What really needs to be fixed in the tax code?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree. So true.

In fact, I think the rates are low enough. We have half the country paying no tax and the moderate earners on the cusp paying small amounts. The rich have dropped from the 70% rate to the 30s, as you say, and that's low enough. (You sound well-informed, so I'm sure you know that the top rate was 90% before JFK lowered it.)

The only rate that needs to be reduced is the corporate rate. Other countries have lowered theirs while ours.has remained in place, and it has driven corporations out of the country in order to take advantage of loopholes. Lower the rate to a competitive 20%, and include a tax repatriation holiday of 10%, and watch the jobs flow back....the market roar even either.....consumer spending pick up....and the GNP approach 4%.

Conversely, if the Dems block or delay corporate tax reform, expect a 15% to 20% drop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree. So true.

In fact, I think the rates are low enough. We have half the country paying no tax and the moderate earners on the cusp paying small amounts. The rich have dropped from the 70% rate to the 30s, as you say, and that's low enough. (You sound well-informed, so I'm sure you know that the top rate was 90% before JFK lowered it.)

The only rate that needs to be reduced is the corporate rate. Other countries have lowered theirs while ours.has remained in place, and it has driven corporations out of the country in order to take advantage of loopholes. Lower the rate to a competitive 20%, and include a tax repatriation holiday of 10%, and watch the jobs flow back....the market roar even either.....consumer spending pick up....and the GNP approach 4%.

Conversely, if the Dems block or delay corporate tax reform, expect a 15% to 20% drop.

The bolded part is not true and discredits the whole rest of your post. Sure half the population pays no federal income tax, but there are lots and lots of other taxes, the working poor pay far more proportionately than the rentier class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree. So true.

In fact, I think the rates are low enough. We have half the country paying no tax and the moderate earners on the cusp paying small amounts. The rich have dropped from the 70% rate to the 30s, as you say, and that's low enough. (You sound well-informed, so I'm sure you know that the top rate was 90% before JFK lowered it.)

The only rate that needs to be reduced is the corporate rate. Other countries have lowered theirs while ours.has remained in place, and it has driven corporations out of the country in order to take advantage of loopholes. Lower the rate to a competitive 20%, and include a tax repatriation holiday of 10%, and watch the jobs flow back....the market roar even either.....consumer spending pick up....and the GNP approach 4%.

Conversely, if the Dems block or delay corporate tax reform, expect a 15% to 20% drop.

The bolded part is not true and discredits the whole rest of your post. Sure half the population pays no federal income tax, but there are lots and lots of other taxes, the working poor pay far more proportionately than the rentier class.

I know....I know. I was going to be specific and say federal income tax (since I know people like you jump in about the sales tax and payroll), but this thread is talking about tax reform as it relates to federal income tax only, so it should have been obvious. If you don't like the fact that I mentioned that half the people pay no fed income tax and choose to disregard the rest of my post, so be it.

I think part of the problem IS that half the peole pay nothing. Really low income get exused, but the lower-middle (say a family earning $60k) should pay something. We need an AMT on the low end, too, so that anyone with a gross income over $40k pays at least a token amount. More people need to have skin in the game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree. So true.

In fact, I think the rates are low enough. We have half the country paying no tax and the moderate earners on the cusp paying small amounts. The rich have dropped from the 70% rate to the 30s, as you say, and that's low enough. (You sound well-informed, so I'm sure you know that the top rate was 90% before JFK lowered it.)

The only rate that needs to be reduced is the corporate rate. Other countries have lowered theirs while ours.has remained in place, and it has driven corporations out of the country in order to take advantage of loopholes. Lower the rate to a competitive 20%, and include a tax repatriation holiday of 10%, and watch the jobs flow back....the market roar even either.....consumer spending pick up....and the GNP approach 4%.

Conversely, if the Dems block or delay corporate tax reform, expect a 15% to 20% drop.

The bolded part is not true and discredits the whole rest of your post. Sure half the population pays no federal income tax, but there are lots and lots of other taxes, the working poor pay far more proportionately than the rentier class.

