What really needs to be fixed in the tax code?

[Anonymous]

No deductions or exemptions.

Progressive tax on all earnings (including investments, rental income, anything). But reasonably progressive. Not something like 90% of all income over 500K----something that continues to increase at 1 million, 10 million, etc but taps
out on 50-60% or thereabouts.

[Anonymous]

Healthcare premiums are set to go up 40% next year. Watch 90 seconds in...

[Anonymous]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=FFyJaR4LfJM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rates are unrealistically low. They need to be graduated up greatly. If you're making under 50K, your rate should be 5%. But it should scale upwards quickly from there. After 75K, it should be 90-95%. At 250K, it should be 99%. Likewise for unearned income, which should also be 99%. And I'd also do away with probate completely, with all of an estate up as taxes unless survivors can show cause as to why they should get those assets.

That will even things out and get rid of the huge disparity of wealth in this country, which is really what is driving all the problems in this country.

The problem with this, is that it dis-incentivizes saving and preparing for old age and passing on to heirs. I have no issue with people who prefer to plan and save - we should be rewarding that. $5M or $10M to pass on to heirs if one has saved and dies without using it all is more than enough to pass on without taxation. Then kick it in to whatever and that can be scaled too 20% on the next 10M, 40% on the next %50M or whatever.

The government has basically zero reason to incentivize passing wealth onto one's heirs. There might be corner cases where a parent dies while a child is a minor and so unable to work, but that's about it. I stand to inherit a decent sum, so I'm not against inheritances. But the government has no reason to create extra incentives for my parents to build up wealth just to pass it to me.

Incentivize saving enough to take care of yourself after retirement, sure, I can see that. But saving more than you'll need in your lifetime, nope.

[Anonymous]

Private property rights. U.S. Constitution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rates are unrealistically low. They need to be graduated up greatly. If you're making under 50K, your rate should be 5%. But it should scale upwards quickly from there. After 75K, it should be 90-95%. At 250K, it should be 99%. Likewise for unearned income, which should also be 99%. And I'd also do away with probate completely, with all of an estate up as taxes unless survivors can show cause as to why they should get those assets.

That will even things out and get rid of the huge disparity of wealth in this country, which is really what is driving all the problems in this country.

The problem with this, is that it dis-incentivizes saving and preparing for old age and passing on to heirs. I have no issue with people who prefer to plan and save - we should be rewarding that. $5M or $10M to pass on to heirs if one has saved and dies without using it all is more than enough to pass on without taxation. Then kick it in to whatever and that can be scaled too 20% on the next 10M, 40% on the next %50M or whatever.

The government has basically zero reason to incentivize passing wealth onto one's heirs. There might be corner cases where a parent dies while a child is a minor and so unable to work, but that's about it. I stand to inherit a decent sum, so I'm not against inheritances. But the government has no reason to create extra incentives for my parents to build up wealth just to pass it to me.

Incentivize saving enough to take care of yourself after retirement, sure, I can see that. But saving more than you'll need in your lifetime, nope.

Passing on so the next generation is in a better place has been a tenet of the US economic dream. That shouldn't be curtailed, IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rates are unrealistically low. They need to be graduated up greatly. If you're making under 50K, your rate should be 5%. But it should scale upwards quickly from there. After 75K, it should be 90-95%. At 250K, it should be 99%. Likewise for unearned income, which should also be 99%. And I'd also do away with probate completely, with all of an estate up as taxes unless survivors can show cause as to why they should get those assets.

That will even things out and get rid of the huge disparity of wealth in this country, which is really what is driving all the problems in this country.

The problem with this, is that it dis-incentivizes saving and preparing for old age and passing on to heirs. I have no issue with people who prefer to plan and save - we should be rewarding that. $5M or $10M to pass on to heirs if one has saved and dies without using it all is more than enough to pass on without taxation. Then kick it in to whatever and that can be scaled too 20% on the next 10M, 40% on the next %50M or whatever.

The government has basically zero reason to incentivize passing wealth onto one's heirs. There might be corner cases where a parent dies while a child is a minor and so unable to work, but that's about it. I stand to inherit a decent sum, so I'm not against inheritances. But the government has no reason to create extra incentives for my parents to build up wealth just to pass it to me.

Incentivize saving enough to take care of yourself after retirement, sure, I can see that. But saving more than you'll need in your lifetime, nope.

This. There is no societal benefit to the accumulation of intergenerational wealth.

And it's not like the estate tax incentivizes people not to die...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rates are unrealistically low. They need to be graduated up greatly. If you're making under 50K, your rate should be 5%. But it should scale upwards quickly from there. After 75K, it should be 90-95%. At 250K, it should be 99%. Likewise for unearned income, which should also be 99%. And I'd also do away with probate completely, with all of an estate up as taxes unless survivors can show cause as to why they should get those assets.

That will even things out and get rid of the huge disparity of wealth in this country, which is really what is driving all the problems in this country.

So why work hard? What do you want? The USSR and soviet block apt buildings?

