Post by: Fly320s on February 09, 2008, 03:48:35 PM
Quote
Dear APS Forum Member _______________,
Congratulations!! You've been selected by unanimous decree of the President, Senate, House, and Supreme Court of the United States of America to become Supreme Ruler of the new and improved I.R.S.
Your job, whether you want it or not, is to update the US tax code as you deem appropriate. You, Mr/Mrs/Ms ______________, are solely responsible for, and the final authority on, the tax code that will generate revenue to fund the federal budget.
Please get to work immediately. Your proposal is due by 9:00am E.S.T. Monday, February 18.
Thank you for your continued citizenship.
Yours truly,
U.S. Federal Government.
Congratulations!! You've been selected by unanimous decree of the President, Senate, House, and Supreme Court of the United States of America to become Supreme Ruler of the new and improved I.R.S.
Your job, whether you want it or not, is to update the US tax code as you deem appropriate. You, Mr/Mrs/Ms ______________, are solely responsible for, and the final authority on, the tax code that will generate revenue to fund the federal budget.
Please get to work immediately. Your proposal is due by 9:00am E.S.T. Monday, February 18.
Thank you for your continued citizenship.
Yours truly,
U.S. Federal Government.
The tax season is upon us. I'm getting my papers in order to do my taxes next week. This yearly review of how much money I've sent to the Federales, and how large a PITA it is to file taxes, has inspired me to fix the tax system. Coincidentally, President Bush released his budget proposal for FY 2009 last week. Luckily for you, you get to help run the country.
Rules:
1. Your plan must fund the US federal budget for 2009. FY2009 budget is $3.1 trillion.
2. To keep this simple, assume all revenue is derived from individuals. No corporate taxes, tariffs, or other sources.
3. You can't make Fistful pay for it all. Yes, it is his fault, but you still can't do it.
4. Don't get too picky, this is just for fun.
So, what will it be? Keep the staus quo? Flat tax rate? National sales tax, ala the Fair Tax? User fees for everything? Taxes only on capital gains?
To me, one of the jobs of the federal government, by way of the Constitution, is to treat each person the same in the eyes of the law. That says to me that the most equitable way to divide the tax burden is to take the federal budget of $3.1 trillion and divide it evenly by the number of residents of the US. Since we each get a equal piece (at least in theory) of the benefits provided by our taxes, we should each pay an equal piece of the burden. So, 3.1 trillion, divided by 300 million equals..... $10,333 per person. Yeah, it's a simple-minded idea, but it sounds reasonable to me.
Now, I know that there is no possible way for our very large and extremly complicated tax system to bill each individual for $10,333. So, as a back-up plan, I like the Fair Tax. At least most of it. Essentially, it's a national sales tax, a consumer tax, if you will. You only pay tax when you buy goods and services.
I'd change it so that there are no deductions, "prebates," loopholes, or other means of avoiding taxes. Now, I'm not trying to push the Fair Tax; it is just the one tax plan that I've heard that I like.
Since you've been selected to be Head Bean Counter, what's your plan?
Post by: Standing Wolf on February 09, 2008, 04:29:05 PM
Quote
Since we each get a equal piece (at least in theory) of the benefits provided by our taxes, we should each pay an equal piece of the burden. So, 3.1 trillion, divided by 300 million equals..... $10,333 per person. Yeah, it's a simple-minded idea, but it sounds reasonable to me.
If we were to apportion taxes fairly and squarely, we'd see government cut by at least 75% in six months.
Government would never stand for it.
Post by: SomeKid on February 09, 2008, 09:12:13 PM
With that in mind, you take the Federal budget, divide it by the number of voters, add $100, and send it out. Don't pay, you lose registration and have to re-register by paying whatever the previous years tax burden was, but you are not allowed to register for 4 years. As a note, this budget is NOT for the military, but it could be sent there.
All citizens over 18 would also pay a flat fee of $5000. This fee would be dedicated 95% to military/border enforcement. (5% towards congressional pay/Presidents pay/electric bills water bills etc in the Fed buildings). Don't pay for two straight years, lose citizenship. If you fail to pay your annual citizenship fees, you cannot register or continue voting. If you pay every other year, your citizenship is revoked after 5 non-consecutive unpaid years. Citizenship could be regained by paying whatever the amount you SHOULD have paid, x2. (If you don't pay till you are 28 for example, that is 10 years x 5000 = 50000 x 2 you could regain citizenship by paying 100k fee.)
