Jump to content
Red

Is the federal tax code 'fair'

Recommended Posts

Red

The chart below is prior to the change for the 2018 tax year.  I doubt percentages have changed a whole bunch for individual rates.  Foreign and corporate rates did change substantially.  But the question(s) remains how progressive should tax rates be or should they be flat?

The top 10% is shown in gray. (Photo: Deutsche Bank)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wbw6cos

H.R. 25 addresses being taxed fairly.  I wish it was mentioned more by people trying to keep their jobs  in Washington, but then that takes away their power to tax us. 

 

The underground economy alone can fully fund the gub'ment's spendy ways.  Just sayin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
realshelby

National sales tax with zero exemptions is the only fair tax......

 

Any purchase made, you pay a percentage. No matter who or what you are. Including government agencies, schools, religious organizations, commercial business, and me and you. Every single purchase. Makes it simple. We need simple and effective. Not really a burden on small or large business, we already have the systems in place to pay sales tax. With everything electronic today, this is easily implemented and followed. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whip

No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Antimatter
1 hour ago, realshelby said:

National sales tax with zero exemptions is the only fair tax......

 

Any purchase made, you pay a percentage. No matter who or what you are. Including government agencies, schools, religious organizations, commercial business, and me and you. Every single purchase. Makes it simple. We need simple and effective. Not really a burden on small or large business, we already have the systems in place to pay sales tax. With everything electronic today, this is easily implemented and followed. 

 

Highly regressive.  You'll ding people who spend all their income the most, while wealthy people will pay a minuscule portion of their income.  And, the underground cash economy would explode in that scenario. 

A fair tax system would tax all assets the same.  No exceptions for capital gains, real estate switching, and no foreign tax sheltering.  Mind you, I said 'assets' and not 'income'.  No reason why a person whose whole wealth is in their house has to pay a tax on that, when someone with investment holdings doesn't.  And if a corporation is considered an individual for law purposes, that 'person' can darned will pay some taxes, too.  Especially when it benefits from the protections provided by fire/police/military, and gets roads/electricity/sewer/clean water/educated workers provided by society.

BTW, the whole 'the rich pay all the taxes' thing rolls around every year around April 15th (guess why).  If you include all the taxes (sales, home owners, etc.) the primary burden falls on the middle class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Ranalletta

Lawrence Kotlikoff suggests the first reform step is to eliminate federal income taxes on corporations.  Instead, shareholders would pay tax on profits (not just dividends) on the personal income tax returns. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/abolishing-corporate-income-tax-good-american-workers

 

One advantage could be investors are taxed on corporate profits where ever earned, meaning Apple and other corps. wouldn't be tempted to hold huge cash reserves out of country.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
realshelby

Wealthy people pay proportionally less tax now. Sales tax is even across the board. Buy a new yacht, pay sales tax. Buy a 10 lb bag of flower and one of beans, enough to eat on for a while, pay sales tax. 

 

Tax assets? How many times? Every year? First thing that will happen is an age 65 exemption. Texas taxes assets ( property ) instead of income. Too many ways out of paying that. 

 

Corporations? Not "people". Doesn't matter, they buy something they pay sales tax. Including when they buy something out of the country and import it, they pay sales tax on value. 

 

Say no, Hell no, or I don't know....Sales tax is the only fair tax proposal. Underground cash? First of all I suspect "cash" will be gone before long. Sure, there will be ways to beat the system. Oh, some of the ones in use now will no doubt work. That is not a credible excuse for sales tax not working. 99.9 percent of us are honest. I gladly pay my taxes. But I want a system that is more fair. A system that doesn't have a book of rules too big to read in a lifetime. One thing I have learned in my years is that you don't cheat the IRS easily. The more simple the tax code is, the more easy it is to enforce. 

