have the minimum withheld -- the gov't doesn't need a free loan thank you very much).

So, losing the income tax would see me net ~3000/year more income.

Switching to a straight consumption tax to replace the income tax -- at a flat rate ideally seems like it would help more than it would hurt. If I had the time, it would be interesting to get some numbers and do some math to see where things would be using that idea.

Tax law would be greatly simplified (wouldn't it?) thus requiring a much smaller IRS, and by that costing the government less in administrative and staffing costs. I'm not sure on the numbers, so it may not work out entirely, but those factors alone surely would help offset some of the problems.

Granted the income tax may be a necessary evil, and if it must remain, why not simplify it? A flat percentage to me is the only "fair" tax, and the rich folks still end up putting in many, many more dollars than the less rich folks. Again, it simplifies taxes in general -- I would even do away with deductions, just make the tax rate a mite lower to compensate.

Tax forms then would have 3 sections. 1) who you are 2) how much you made 3) multiply line 2 by xx% and this is your tax

Again, shrinking the IRS, costing the gubmint less money to collect those taxes, and simplifying the entire mess.

Granted, these ideas may be WAY oversimplified, but there should be some interesting concepts for minds to chew on and expound upon.

imported post

squisher wrote:

The last couple of years I got minimal as far as money back from my tax return (I have the minimum withheld -- the gov't doesn't need a free loan thank you very much).

Click to expand...

Glad I'm not the only one that thinks that.



As for a flat tax rate... how much tax are you willing to pay? Setting a flat tax will only up your tax rate, not decrease it. Either it's going to come up the level the top bracket has to pay, or the top bracket is going to come down by a fraction and you're once again going to have to come up to meet it. Either way, you're making a significant move up (unless you're already way up there).

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Once again, you've failed to take into account capital gains and income in forms that are not monetary......

Click to expand...

Once again you have failed to realize that everyone in this country works for a company or the government, or they don't work and the Government pays them not to work.

Click to expand...

Epic fail......

Click to expand...

HankT

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

squisher wrote:

The last couple of years I got minimal as far as money back from my tax return (I have the minimum withheld -- the gov't doesn't need a free loan thank you very much).

Click to expand...

Glad I'm not the only one that thinks that.



As for a flat tax rate... how much tax are you willing to pay? Setting a flat tax will only up your tax rate, not decrease it. Either it's going to come up the level the top bracket has to pay, or the top bracket is going to come down by a fraction and you're once again going to have to come up to meet it. Either way, you're making a significant move up (unless you're already way up there).

Click to expand...

Tax I'm willing to pay? 0. Period.

However, I understand that it is a necessary evil at the time being. I don't see how the flat rate from where I stand will go up significantly honestly, because the way I see it, there are going to suddenly be a number of people who previously didn't pay taxes (made below whatever the threshold is) who will be paying them. Their contributions to the overall revenue remains small for sure, but it will be revenue that didn't previously exist (remember, no deductions).

Plus, the answer to the government isn't more money, it's less government. Hopefully an approach to taxes like that is also accompanied by a similar cut in the size of the government (Yes, I know I'm dreaming here).

I need to find some of my sources back, but I know that historically an overall drop in tax rate usually precedes an overall increase in revenue -- so I'm not really seeing the problem in having the "rich" tax rate come down overall to the flat rate.

Again, I admit that I am likely oversimplifying a complicated problem.

imported post

AWDstylezmust be one of those not working and wants the income tax to continue so thewe will continue to pay him not to work.

imported post

squisher wrote:

However, I understand that it is a necessary evil at the time being. I don't see how the flat rate from where I stand will go up significantly honestly, because the way I see it, there are going to suddenly be a number of people who previously didn't pay taxes (made below whatever the threshold is) who will be paying them. Their contributions to the overall revenue remains small for sure, but it will be revenue that didn't previously exist (remember, no deductions).

Plus, the answer to the government isn't more money, it's less government. Hopefully an approach to taxes like that is also accompanied by a similar cut in the size of the government (Yes, I know I'm dreaming here).

I need to find some of my sources back, but I know that historically an overall drop in tax rate usually precedes an overall increase in revenue -- so I'm not really seeing the problem in having the "rich" tax rate come down overall to the flat rate.

Again, I admit that I am likely oversimplifying a complicated problem.

Click to expand...

That's exactly the problem. Lots of things are great in theory, but this is reality land and there's no chance of them happening.



So, looking at it realistically, let's say you purposed a 35% flat tax.