What do you guys think?
Post by: trapperready on February 09, 2008, 09:27:20 PM
Quote
What do you guys think?
What are you trying to accomplish with this innovative tax plan? What other ramifications do you suffer if you lose citizenship? Frankly, I think you'd have a lot of non-voters who would end up paying $5000 a year in taxes... or not.
Post by: De Selby on February 09, 2008, 09:30:26 PM
Why is it that we don't consider taxing corporations in this hypothetical? It seems to me that, given the legal rights and protections afforded to corporations, there're very good reasons to impose taxes on them.
I like this idea:
Quote
So, as a back-up plan, I like the Fair Tax. At least most of it. Essentially, it's a national sales tax, a consumer tax, if you will. You only pay tax when you buy goods and services.
that cuts out the deductions, and lets people who want to save their money save it...encouraging people to put money to good use, rather than to spend it on consumables.
Tax policy is so complicated that you can shoot holes through any version though; IMO, it's better to spend time coming up with ways to force the government to wisely use the funds it has available, than to try and come up with a decent overhaul of the tax code.
Post by: De Selby on February 09, 2008, 09:33:08 PM
What do you guys think?
How do you plan to deal with the millinos of embittered non-citizens that this policy will produce within a few years' time?
"Tough-they should have been responsible" is great for making us feel good about imposing consequences on others, but it is proven ineffective against angry masses. And you will have angry masses in unparalleled numbers if you implement something like what you described. It's more important to have a working society than to be able to shout "But what we did was fair!" to the hordes that tear your government apart because of its draconian tax and citizenship policies.
Post by: SomeKid on February 09, 2008, 09:37:37 PM
In the first part, I am making voters pay for whatever they let the government do. Vote for more government, PAY for more government. If you do not vote, the extra budget (SocSec, Medicare, WIC, etc) does not fall on you. Just national defense, and basic running of the FedGov.
No additional financial ramifications if you lose citizenship. You can live work and play, but you are not a citizen. You can't hold office though for example, and if you get attacked in some other country, the Gov would openly not care as you are NOT an American. Stuff like that you get to deal with.
SS, your first post where you state the Gov should be more efficient I agree with, the second I do not. I would NOT impose sanctions on non-citizens, so these would largely be the class of "I do not care" types. They are too apathetic to do anything, so they won't revolt. Since they are not even being made to pay any taxes at all, I would expect them to be quite content.
Post by: De Selby on February 09, 2008, 09:40:40 PM
SS, your first post where you state the Gov should be more efficient I agree with, the second I do not. I would NOT impose sanctions on non-citizens, so these would largely be the class of "I do not care" types. They are too apathetic to do anything, so they won't revolt. Since they are not even being made to pay any taxes at all, I would expect them to be quite content.
If they aren't voting, no one will even bother to pay lip service to their interests, and they will quickly feel the effects. It's dangerous to have a country full of unrepresented types that will have the mentality that the country is theirs. You might think they have no right to vote and control America because they don't pay, but you can't expect any of those people to agree with you...and that fact makes for a highly volatile scenario.
Post by: SomeKid on February 09, 2008, 09:52:04 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 09, 2008, 09:56:44 PM
Post by: SomeKid on February 09, 2008, 10:04:04 PM
They could always tell their elected people to cut down the size of the government. Think about it. Most of the leeches would not be able to afford this system, so the producers would finally have the votes to end the welfare.
Post by: Warren on February 10, 2008, 12:42:27 AM
That said , I'll play based on how it is now.
Everyone would get an itemized bill. People could see exactly what they are funding. Yes, it would be huge, but people do have the right to know. In addition online would be a history of each tax, who voted for and against and an analysis of who benefits or suffers the most from the tax.
No withholding. People would have to write the check each year.
People could opt out of paying "their" share of subsides, welfare, or foreign aid. Consider it another way to vote on what you think is important.
No more pork. If your area gets a Federal disbursements in excess of what you paid in you have to pay directly and in full for the excess.
Anytime an elected official or high ranking bureaucrat gets caught in a scandal you get to deduct X% from your bill.
Every time Congress votes to raise their salaries you get to deduct X% from your tax bill.
For every percentage point over 10% that the government spends, in aggregate, that is considered waste you get to deduct 1/2% from your tax bill.
Whatever percent of total funds the government gets as a result of asset forfeiture can be deducted 1 for 1 from your tax bill.