....and the working poor also get food stamps, housing subsidies, free health care, and other subsidies. It's really the lower-middle class, too rich for all the taxpayer benefits but too poor to afford essentials without struggle, whom I sympathize with more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's seems like the talk about tax reform going on is not about fixing what's really wrong with the tax code so much as redistributing the tax burden. If you had the chance to fix the tax code, what would you fix?

Here's my list:

Treat carried interest as ordinary income.
Treat interest and dividends as ordinary income.
Index capital gains to inflation and treat as ordinary income.
Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction for second homes.

What else?

Eliminate mortgage interest deduction for amount over [nominally $500k, can be tweaked as a starting point, and then should be indexed appropriately] on primary home

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree. So true.

In fact, I think the rates are low enough. We have half the country paying no tax and the moderate earners on the cusp paying small amounts. The rich have dropped from the 70% rate to the 30s, as you say, and that's low enough. (You sound well-informed, so I'm sure you know that the top rate was 90% before JFK lowered it.)

The only rate that needs to be reduced is the corporate rate. Other countries have lowered theirs while ours.has remained in place, and it has driven corporations out of the country in order to take advantage of loopholes. Lower the rate to a competitive 20%, and include a tax repatriation holiday of 10%, and watch the jobs flow back....the market roar even either.....consumer spending pick up....and the GNP approach 4%.

Conversely, if the Dems block or delay corporate tax reform, expect a 15% to 20% drop.

You can't get blood from a stone.

The people that you think "pay no taxes" are living paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford their living expenses, let alone additional taxes. We should have appropriate incentivization either through tax penalties or other mechanisms to get employers to pay living wages. And THEN you can think about collecting more taxes from those people you think are deadbeats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree. So true.

In fact, I think the rates are low enough. We have half the country paying no tax and the moderate earners on the cusp paying small amounts. The rich have dropped from the 70% rate to the 30s, as you say, and that's low enough. (You sound well-informed, so I'm sure you know that the top rate was 90% before JFK lowered it.)

The only rate that needs to be reduced is the corporate rate. Other countries have lowered theirs while ours.has remained in place, and it has driven corporations out of the country in order to take advantage of loopholes. Lower the rate to a competitive 20%, and include a tax repatriation holiday of 10%, and watch the jobs flow back....the market roar even either.....consumer spending pick up....and the GNP approach 4%.

Conversely, if the Dems block or delay corporate tax reform, expect a 15% to 20% drop.

The corporate tax rates are just a nominal rate. You can't just go by a percentage. We give them so many deductions, subsidies et cetera that most Fortune 500s essentially pay very little or nothing when all is said and done. If we drop corporate tax rates we should then get rid of many of the loopholes, deductions, subsidies and other perks that large businesses get. I am however in favor of favorable tax policies for small business. They are the real job creators for most communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Disagree with this. The American Dream has always been about unfettered opportunity to succeed from nothing. There is nothing more American than a "rags-to-riches" story. We are literally one of the only countries in the world and in the history of civilization where those kinds of stories are not legends but something that feels real and attainable. The most disturbing thing about the modern American economy is that these kinds of stories are becoming less common or even possible.

Again, I'm someone who stands to inherit and who has benefited greatly from wealthy parents (who arrived in the US as extremely well-educated immigrants but built their wealth from very little). Mostly leveraging the educations and social status that our well-off parents gave us (rather than money so far), DH and I are also wealthy by any meaningful accounting...though DCUM might call us just a little better than MC. I am hyper-aware of the advantages we provide to our kids on a daily basis. We will probably be well-positioned to leave them a decent amount of wealth, but I don't think it's the best thing for our society to have so much advantage and wealth limited to one family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

What are you talking about?! What PP described is literally the definition of progressive taxation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

PP does not seem to be making the case to apply marginal rates to the first dollar...that would actually be harder, I think. marginal rates apply for every dollar above a given threshold, as they currently do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree. So true.