You currently make $60,000/yr, I think that's a solid average for a middle class person in most of the country (if not around here).

Right now, you pay $11,344 in income tax, or 18.9%.

Under your 35% flat tax, you pay $21,000, a $9,656 85%increase.

_________________________________

A poor person makes $20,000/yr. They pay:

Currently: $2,599 (12.9%)

Flat tax @ 35%: $7,000, a $4,401 171%increase

__________________________________

A rich guy makes $1,000,000/yr. He pays:

Currently: $328,597 (32.8%)

Flat tax: $350,000, a $21,403 6% increase





Do you see the problem now? No matter what way you slice it or what percent you use (we're talking realistically here, revenue that can support the current government) YOU are the one that's going to be paying more. And the further you go down the income chain, the larger the increases are going to get because your tax rate is already low and isn't going to go any lower unless you tax the people below you more (which isn't fair without taxing you more because you're below someone else) or tax the people above you more (which you and the GOP don't want to do). So we're at a stalemate and I don't see anything changing anytime soon. Just comfort yourself with the fact that, as already stated before, people making under $150,000/yr are a net DRAIN on the tax system. That means the services you get are worth more than the taxes you pay. Can't beat that with a stick. So think about that if ever you feel the urge to make stupidcomments like rodbender's.

imported post

What we need to do is drive a wooden stake through the heart of the 16th Amendment and let it die. The founding fathers must have seen what an incometax would do and that's why they put in the clause about no direct tax.

imported post

like_the_roman wrote:

Gator5713 wrote:

I suggest that we do away with 'income' tax all together!!!
Go to a straight consumption tax. For general figures 10% on all domestic goods and 15% on all foreign goods. That would promote domestic production and our own economy. The 'rich' have more money and thus spend more thus they would continue to pay more in taxes. The 'less fortunate' would pay less in taxes as they spend less... There would be less 'corporate tax evasion' as there wouldn't be anything to 'evade'..... The pros go on and on and on....

Click to expand...

You assume that the rich will spend their money, when the depressingly small number of rich people I know aren't as spendthrift as most people think (in fact, they got rich by doing just the opposite.)

The rich have a lower 'time preference' than the poor (meaning they prefer savings to consumption.) So a consumption tax would have a disproportionate impact on the poor and wouldn't bring in as much revenue as the confiscatory income tax.

Click to expand...

As 'HK' likes to say: FAIL!

Here is why:
Yes the 'rich' save and invest a higher percentage of their income, but they also SPEND much MUCH more in actual monies!
Example: A 'poor' family will often feed it's family of 6 'generic' rice and beans for about $3/day!
A 'middle class' family (of 6) will prepare a complete meal (often 'name brand' foods and cheap meats) that will cost about $20/day
A 'rich' family (again of 6) will buy the finest meats and foods available feeding the family for $100/day...

The tax would have to be a FIXED percentage, thus automatically keeping up with inflation, as the price of goods goes up, the actual dollar amount would automatically increase as well... Put a higher tax on imported goods to promote domestic product.

The system is not perfect, but no system is or ever will be! It is MUCH better than our current system! Each local Comptroller office could handle the filing and collection as they do now!

imported post

Gator5713 wrote:

like_the_roman wrote:

Gator5713 wrote:

I suggest that we do away with 'income' tax all together!!!
Go to a straight consumption tax. For general figures 10% on all domestic goods and 15% on all foreign goods. That would promote domestic production and our own economy. The 'rich' have more money and thus spend more thus they would continue to pay more in taxes. The 'less fortunate' would pay less in taxes as they spend less... There would be less 'corporate tax evasion' as there wouldn't be anything to 'evade'..... The pros go on and on and on....

Click to expand...

You assume that the rich will spend their money, when the depressingly small number of rich people I know aren't as spendthrift as most people think (in fact, they got rich by doing just the opposite.)

The rich have a lower 'time preference' than the poor (meaning they prefer savings to consumption.) So a consumption tax would have a disproportionate impact on the poor and wouldn't bring in as much revenue as the confiscatory income tax.

Click to expand...

As 'HK' likes to say: FAIL!

Here is why:
Yes the 'rich' save and invest a higher percentage of their income, but they also SPEND much MUCH more in actual monies!
Example: A 'poor' family will often feed it's family of 6 'generic' rice and beans for about $3/day!
A 'middle class' family (of 6) will prepare a complete meal (often 'name brand' foods and cheap meats) that will cost about $20/day
A 'rich' family (again of 6) will buy the finest meats and foods available feeding the family for $100/day...