All purchases of firearms, ammo or accessories are tax deductible.
Post by: Scout26 on February 10, 2008, 09:58:01 AM
Step 2. Once the fires are out, pass Consititutional Amendment installing the flat tax at say 12% with a ceiling or max limit of say 15% on everybody and everything (corporations, imports and individuals). You make a buck you owe Unka Sugar 12 cents.
Step 3. .Gov must balance budget or .Gov shuts down until balance is achieved.
Step 4. Sober up, as steps 1-3 will never happen.
Post by: HankB on February 10, 2008, 12:01:19 PM
Every employee of every Federal agency that I determine is NOT explicitly allowed for in the Constitution has his salary taxed at 100%, with no deductions, credits, or allowances.
Every employee of every Federal agency that, during FY 2007, has or had the word "Diversity" as any part of his title or job description has his Federal salary taxed at 100%, with no deductions, credits, or allowances.
Every legislator exempt from Social Security has that portion of his retirement benefits that would exceed the maximum Social Security benefit taxed at a rate of 100%, with no deductions, credits, or allowances. His remaining benefits will be taxed at whatever the prevailing rate is for taxable Social Security benefits.
Except in times of declared war against a nation state, the President and every member of both houses of Congress that signs or votes for a budget that is not balanced shall have all salary, per diem, and investment income taxed at a rate of 100% until the budget deficit is made up. Exemptions shall exist for natural disasters on a case-by-case basis.
Every military leader ordering military lawyers to a combat zone shall have his pay taxed at 100% with no deductions, credits, or allowances.
Post by: AmbulanceDriver on February 10, 2008, 12:05:03 PM
And corporations will have that same flat tax. No deductions, no loopholes, make a buck, pay 10 cents (or whatever the flat percentage is). No hiding by making your company an "offshore company. If you want to do business in the US, pay the tax.
Post by: brer on February 10, 2008, 02:19:08 PM
Post by: Fly320s on February 10, 2008, 02:35:54 PM
Fly320's:Why is it that we don't consider taxing corporations in this hypothetical?
1. Just to make this exercise a little more simple.2. Corporations don't really pay taxes so much as they redistribute money from their customers to the IRS by calling it corporate income tax.
Post by: Regolith on February 10, 2008, 04:07:23 PM
Hmm....going by your standards, I'd institute a national flat tax. Everyone pays the same. Something like 15-25%. Either that or implement a sales tax on non-basic items. Food and other basic necessities would be exempt, but everything else would have a sales tax. That way the amount of taxes you pay depends on the choices you make. Works well in Nevada.
Post by: Paddy on February 10, 2008, 04:33:57 PM
Post by: Fly320s on February 10, 2008, 07:04:12 PM
Divide $3.1 trillion by total retail sales in the U.S. last year. That's the national sales tax rate.
Individual sales? I like that idea. Damn, Riley, I'm starting to worry about myself; I seem to agree with you more often.
Post by: doczinn on February 11, 2008, 04:48:02 AM
You get my vote.
Post by: ilbob on February 11, 2008, 06:11:38 AM
eliminate the death tax. treat inheritances and other gifts as normal income. allow each person a $2 million lifetime inheritance exemption.
get rid of the separate taxes on SS and Medicare. combine them with the existing federal income tax. no use pretending anymore that they are something other than just additional income taxes.
every adult gets a $10,000 exemption. every dependent is worth a $10000 exemption. that way a family of four making $40,000 pays nothing.
an extra exemption of $10000 for each person who is either 50% or more disabled, blind, or over 65.
eliminate all other deductions, credits, and exemptions, except:
allow retirement accounts to defer taxes until they are cashed in, and
allow medical savings accounts payments to be non-taxed (solves the mostly non-existent health insurance crisis all by itself).
no new non-taxable dividends (e.g-new municipal bonds).
set a single flat income tax rate at whatever it takes to pay the bills.
life insurance benefits would be treated as normal income. disability insurance benefits would be treated as they are today - if paid out of taxable funds by the beneficiary, they are not taxed.
social security benefits are taxed as normal income.
Post by: Ben on February 11, 2008, 06:23:25 AM
Quote
Step 1. No Withholding. What you owe is due and payable in one lump sum on 15 April.