 

Buy something, pay federal sales tax. Economy doing good, guvmint gets more. Not so good, less to spend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Ranalletta

"Economy doing good, guvmint gets more. Not so good, less to spend. "

 

The government has seldom spent less because it had less coming in.  The issue with a VAT-like tax is that once enacted, other taxes will be ladled on when VAT isn't enough.  There will never be enough.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul De

Given the growing income gap some level of progressive marginal rates are IMO fair.  The more breaks, loopholes and the weird application of the maritime carried interest tax rates by the financial sector favoring the highest incomes suggest a more progressive marginal rate. Get rid of that and a simpler tax code with fewer brackets make sense.   Sales, consumption and VATs tend to be very regressive for the simple reason as income grows less of ones income is spent and more is saved/invested.  The lowest income groups living paycheck to paycheck pay the most as a percentage of their income.  These conversations usually end with everyone retreating to their safe corner and arguing their point from an absolutest point of view.

 

Where things can get really out of hand is the next level of this discussion.  Should the US use the tax code to promote Industrial policy like it is used in other countries, to have long range national plans, to encourage job retention, or penalize exportation of business and jobs to low wage havens. I would say that the US already does do this but unfortunately in a less effective way through a mishmash of narrow special interest carve outs that can and has ceded whole business sectors to the coordinated efforts we have witnessed by our trading partners since WWII.  Now that topic could get this forum turned off, so I'll leave that question open for another day and return to the specific question asked about the US rates.

 

The chart posted by RED is a little misleading in that is does not take into account the dramatic growth of the income gap, so it appears that the top incomes are paying ever more of the taxes while the bottom 50% is pay less.  But the accumulative income growth of the top 10% has really left the the bottom 50% behind which has been nearly stagnant over the same time period.  So the top 10% incomes are paying a larger percentage of the taxes now, because they are making a lot more real income VS the bottom 50%. How is that not fair?

 

image.png.6b3c631acb5237f042065ad4a5b81b7e.png

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Ranalletta

The tax codes are written to collect revenue and coerce behavior; so, the first reform should deal with eliminating all sections designed to force a certain behavior such as exemptions, mortgage interest deductions, etc.

 

The tax codes didn't produce the income gap or didn't promote it as much as has low interest rate policy and QE pursued by the Fed since 2008.  Fed policy (through Dem and Rep administrations) has allowed people with some wealth to become wealthier as speculative investments (stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.) became less risky and presented greater capital gain potential.  A small increase in interest rates by the Fed in Q4 of '18 caused a near 25% drop in the stock market.  If the Fed unwound its portfolio (QT) and raised interest rates to where they should be, the gap would narrow appreciably.

 

Poor people don't buy stocks and bonds and their homes usually aren't located in areas where they track with housing prices generally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul De

 

1 hour ago, John Ranalletta said:

The tax codes didn't produce the income gap or didn't promote it as much as has low interest rate policy and QE pursued by the Fed since 2008. 

The growth in the income gap started decades before QE and the Fed dropping interest to near zero from 2007 forward.  Admittedly, if you were part of the investor class of people (those who made direct investment into real assets, or through retirement savings instruments), the recovery spurred on by the Keynesian policies implemented at the end of Bush and start of Obama Presidencies treated this group of people fairly well and grew the wealth gap (accumulated assets) which is a little different than the income gap which is more of a cash flow thing that I referred to.  The lowest 50% of the income distribution are typically not part of the investor class and living paycheck to paycheck did not allow this group to make those investments.  This group was screwed in a compounded way because over the last 30 years their incomes fell in real terms so more of their incomes went more and more to day to day living expenses.   

 

The sticky wicket here is how does, or should the government try remedy this. Do they build that into the tax code?  Now we're near the combustion point of the topic as this gets into income re-distribution VS fend for yourself.  Sure don't want to touch that third rail here, other than to say that the tax code can redistribute income but not the valuable skills and it is valuable worker skill that drive income potential.  The example here is when the US entered into more expansive global trade after the 60's which macroeconomic theory say is good (comparative and absolute advantage concepts), the US didn't also invest at needed levels for worker retraining as entire sectors of the economy were ceded to our trading partners (steel, electronics and textiles).  We assumed the free market would sort this out and IMO it was a little myopic as structural unemployment increased and that did have a direct connection to the widening income gap we began to see in the 1980s. This is a worthy stand alone topic and is at the core of the coal and petroleum VS renewable energy debate, but I digress from the tax code debate...sorry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe Frickin' Friday
2 hours ago, realshelby said:

Wealthy people pay proportionally less tax now. Sales tax is even across the board. Buy a new yacht, pay sales tax. Buy a 10 lb bag of flower and one of beans, enough to eat on for a while, pay sales tax. 