The tax would have to be a FIXED percentage, thus automatically keeping up with inflation, as the price of goods goes up, the actual dollar amount would automatically increase as well... Put a higher tax on imported goods to promote domestic product.

The system is not perfect, but no system is or ever will be! It is MUCH better than our current system! Each local Comptroller office could handle the filing and collection as they do now!

Click to expand...

MALACHI
CHAPTER 3

10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

11 And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the Lord of hosts.
12 And all nations shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a delightsome land, saith the Lord of hosts.

Tithe, A tax or assessment of one tenth.


I agree, if there was a flat 10% tax on all expenditures, it would be as fair as could be. That is the way the Lord funds his kingdom and it would work for the kingdom of men too.

imported post

Gator5713 wrote:

like_the_roman wrote:

Gator5713 wrote:

I suggest that we do away with 'income' tax all together!!!
Go to a straight consumption tax. For general figures 10% on all domestic goods and 15% on all foreign goods. That would promote domestic production and our own economy. The 'rich' have more money and thus spend more thus they would continue to pay more in taxes. The 'less fortunate' would pay less in taxes as they spend less... There would be less 'corporate tax evasion' as there wouldn't be anything to 'evade'..... The pros go on and on and on....

Click to expand...

You assume that the rich will spend their money, when the depressingly small number of rich people I know aren't as spendthrift as most people think (in fact, they got rich by doing just the opposite.)

The rich have a lower 'time preference' than the poor (meaning they prefer savings to consumption.) So a consumption tax would have a disproportionate impact on the poor and wouldn't bring in as much revenue as the confiscatory income tax.

Click to expand...

As 'HK' likes to say: FAIL!

Here is why:
Yes the 'rich' save and invest a higher percentage of their income, but they also SPEND much MUCH more in actual monies!
Example: A 'poor' family will often feed it's family of 6 'generic' rice and beans for about $3/day!
A 'middle class' family (of 6) will prepare a complete meal (often 'name brand' foods and cheap meats) that will cost about $20/day
A 'rich' family (again of 6) will buy the finest meats and foods available feeding the family for $100/day...

Click to expand...

You base that on what? Take a marketing class; the opposite is usually true. Rich and upper-middle class people are generally smart, poor people are generally dumb. Ever wonder why people that can't evenfeed theirseven kids roll around in GMCYukons on 24's, blowing the windows of your house out their $3,000 sound system, while waving their rolex and $200/monthiPhone w/ultra madness texting packageout the window?



And putting a higher tax on imported goods? LAWLZ What happened to free trade? I guess you like paying more for everything. Go look up comparative advantage.

What you still don't get is the significance of what you admitted in the beginning, the poor use a vastly higher PERCENT of their income on keeping themselves alive (that means SPENDING it). Therefore, the tax PERCENTAGEfor the poor would be higher than the tax PERCENTAGE for the rich. Now you're redistributing wealth in the opposite direction.

Then there's the biggest hang-up. This country's economy is based on spending, lots and lots of spending. Having a consumption tax would decrease spending. Don't want to get taxed? Just stop spending. The end result of that would be a similar version of the tanking economy we have right now. Look at how Wall Street reacts to reduced consumer spending, it's not pretty.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Gator5713 wrote:

like_the_roman wrote:

Gator5713 wrote:

I suggest that we do away with 'income' tax all together!!!
Go to a straight consumption tax. For general figures 10% on all domestic goods and 15% on all foreign goods. That would promote domestic production and our own economy. The 'rich' have more money and thus spend more thus they would continue to pay more in taxes. The 'less fortunate' would pay less in taxes as they spend less... There would be less 'corporate tax evasion' as there wouldn't be anything to 'evade'..... The pros go on and on and on....

Click to expand...

You assume that the rich will spend their money, when the depressingly small number of rich people I know aren't as spendthrift as most people think (in fact, they got rich by doing just the opposite.)

The rich have a lower 'time preference' than the poor (meaning they prefer savings to consumption.) So a consumption tax would have a disproportionate impact on the poor and wouldn't bring in as much revenue as the confiscatory income tax.

Click to expand...

As 'HK' likes to say: FAIL!

Here is why:
Yes the 'rich' save and invest a higher percentage of their income, but they also SPEND much MUCH more in actual monies!
Example: A 'poor' family will often feed it's family of 6 'generic' rice and beans for about $3/day!
A 'middle class' family (of 6) will prepare a complete meal (often 'name brand' foods and cheap meats) that will cost about $20/day
A 'rich' family (again of 6) will buy the finest meats and foods available feeding the family for $100/day...