That right there would be the most profound wakeup call for tax changes. All those people who have their taxes taken out a little at a time with every paycheck, and think that they're getting a "refund" at the end of the year, would have a VERY different view on taxes if they had to cut a big check every April 15th.
I don't expect it would ever happen, because the gov knows how difficult it would be to get the dough without withholding it.
Post by: ilbob on February 11, 2008, 06:26:08 AM
Quote
Step 1. No Withholding. What you owe is due and payable in one lump sum on 15 April.
That right there would be the most profound wakeup call for tax changes. All those people who have their taxes taken out a little at a time with every paycheck, and think that they're getting a "refund" at the end of the year, would have a VERY different view on taxes if they had to cut a big check every April 15th.
I don't expect it would ever happen, because the gov knows how difficult it would be to get the dough without withholding it.
Post by: beatnik on February 11, 2008, 07:00:15 AM
First of all, individual income taxes come about as close to $3.1 trillion as you can get to the moon by jumping. If you cut out corporate and tariffs, that's 60% of tax revenues gone.
Second of all, nobody has factored in that only 90% of income taxes actually gets put into the system: the Fed creams 10% for themselves, right off the top. 2006 personal income taxes were about $1 trillion, which means that $100 billion dollars goes straight into someone's pocket.
Third of all, the only way Bush is able to maintain what's going on is skyrocketing deficit spending: he's upping it to $400 billion, right? Add $400 billion per year onto an $9 trillion debt, and basically our $900 billion in "voluntary contributions" gets eaten up paying interest on that national debt. It's like having a $24,000 a year job, a credit card with 26% APR, and $60,000 of debt on it. It can't be done, at least not if you like to eat.
If we had to hang on to the Keynesian rape machine, the only way to do it strictly by personal income taxes would be to utterly destroy the federal government in its current incarnation. Examples:
Iraq: gone.
Afghanistan: gone.
DHS: gone.
Dept. of Education: gone.
FDA: gone.
Farm Bill: gone.
HUD: gone.
NASA: gone.
EPA: gone.
BATF: gone.
DEA: gone.
FBI: gone.
CIA: gone.
NSA: gone.
Military: slashed, if not gone.
Seriously, people, you can't do it with the current numbers under the proposed rules. But maybe that was the OP's point?
Suggested reading:
http://www.devvy.com/notax.html
(edited: sorry, the debt is only 9 trillion, not 11 trillion. Only a couple trillion off.)
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on February 11, 2008, 07:26:18 AM
Step 2) 10% tax on all sales.
Step 3) Have a beer.
Post by: cordex on February 11, 2008, 08:53:58 AM
First of all, individual income taxes come about as close to $3.1 trillion as you can get to the moon by jumping. If you cut out corporate and tariffs, that's 60% of tax revenues gone.
Corporations do not pay taxes. Ever. Employees, customers and shareholders pay all taxes assessed to corporations.
Post by: Ned Hamford on February 11, 2008, 09:50:31 AM
Post by: ilbob on February 11, 2008, 10:20:28 AM
Quote
Iraq: gone.
Afghanistan: gone.
Part of the military budget anyway.Afghanistan: gone.
Quote
DHS: gone.
Dept. of Education: gone.
FDA: gone.
Farm Bill: gone.
HUD: gone.
NASA: gone.
No loss.Dept. of Education: gone.
FDA: gone.
Farm Bill: gone.
HUD: gone.
NASA: gone.
Quote
EPA: gone.
almost no loss. useful part is about 10%. keep that part.
Quote
BATF: gone.
DEA: gone.
FBI: gone.
CIA: gone.
NSA: gone.
most of the domestic policing functions are more properly handled at the state level as the founder intended. DEA: gone.
FBI: gone.
CIA: gone.
NSA: gone.
Not real sure how to handle intelligence expenses. Its clearly an absolute necessity, but it seems like the useful lifespan of an intelligence agency seldom exceeds 30 years. Maybe they should sunset after 30 years, and be recreated as something new.
Personally, I think paramilitary operations should be put under DoD control. The CIA has never done real well there, and DoD personnel end up doing most of the work anyway.
Post by: beatnik on February 11, 2008, 11:35:05 AM
Corporations do not pay taxes. Ever. Employees, customers and shareholders pay all taxes assessed to corporations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States
So, how are corporate taxes paid by employees, and wouldn't that be a disincentive to work for that corporation?
How are corporate taxes paid by customers, and wouldn't that be a disincentive to buy from that corporation?