In fact, I think the rates are low enough. We have half the country paying no tax and the moderate earners on the cusp paying small amounts. The rich have dropped from the 70% rate to the 30s, as you say, and that's low enough. (You sound well-informed, so I'm sure you know that the top rate was 90% before JFK lowered it.)

The only rate that needs to be reduced is the corporate rate. Other countries have lowered theirs while ours.has remained in place, and it has driven corporations out of the country in order to take advantage of loopholes. Lower the rate to a competitive 20%, and include a tax repatriation holiday of 10%, and watch the jobs flow back....the market roar even either.....consumer spending pick up....and the GNP approach 4%.

Conversely, if the Dems block or delay corporate tax reform, expect a 15% to 20% drop.

You can't get blood from a stone.

The people that you think "pay no taxes" are living paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford their living expenses, let alone additional taxes. We should have appropriate incentivization either through tax penalties or other mechanisms to get employers to pay living wages. And THEN you can think about collecting more taxes from those people you think are deadbeats.

Oh-oh. We have another liberal here with no clue as to how business works. You want to demand that a company pay $30,000 a year (so a couple would earn $60,000 - more than the current HHI average)? Even if they are barely literate with skills that have practically no market value? Then watch the jobs be replaced with automation. I walked into McDonald's yesterday and there was a kiosk for ordering. NO cashiers. The company knows it doesn't take any great ability to press a few keys and swipe your CC, so rather than have to pay a minimally skilled employee to do it, they're having their customers do it for free. Raise the minimum, and the pattern will be even more widespread - so more people out of work, and more people totally dependent on government.

And.....liberals ALWAYS come up with an insult, and in this case I mean your remark about my considering working poor deadbeats. I SAID the really low-income are excused from pitching in. But the lower middle-class can pay a token amount of federal income tax. I'm talking like $100 or $200 for the year. We cannot survive when half the country is supporting the other half, and we need to move more people onto the taxpayer base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree. So true.

In fact, I think the rates are low enough. We have half the country paying no tax and the moderate earners on the cusp paying small amounts. The rich have dropped from the 70% rate to the 30s, as you say, and that's low enough. (You sound well-informed, so I'm sure you know that the top rate was 90% before JFK lowered it.)

The only rate that needs to be reduced is the corporate rate. Other countries have lowered theirs while ours.has remained in place, and it has driven corporations out of the country in order to take advantage of loopholes. Lower the rate to a competitive 20%, and include a tax repatriation holiday of 10%, and watch the jobs flow back....the market roar even either.....consumer spending pick up....and the GNP approach 4%.

Conversely, if the Dems block or delay corporate tax reform, expect a 15% to 20% drop.

Honestly, I think Democrats would go for reducing the corporate tax rate. Remember, Obama proposed it. Everyone knows the US corporate tax system is antiquated. For a while, the issue with business tax reform was how to achieve it when half of all business income now flows through the individual system due to passthrough entities, etc. And now suddenly we're debating a tax cut for individuals that's not needed (we don't have a surplus and Trump's constantly bragging about how he's made the economy strong) and the much-needed corporate tax reform may end up collateral damage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree. So true.

In fact, I think the rates are low enough. We have half the country paying no tax and the moderate earners on the cusp paying small amounts. The rich have dropped from the 70% rate to the 30s, as you say, and that's low enough. (You sound well-informed, so I'm sure you know that the top rate was 90% before JFK lowered it.)

The only rate that needs to be reduced is the corporate rate. Other countries have lowered theirs while ours.has remained in place, and it has driven corporations out of the country in order to take advantage of loopholes. Lower the rate to a competitive 20%, and include a tax repatriation holiday of 10%, and watch the jobs flow back....the market roar even either.....consumer spending pick up....and the GNP approach 4%.

Conversely, if the Dems block or delay corporate tax reform, expect a 15% to 20% drop.

The bolded part is not true and discredits the whole rest of your post. Sure half the population pays no federal income tax, but there are lots and lots of other taxes, the working poor pay far more proportionately than the rentier class.