Agree. The first poster, who wants to tax $75k incomes at 90%+, is a pure socialist. Take virtually all income from middle-class earners (leaving them crumbs) to give to lower-class people who earn nothing or very little. Pretty soon, everyone is living an equally low-level lifestyle.

You call it low level because you hate the poor.

I call it fair and sustainable, because I understand the rich need to be punished for stealing the wealth of the people.

You are a criminal. I am a patriot.

And your comparison to the former Soviet System is telling, but you probably don't even realize that you make my point for me. Under the Soviets, everyone had a home. Everyone had food. Everyone had free medical care. Everyone had a free college education if they had the aptitude. There was no money in politics. There was no politics in politics. Everyone had an equal standard of living. There were no disgusting displays of wealth. What you think was a bad system was actually a near perfect one, for the people it served. Until they couldn't sustain the GDP required to keep up with the defense spending necessary to counter the threat from Reagan.

Disgusting

[Anonymous]

Yup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rates are unrealistically low. They need to be graduated up greatly. If you're making under 50K, your rate should be 5%. But it should scale upwards quickly from there. After 75K, it should be 90-95%. At 250K, it should be 99%. Likewise for unearned income, which should also be 99%. And I'd also do away with probate completely, with all of an estate up as taxes unless survivors can show cause as to why they should get those assets.

That will even things out and get rid of the huge disparity of wealth in this country, which is really what is driving all the problems in this country.

So why work hard? What do you want? The USSR and soviet block apt buildings?

Agree. The first poster, who wants to tax $75k incomes at 90%+, is a pure socialist. Take virtually all income from middle-class earners (leaving them crumbs) to give to lower-class people who earn nothing or very little. Pretty soon, everyone is living an equally low-level lifestyle.

You call it low level because you hate the poor.

I call it fair and sustainable, because I understand the rich need to be punished for stealing the wealth of the people.

You are a criminal. I am a patriot.

And your comparison to the former Soviet System is telling, but you probably don't even realize that you make my point for me. Under the Soviets, everyone had a home. Everyone had food. Everyone had free medical care. Everyone had a free college education if they had the aptitude. There was no money in politics. There was no politics in politics. Everyone had an equal standard of living. There were no disgusting displays of wealth. What you think was a bad system was actually a near perfect one, for the people it served. Until they couldn't sustain the GDP required to keep up with the defense spending necessary to counter the threat from Reagan.

Disgusting

You sound like the typical extreme liberal - a socialist in this case - who calls someone a criminal and disgusting for disagreeing with you!

No....I don't call it low-level because I hate the poor. I have experienced a hint of what you want - moving the middle-class down to a lower-leve in order to "equalize" lifestyles. Because of Obamacrap and $900 monthly premiums (with nothing covered) so the low-income could get it free, I have had to forsake buying a new car (my current is 18 years old), have not taken a vacation in three years, eat all my meals at home (a splurge is now IHOP), and watch my pennies.

So would YOU be OK with that? Drive a car nearly 20 years old, forsake all vacations, give up going to restaurants, drop down to buying cheap clothes, etc., so everyone can live an equally lower-level, "sustainable" life? I seriously doubt it.

My biggest fear is that power will move to extreme and delusional liberals like you, who are not only advocates for country-destroying socialism but hateful and insulting to anyone who doesn't want to give up the accoutrements of middle class life for which they strived, like a new car after 12 years or an occasional vacation, so that people with less education/skills/work ethic can live "equally." In what world are people who barely finished high school and work low-skill jobs entitled to live as well as a college graduate who trained for a profession? People like you would turn us into Greece in five years. (And you call yourself the patriot and me the criminal!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eliminate ALL deductions and exemptions. Institute a flat % tax.

No, this would be patently unfair.

If everyone is paying the exact same %, how is that unfair? Seems to me it's the very definition of 'fair'.

No, it's "equal." You're conflating the two. "Equal" and "fair" are not synonyms. Our tax code is progressive for a reason.

If I earn $50,000 and the flat tax is, say, 15%, I have to pay $7,500 (plus payroll taxes, but I'll leave that out for now), so I'm left with $42,500. But if someone earns $1 billion, he pays $150 million and is left with $850 million.

I know, I know, you think that's fair. The problem is -- the rate cannot be 15% in order to be revenue neutral. It has to be closer to 30%. So, now I'm left with $35,000 (plus payroll taxes). The billionaire is still left with $700 million.

I don't think that is fair. He has a greater ability to pay than I do without affecting quality of life. That's the issue.

OK, you simply want the rich to pay their "fair share". Got it.

Life isn't fair. But our forefathers stated "all men are created equal". We should be taxed as such.

If that's what you believe, we should be paid as such, first, starting with equal pay for women.

I'm going to hazard a guess you're not in favor of that or capping executive pay?

Then shut up about an "equal" tax rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No deductions or exemptions.

Progressive tax on all earnings (including investments, rental income, anything). But reasonably progressive. Not something like 90% of all income over 500K----something that continues to increase at 1 million, 10 million, etc but taps
out on 50-60% or thereabouts.