If shareholders pay corporate taxes, wouldn't that be a disincentive to buy stock? Also, how is it that they are paid dividends?
Quote from: ilbob
most of the domestic policing functions are more properly handled at the state level as the founder intended.
Close, but why not go all the way - if we're judging agencies by their founder-intended constitutionality, then the 10% useful part of the EPA needs to get kicked as well.
I'm glad we mostly agree, but my point was you can talk about flat tax and fair tax and citizen tax and all the other taxes until you're blue in the face, but none of it is going to make a bit of difference as long as deficit spending is an available option or as long as we keep getting more unconstitutional alphabet soup.
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on February 11, 2008, 12:50:40 PM
Quote
I would also point out that firearms, ammo, rope, tar, and feathers are tax free for the next year.
+1.
A flat, capped tax based on a percentage of income (10% sounds about right) but maxes out at about $25K for household incomes of $250K or more. I don't care if you only make $5000 a year, you owe the gubmint just like anyone else... pay up your $500 contribution. No more New Orleans piggy-backing off of other parts of the country. No deductions.
Don't pay your 10%? You don't get to vote. You can't vote with an outstanding tax balance. Welfare leeches can be squeezed off the system this way, and won't self-perpetuate like they do now.
Post by: DustinD on February 11, 2008, 01:49:47 PM
Remove the class warfare taxes (such as the death tax) as well.
Post by: Paddy on February 11, 2008, 03:59:38 PM
Post by: Scout26 on February 12, 2008, 02:23:57 AM
Quote
How are corporate taxes paid by customers, and wouldn't that be a disincentive to buy from that corporation?
Taxes are built into the price of a corporation's product or service. As an example Chicago just passed a $.10 a bottle tax on bottled water. Which do you think happened: a) the bottled water companies, distributors and retailer just ate the cost or b) the price of every bottle of water went up $.10 at the local Kwik-e-mart ??
Here's another example (lowest prices taken from Gasbuddy.com):
Gasoline:
Hammond, IN - $2.80
Dupage County, IL - $2.87
Cook County, IL - $3.01
City of Chicago, IL - $3.19
Hints: 1) Illinois has a higher gas tax then Indiana. 2) Cook County has an additional gas tax on top of the State tax, and 3) The City of Chicago has an additional gas tax on top of the State and County gas taxes.
Same thing for cigarettes.
Corporations do "pay" taxes. But, it's a cost, like everything else in the product (materials, labor, distribution, marketing, etc.) and that cost gets passed along to the end user.
Post by: HankB on February 12, 2008, 05:27:43 AM
None of you are following the rules. You need to raise $3.1 trillion, and you're all talking about cutting spending.
None of us? Well, I at least proposed quite a number of rate increases and taxes, as well as the elimination of certain deductions, credits, and allowances. Some might result in depopulating certain Federal agencies, but I only proposed changes to taxes.
Here's a few more:
100% tax rate on any gambling winnings (including lottery prizes) won by anyone during a calendar year in which they received government assistance, other than normal Social Security retirement pay.
100% tax on all possessions of an illegal alien other than normal clothing being worn during deportation.
Post by: beatnik on February 12, 2008, 07:38:16 AM
1) More than triple the personal income tax rate, inciting armed rebellion
2) change the rules to include corporate tax and double all income tax rates, still inciting armed rebellion
3) change the rules to cut spending.
And please follow the wikipedia link to find this sentence:
Quote
Corporate tax in the United States is a tax on the taxable income of a C corporation or an entity taxed as a C corporation.
If that's true, then corporations pay taxes on income as well. They probably red-tape themselves into a situation where it is minimal or zero, but you can't pretend like corporate income taxes don't exist.
Post by: cordex on February 12, 2008, 08:54:02 AM
So, how are corporate taxes paid by employees, and wouldn't that be a disincentive to work for that corporation?
I'll explain in a moment. And yes.How are corporate taxes paid by customers, and wouldn't that be a disincentive to buy from that corporation?
I'll explain in a moment. And yes.If shareholders pay corporate taxes, wouldn't that be a disincentive to buy stock?
Yes.Also, how is it that they are paid dividends?
Dividends are a portion of profit not reinvested in the company that is paid to shareholders. Profit that will diminish or disappear if it goes towards paying taxes.Beatnik,
Let's make up a hypothetical situation.
You are in charge of HypothetiCorp.
Your yearly costs are:
Materials: $750,000.