I know....I know. I was going to be specific and say federal income tax (since I know people like you jump in about the sales tax and payroll), but this thread is talking about tax reform as it relates to federal income tax only, so it should have been obvious. If you don't like the fact that I mentioned that half the people pay no fed income tax and choose to disregard the rest of my post, so be it.

I think part of the problem IS that half the peole pay nothing. Really low income get exused, but the lower-middle (say a family earning $60k) should pay something. We need an AMT on the low end, too, so that anyone with a gross income over $40k pays at least a token amount. More people need to have skin in the game.

By your logic every tax should be extended so more people have "skin in the game." Apply to everyone the estate tax, corporate taxes, property taxes, dog tax, whatever.

[Anonymous]

I'd have 10 brackets:
5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 38 [550<750], 40 [750<1.25m], 43 [1.25m+].

Std ded=S 10,000. M=20,000.
Itemized=mtg interest on 1m + state + local; cap at 75k
casualty loss=none. States can deal with it.
child credit=1000/kid under age 17. 500/other dependent [child, parent- each must have SS-citizenship, NO moving granny over from another country] Phase out begins S=100k. M=150k. Refundable=100max per 3 kids bio or adopted living in same household. All US citizens with SS. No other dependents.

Medical exp deduction=same as current code.
Inheritance/estate/gift=same as current code. Raise limit by1.5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's seems like the talk about tax reform going on is not about fixing what's really wrong with the tax code so much as redistributing the tax burden. If you had the chance to fix the tax code, what would you fix?

Here's my list:

Treat carried interest as ordinary income.
Treat interest and dividends as ordinary income.
Index capital gains to inflation and treat as ordinary income.
Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction for second homes.

What else?

Eliminate mortgage interest deduction for amount over [nominally $500k, can be tweaked as a starting point, and then should be indexed appropriately] on primary home

I like that idea too, but did you see how the wealthy DCUMers practically $hit a brick over it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree. So true.

In fact, I think the rates are low enough. We have half the country paying no tax and the moderate earners on the cusp paying small amounts. The rich have dropped from the 70% rate to the 30s, as you say, and that's low enough. (You sound well-informed, so I'm sure you know that the top rate was 90% before JFK lowered it.)

The only rate that needs to be reduced is the corporate rate. Other countries have lowered theirs while ours.has remained in place, and it has driven corporations out of the country in order to take advantage of loopholes. Lower the rate to a competitive 20%, and include a tax repatriation holiday of 10%, and watch the jobs flow back....the market roar even either.....consumer spending pick up....and the GNP approach 4%.

Conversely, if the Dems block or delay corporate tax reform, expect a 15% to 20% drop.

The bolded part is not true and discredits the whole rest of your post. Sure half the population pays no federal income tax, but there are lots and lots of other taxes, the working poor pay far more proportionately than the rentier class.

I know....I know. I was going to be specific and say federal income tax (since I know people like you jump in about the sales tax and payroll), but this thread is talking about tax reform as it relates to federal income tax only, so it should have been obvious. If you don't like the fact that I mentioned that half the people pay no fed income tax and choose to disregard the rest of my post, so be it.

I think part of the problem IS that half the peole pay nothing. Really low income get exused, but the lower-middle (say a family earning $60k) should pay something. We need an AMT on the low end, too, so that anyone with a gross income over $40k pays at least a token amount. More people need to have skin in the game.

By your logic every tax should be extended so more people have "skin in the game." Apply to everyone the estate tax, corporate taxes, property taxes, dog tax, whatever.

No, although people with property already pay property tax and whatnot. We are talking about the federal income tax - you know, the revenues collected to run the federal government. Other than the really low-income (say, the workers at Target for $9/hour), everyone should have skin in the game. Besides the fact that having people pay in to offset our debt, it will help stop the rampant attitude that "other people" should bear the responsibility for the expenses of government.

Yup, we need an AMT on the low end. Every able-bodied adult earning over $25,000 pays a minimum $100. If they claim they can't afford it, we deduct $8 a month from food stamps or offset their housing subsidy by that amount for a "shared responsibility fee". Believe me....they can find $8 a month.