What really needs to be fixed in the tax code?

[Anonymous]

For millions of Americans, reforming the federal tax code means very little as they pay little to no federal taxes but are hit much harder by payroll taxes for SocSec and Medicare.

Traditionally SocSec has been taxed at first earned dollar, and capped a the top, because everyone collects equally based on their historic earnings.

Tax reform should exempt the first $10-$20K of earned income (including 1099 self-employed income) and lift the caps to a higher income threshold sufficient to make it revenue neutral, including a retirement/disability/survivor stipend for people who fall below the threshold.

Of course, this should be just an interim step to completely re-jiggering a program that makes no sense in terms of current retirement planning to anyone under the age of 50 and taxpayers facing a system that is unaffordable in its entirety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You do know that the income tax is not the only source of revenue for the federal government, right?