Wages: $500,000.
All other expenses: $250,000.
Total costs: $1,500,000.
Your yearly sales total $2,000,000.
So, your total net profit is $500,000. Not too shabby.
HypothetiCorp has run for several years in a hypothetical tax-free environment. Everyone is currently happy. The employees are receiving a decent wage, the customers are receiving a decent product at a decent price and the investors are receiving a decent profit.
Now, the government steps in and tells HypothetiCorp that as a corporation they must pay a tax rate of 34% on their net profit (I'm not certain that I'm figuring this correctly, but this is just an example), so from $500,000 we subtract $170,000 leaving us with $330,000 in profit.
So, you, as the CEO of HypothetiCorp have to answer a question: Who really pays that $170,000?
Do the investors lose 34% of their dividends?
Do the employees lose 34% of their salaries?
Does the company raise prices for the consumers on their products by 13%?
Does the company buy 23% cheaper materials, thus decreasing the quality of the product?
No matter how you cut it, one or more groups of individuals pay the tax - employees, shareholders or customers. Never the mythical, faceless "corporation" that everyone seems to think produces milk for free.
And please follow the wikipedia link to find this sentence:
Those taxes exist, but as I showed above, whenever taxes are levied on a corporation, they are always paid by individuals ... employees, shareholders and/or customers.
Quote
Corporate tax in the United States is a tax on the taxable income of a C corporation or an entity taxed as a C corporation.
If that's true, then corporations pay taxes on income as well. They probably red-tape themselves into a situation where it is minimal or zero, but you can't pretend like corporate income taxes don't exist.Post by: beatnik on February 12, 2008, 09:16:21 AM
Oh, and isn't any competing idea cutting spending since by definition they call for an end to the IRS?
Post by: cordex on February 12, 2008, 10:01:21 AM
I see where you're going. It's important for us all to realize that corporate taxes are a sham that just gets passed back to us, yes. But I'm not arguing the source of the Nile, I'm saying there's a lot of money not getting accounted for if you get rid of corporate taxes. AFAIK the VAT ideas are the only competing ideas which call for an end to corporate taxes and suggest an alternative.
Beatnik,I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that there is "a lot of money not getting accounted for if you get rid of corporate taxes." The goal is to reproduce the existing budget through taxation. If we are forced to ignore corporate taxes in this thread, abolishing the inefficient (but delightfully deceptive) corporate tax code is simply a part of the requirements as stated by the original post.
Again, individuals are responsible for absorbing the cost of all corporate taxes one way or another. For the purposes of this thread, we'd have to replace all income from corporate taxes by taxing individuals. We could even choose to do this in a manner that would cause the same individuals to pay approximately the same taxes. The VAT and FairTax are examples of levying all "corporate taxes" on consumers. Taxes on investments and capital gains levies the taxes on shareholders. Income taxes levy them on employees. Combine the three and we're right back to where we stand now, for the most part.
So, assuming we're willing to take the time to make the last connection as to the actual source of corporate taxes, it isn't all that hard to determine methods of raising the funds directly from the individuals who would pay anyway, is it? It has the added benefit of people realizing just how much they actually pay for taxes (the major factor I particularly like about the FairTax).
Post by: grampster on February 12, 2008, 10:12:57 AM
If we are going to continue with SS, Medicare, Medicaid, ( and we should) then whatever funds are collected for those programs would be kept OUT of the general fund and invested separately. Probably would need a constitutional amendment to secure that.
Since corporations and businesses only pass taxes through to consumers, rescind all corporate and business taxes and require that all corporations and businesses roll back their prices by an amount equal to the taxes they passed on to consumers (or other businesses) and if any were actually paid, reduce by that amount also.
Pass another constitutional amendment outlawing the income tax and all business taxes.
Impose a 20% sales tax on all retail sales. 10% to the general fund and 10% to SS. Every adult over 18 gets a $15,000 exemption and everyone under 18, $10,000. Everybody gets a check each month to pay for the exemption. (Ex: 1/12 of 20% of $15,000 = $250.00)
That would be a good start.
Post by: beatnik on February 12, 2008, 10:35:54 AM
I get it, but I would still rather that instead of getting rid of our "can't someone else pay it" mentality, we first adopt a "can't nobody pay it" mentality.
Tax reform is meaningless to me as long as my multi-millionaire boss gets paid $3000 a year not to grow corn on his historic farm.