You're contradicting yourself. We make the tax code progressive largely through the use of deductions and exemptions. You're making a case for marginal rates starting with the first dollar of income, but that's not "progressive."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rates are unrealistically low. They need to be graduated up greatly. If you're making under 50K, your rate should be 5%. But it should scale upwards quickly from there. After 75K, it should be 90-95%. At 250K, it should be 99%. Likewise for unearned income, which should also be 99%. And I'd also do away with probate completely, with all of an estate up as taxes unless survivors can show cause as to why they should get those assets.

That will even things out and get rid of the huge disparity of wealth in this country, which is really what is driving all the problems in this country.

So why work hard? What do you want? The USSR and soviet block apt buildings?

Agree. The first poster, who wants to tax $75k incomes at 90%+, is a pure socialist. Take virtually all income from middle-class earners (leaving them crumbs) to give to lower-class people who earn nothing or very little. Pretty soon, everyone is living an equally low-level lifestyle.

One reason this is so hard to discuss is people are stupid and don't understand the terms they use. The 90% poster is not a socialist. A confiscatory tax rate is not socialism. Socialism means that governments own the means of production. George W. Bush engaged in socialism when he nationalized the banks in the bailout -- that was the last time we had socialism in this country. But that had nothing to do with tax rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rates are unrealistically low. They need to be graduated up greatly. If you're making under 50K, your rate should be 5%. But it should scale upwards quickly from there. After 75K, it should be 90-95%. At 250K, it should be 99%. Likewise for unearned income, which should also be 99%. And I'd also do away with probate completely, with all of an estate up as taxes unless survivors can show cause as to why they should get those assets.

That will even things out and get rid of the huge disparity of wealth in this country, which is really what is driving all the problems in this country.

So why work hard? What do you want? The USSR and soviet block apt buildings?

Agree. The first poster, who wants to tax $75k incomes at 90%+, is a pure socialist. Take virtually all income from middle-class earners (leaving them crumbs) to give to lower-class people who earn nothing or very little. Pretty soon, everyone is living an equally low-level lifestyle.

One reason this is so hard to discuss is people are stupid and don't understand the terms they use. The 90% poster is not a socialist. A confiscatory tax rate is not socialism. Socialism means that governments own the means of production. George W. Bush engaged in socialism when he nationalized the banks in the bailout -- that was the last time we had socialism in this country. But that had nothing to do with tax rates.

It doesn't matter if the label is wrong - it's the underlying concept we are discussing (massive income redistribution), and the objections remain the same. The "socialist" poster wants to take virtually all income from even moderately successful people ($75k) in order to provide more free stuff to lower-income people so that all people, high school dropouts and college-educated professionals, live the same "sustainable" albeit modest lifestyle. What got my ire up is that he calls anyone who disagrees with this confiscatory tax rate a "criminal."

As I said upthread, I am scared to death that people like the deluded "socialist" poster will be elected (there are no shortage of "gimme" and/or similarly deluded voters), and our country will go the way of Greece.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rates are unrealistically low. They need to be graduated up greatly. If you're making under 50K, your rate should be 5%. But it should scale upwards quickly from there. After 75K, it should be 90-95%. At 250K, it should be 99%. Likewise for unearned income, which should also be 99%. And I'd also do away with probate completely, with all of an estate up as taxes unless survivors can show cause as to why they should get those assets.

That will even things out and get rid of the huge disparity of wealth in this country, which is really what is driving all the problems in this country.

So why work hard? What do you want? The USSR and soviet block apt buildings?

Agree. The first poster, who wants to tax $75k incomes at 90%+, is a pure socialist. Take virtually all income from middle-class earners (leaving them crumbs) to give to lower-class people who earn nothing or very little. Pretty soon, everyone is living an equally low-level lifestyle.

One reason this is so hard to discuss is people are stupid and don't understand the terms they use. The 90% poster is not a socialist. A confiscatory tax rate is not socialism. Socialism means that governments own the means of production. George W. Bush engaged in socialism when he nationalized the banks in the bailout -- that was the last time we had socialism in this country. But that had nothing to do with tax rates.

It doesn't matter if the label is wrong - it's the underlying concept we are discussing (massive income redistribution), and the objections remain the same. The "socialist" poster wants to take virtually all income from even moderately successful people ($75k) in order to provide more free stuff to lower-income people so that all people, high school dropouts and college-educated professionals, live the same "sustainable" albeit modest lifestyle. What got my ire up is that he calls anyone who disagrees with this confiscatory tax rate a "criminal."

As I said upthread, I am scared to death that people like the deluded "socialist" poster will be elected (there are no shortage of "gimme" and/or similarly deluded voters), and our country will go the way of Greece.

pp here. I agree that a confiscatory tax policy is stupid. however, I will also say it was a lot easier to do tax "reform" in the 1980s because the rates were a lot higher before. it's easy to bring down rates from the 70s and 80s to the 30s by broadening the base than it is to lower rates already in the 30s. ini my view, the only real way to achieve tax "reform" would be to create a VAT or something and lower income tax rates even further.