Click to expand...

You base that on what? Take a marketing class; the opposite is usually true. Rich and upper-middle class people are generally smart, poor people are generally dumb. Ever wonder why people that can't evenfeed theirseven kids roll around in GMCYukons on 24's, blowing the windows of your house out their $3,000 sound system, while waving their rolex and $200/monthiPhone w/ultra madness texting packageout the window?



And putting a higher tax on imported goods? LAWLZ What happened to free trade? I guess you like paying more for everything. Go look up comparative advantage.

What you still don't get is the significance of what you admitted in the beginning, the poor use a vastly higher PERCENT of their income on keeping themselves alive (that means SPENDING it). Therefore, the tax PERCENTAGEfor the poor would be higher than the tax PERCENTAGE for the rich. Now you're redistributing wealth in the opposite direction.

Then there's the biggest hang-up. This country's economy is based on spending, lots and lots of spending. Having a consumption tax would decrease spending. Don't want to get taxed? Just stop spending. The end result of that would be a similar version of the tanking economy we have right now. Look at how Wall Street reacts to reduced consumer spending, it's not pretty.

Click to expand...

Gator....HankT is a troll that rears his ugly head under several different handles on this forum. His purpose is to cause striffe and discord, where ever he can. Play with him at your own risk.

imported post

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:

Tithe, A tax or assessment of one tenth.


I agree, if there was a flat 10% tax on all expenditures, it would be as fair as could be. That is the way the Lord funds his kingdom and it would work for the kingdom of men too.

Click to expand...

:hammer:


Maybe you should read that bible a little better. The Jews had a 10% INCOME tax. Not a 10% EXPENDITURE tax.

Numbers 18:26

Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, When ye take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the LORD, [even] a tenth [part] of the tithe.

Click to expand...

The "tithes" that the Levites took from the Jews were the INCREASES (their word, not mine) of their land. Sounds like communism to me. They were told how much they were going to live on, and anything over and above that went to the ruling tribe (the Levites), and 10% of THAT amount went as a sacrifice to "god".

Doesn't sound much unlike where we're headed.

"'Theocracy' has always been the synonym for a bleak and narrow, if not a fierce and blood-stained tyranny” -William Archer

imported post

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:

Gator....HankT is a troll that rears his ugly head under several different handles on this forum. His purpose is to cause striffe and discord, where ever he can. Play with him at your own risk.

Click to expand...

LOL

The HK is for Heckler & Koch you moron, of which I have one for my primary carry. HankT has been here for eons longer than me.

Just because we're both literate and can make logical arugments doesn't mean we're the same person. :hammer:

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:

Gator....HankT is a troll that rears his ugly head under several different handles on this forum. His purpose is to cause striffe and discord, where ever he can. Play with him at your own risk.

Click to expand...

LOL

The HK is for Heckler & Koch you moron, of which I have one for my primary carry. HankT has been here for eons longer than me.

Just because we're both literate and can make logical arugments doesn't mean we're the same person. :hammer:

Click to expand...

imported post

All this talk about income tax!! There is a more insidious use of the power to levy imposts that we need to keep an eye on.

"If you wamt less of something, tax it". The first attempt at Federal regulation of "recreational drugs" was the Marihuana Tax Act. Even earlier, when the Crown objected to criticism in the various Colonial news organs they imposed the "Stamp Act" which required every sheet of paper use to print news bear a Stamp signifying that a tax had been paid on the paper. This has been widely regarded as the straw that broke the camel's back - and then kicked it some - as far as the decision to secede from the British Commonwealth goes.

Our gvernment has long used the Interstate Commerce Clause either alone or in tandem with the power to levy taxes as a loophole in the Constitution bg enough to drive a Mack truck through. The Federal "gun-free school zone" law was based on the presumtion that once a firearm has traveled "in interstate commerce" then that means that the Federal government can dictate where that firearm can go even after the final sale. This was too much for SCOTUS, and the law was struck down. Talk about arrogance: Congress snuck it back int law as a rider to I think some obscure appropriations bill the very next session.

Those of us who own Class III weapons (Machine guns) have to pay a hefty tax to do so. Mark these words: some damned Anti is gonna come up with the brilliant idea of a 500% tax on ALL weapons sales, so as to make them unaffordable to almost anyone. Who is gonna pay $1500 for a Ruger 10/22?? I know the Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed"; and I (and you) know that such a tax shall be infringement aplenty. But the Libs, with their "living and breathing" idiot view of the Constitution don't really give a damn. They will come up with some explanation about how our "living and breathing" Constitution spoke to them in a dream and told them it was okay.