Post by: El Tejon on February 13, 2008, 09:39:21 AM
Post by: cordex on February 13, 2008, 11:41:21 AM
Okay....
I get it, but I would still rather that instead of getting rid of our "can't someone else pay it" mentality, we first adopt a "can't nobody pay it" mentality.
Totally with you. Trim Fed.gov back by, oh, say, 90% and then there's less for all of us to worry about.I get it, but I would still rather that instead of getting rid of our "can't someone else pay it" mentality, we first adopt a "can't nobody pay it" mentality.
But the first post of the thread specifically stated that cutting spending wasn't an option. So ... given those requirements ...
Post by: RevDisk on February 13, 2008, 05:55:32 PM
It's workable, simple, something everyone can figure out themselves. Income X * percent Y = tax owed. That's it.
There's a lot of drawbacks to the process. Eliminating exemptions would cause some issues, less now because of the AMT. A very large chunk of the tax industry would dry up. Not all, as you still have very complex state laws. IRS could really be scaled down. Probably save billions there alone.
The reason I'm opposed to a VAT or sales tax is two fold. One, I simply do not believe the federales would elimate the income tax when the VAT was brought online. Two, it'd significantly drive down purchases, which would either cause a recession or worsen a pre-existing one. It'd spark a major black market shift, which would result on much greater and invasive government crackdowns.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 04, 2008, 11:53:28 PM
Quote
1. Your plan must fund the US federal budget for 2009. FY2009 budget is $3.1 trillion.
I quit immediately. It is not possible to seriously reform the tax code of the US, or any other Western country known to me, without affecting the entire philosophy of government and cutting expenditures.
Post by: roo_ster on March 05, 2008, 05:42:21 AM
3.1 trillion budget
No Spending cuts
My Goals are:
Generate enough revenue to fund budget
Eliminate need for FedGov to know anything about its individual citizens
The Fair Tax is a good start, but needs some work.
Hokay, all taxes on individuals, businesses, corporations, estates, etc. are abolished by Constitutional Amendment.
Impose sales tax rate on all goods & services enough to:
Pay 3.1 trillion (as Riley Mc described)
Refund check to every household of the amount that someone who made exactly the poverty line would pay in sales taxes
One twist: allow anyone who wants to drop out of the refund check, social security, medicare, & other handouts. to do so. This way, you owe fed.gov absolutely no information on your fine self, if you are willing to forego gooberment handouts.
For an individual, the 2006 poverty line was ~$10000. Given a national sales tax rate of 30%, it would cost $3000 to be anonymous to fed.gov for an individual taxpayer. For a family of four, the PL was ~$21, costing the family ~$6300 for anonymity.
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on March 05, 2008, 12:24:20 PM
This is true - flat sales tax of 10% or so will be implemented ASAP. Income tax will remain in place, but it will be reduced by 15% through all brackets (maybe not on the millionaires. Always sounds good to tell the people "We're soaking the rich"). This allows me to use the line "I've raised taxes 10% and cut them 15%. A 5% total reduction."
May be the fever talking, but I get the notion that the sales tax dollars would more than cover the income tax reduction - while allowing for a good sales pitch.
Official pronouncement would be that we will eliminate the income tax next year if all goes well.
Post by: johnster999 on March 06, 2008, 10:26:50 PM
I'd start with the current system.
I would slap a 10% special tax on all forms of welfare, no exceptions.
I'd cut income taxes, by an equal percentage in all brackets, totalling an amount exactly equal to the welfare tax revenue collected above.
That's as far as I'd get before being knocked off, most likely.
Post by: cordex on March 07, 2008, 11:06:42 AM
Quote
1. Your plan must fund the US federal budget for 2009. FY2009 budget is $3.1 trillion.
I quit immediately. It is not possible to seriously reform the tax code of the US, or any other Western country known to me, without affecting the entire philosophy of government and cutting expenditures.Post by: MicroBalrog on March 07, 2008, 11:21:08 AM
Quote
1. Your plan must fund the US federal budget for 2009. FY2009 budget is $3.1 trillion.
I quit immediately. It is not possible to seriously reform the tax code of the US, or any other Western country known to me, without affecting the entire philosophy of government and cutting expenditures.You missed the last five years of my life, then.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 07, 2008, 11:22:01 AM
[naturally kidding]
Post by: lupinus on March 10, 2008, 04:21:26 PM