Back to the income tax: A common rejoinder to complaints aboutthe income tax and the fresh questions it empowers the Gvernment to ask is that "Al Capone would never have been jailed if not for the income taxes he evaded". Okay. But Al Capone would never have risen to such criminal power had it nt been for another example of government getting too damn nosey about what private citizens do on their own time: PROHIBITION.

P.J.O'Rourke has it exactly right."The mystery of government is not how government works. It is how to make it stop."

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Mark these words: some damned Anti is gonna come up with the brilliant idea of a 500% tax on ALL weapons sales, so as to make them unaffordable to almost anyone. Who is gonna pay $1500 for a Ruger 10/22?? I know the Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed"; and I (and you) know that such a tax shall be infringement aplenty.

Click to expand...

For once I agree with you. There's no reason to pass a nationwide ban on weapons when you can simply tax them into oblivion. That is exactly the kind of thing we need to watch out for because it's the most likely way that weapons will be removed from the hands of citizens in this country.



And as an aside, I went to two local gun stores this weekend and they were PACKED. So nice to see some Obama stimulated buying, hopefully adding members to the community.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Alexcabbie wrote:

Mark these words: some damned Anti is gonna come up with the brilliant idea of a 500% tax on ALL weapons sales, so as to make them unaffordable to almost anyone. Who is gonna pay $1500 for a Ruger 10/22?? I know the Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed"; and I (and you) know that such a tax shall be infringement aplenty.

Click to expand...

For once I agree with you. There's no reason to pass a nationwide ban on weapons when you can simply tax them into oblivion. That is exactly the kind of thing we need to watch out for because it's the most likely way that weapons will be removed from the hands of citizens in this country.



And as an aside, I went to two local gun stores this weekend and they were PACKED. So nice to see some Obama stimulated buying, hopefully adding members to the community.

Click to expand...

"And we are a happy Family"

imported post

like_the_roman wrote:

rodbender wrote:

http://www.fairtax.org

 

Click to expand...

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/still-no-fairtax.htm

Click to expand...

I'm going have to agree with like_the_roman regarding the "fair"tax.

Capital gains tax is probably more "fair" (unless you buy the "supply-side" economics of the anti-free-market corporatists), but even that unfairly taxes people like, say, professional investors (some would say they deserve it since they don't "work" for their money :quirky).

The way I see it, all theft is unfair and immoral. Where do we stop justifying? And why does the government need to spend excessively? Welfare, foreign interventionism, pork barrel of all sorts, all could be done away with, saving the government untold trillions of dollars. The government could make do with only legitimate sources of income if we so required of it.




Edit: The author of the article linked by like_the_roman sums up pretty clearly my practical take on the so-called "FairTax":

I have also been accused by FairTax promoters of rejecting their plan because it is not perfect or doesn't eliminate taxes altogether. Although I believe that taxation is theft, I am not naïve enough to think that taxes will ever be eliminated. I would gladly support any tax reform plan as long as it substantially lowered tax rates or the total amount of taxes collected. I am not waiting for the perfect tax reform plan that will never come. I do not have an "all-or-nothing" attitude when it comes to tax reform. I am in favor of working Americans keeping as much of their money as possible out of the hands of the federal government and in their pockets. I am not a critic of the FairTax because it doesn't do enough; I am a critic of the FairTax because it cannot be considered an incremental step toward lower tax rates or lower overall taxes.

Click to expand...

That is, all except the fact that I'm not sure why it's any more impossible to eliminate all taxes than it would be to get our government to stop spending so excessively. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if the government didn't spend money on all the things it shouldn't be spending money on, the remainder could easily be paid for with legitimate sources of income. Who says the government has to steal to make money, just because stealing is easy and it has the authority? After all, you and I can't steal just because we need money. The government can run businesses. Think of Virginia's ABCs, minus the legislatively-enforced monopoly. The key thing to remember is the miniscule fraction of the government's budget that is actually spent on stuff it should be doing, like running courts. So, while I would support any lowering of taxes on practical grounds, I fail to see why tax abolition is more naïve than any other plan.

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Those of us who own Class III weapons (Machine guns) have to pay a hefty tax to do so.

Click to expand...

I agree with every other part of your post, but I feel since this is OCDO I should point out that, in this case, the tax is far less a restrictive burden than is the legislative prohibition on registration of Class III weapons manufactured after 1986.