 

Actually, in most states groceries are not subject to sales tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Ranalletta

 

Until we solve policy issues around spending, revising the tax code is like arranging deck chairs.....

 

Can we ever collect enough revenue?  I don't think so.  When everyone stops hallucinating about our ability and will to balance budgets and reduce spending the only two options are a depression or MMT, wherein,  the Fed will issue zero interest, zero term notes so the Treasury can flood money into the economy. 

 

MMT is gaining traction is high places.

 

"In one of her most important academic papers, published in 2000, Kelton maintains that government doesn’t actually finance its activity by levying taxes or issuing bonds. Instead, it creates money by spending it into existence. If a government wants to build a road, it calls some contractors and puts money in their bank accounts to pay for it. Where does this money come from? The same place all money comes from: thin air."

 

Revenue becomes a non-issue.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
realshelby
4 hours ago, Joe Frickin' Friday said:

 

Actually, in most states groceries are not subject to sales tax.

But they would be under my Federal Sales tax reform! 

 

Everything paid for no matter where or how it is purchased, when money changes hands, there will be a small sales tax. Probably take a lot lower percentage to make this work than some would think. 

 

Until we elect those that actually balance the budget and reduce national debt, none of this matters. Fed isn't an issue. Spending what we don't have is. Just look at the national debt increase lately.........

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Ranalletta

Fed policy is a huge issue.  Increase rates and revenue demands soar to cover interest payments necessitating deeper cuts in other spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bud

Our tax code is the way we implement social policy. Is it fair? No.

 

We can not continue to spend our way to prosperity w/o paying the piper at some point. When that happens, it won't be pretty or fair. 

 

My state of Illinois is the poster child for how well that is working. For 40 years the politicians have continued to kick the can down the road, always coming up new ways to restructure our debt so they don't have to make the difficult choices that will need to be made to become solvent. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
longjohn
11 hours ago, Paul De said:

Given the growing income gap some level of progressive marginal rates are IMO fair.  The more breaks, loopholes and the weird application of the maritime carried interest tax rates by the financial sector favoring the highest incomes suggest a more progressive marginal rate. Get rid of that and a simpler tax code with fewer brackets make sense.   Sales, consumption and VATs tend to be very regressive for the simple reason as income grows less of ones income is spent and more is saved/invested.  The lowest income groups living paycheck to paycheck pay the most as a percentage of their income.  These conversations usually end with everyone retreating to their safe corner and arguing their point from an absolutest point of view.

 

Where things can get really out of hand is the next level of this discussion.  Should the US use the tax code to promote Industrial policy like it is used in other countries, to have long range national plans, to encourage job retention, or penalize exportation of business and jobs to low wage havens. I would say that the US already does do this but unfortunately in a less effective way through a mishmash of narrow special interest carve outs that can and has ceded whole business sectors to the coordinated efforts we have witnessed by our trading partners since WWII.  Now that topic could get this forum turned off, so I'll leave that question open for another day and return to the specific question asked about the US rates.

 

The chart posted by RED is a little misleading in that is does not take into account the dramatic growth of the income gap, so it appears that the top incomes are paying ever more of the taxes while the bottom 50% is pay less.  But the accumulative income growth of the top 10% has really left the the bottom 50% behind which has been nearly stagnant over the same time period.  So the top 10% incomes are paying a larger percentage of the taxes now, because they are making a lot more real income VS the bottom 50%. How is that not fair?

 

image.png.6b3c631acb5237f042065ad4a5b81b7e.png

 

 

 

 

 

Is it just a coincidence that the lines start diverging at about the same time as Reagan started the war on unions?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul De
2 hours ago, longjohn said:

Is it just a coincidence that the lines start diverging at about the same time as Reagan started the war on unions? 

The loss of union power to negotiate wages for the middle class happens later in the eighties and nineties.  The income gap starting in the early eighties coincided with reducing corporate tax rates, while the promised trickle down to middle and lower income individuals never happen in a substantial way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tallman

No.

Unless you define "Fair" to mean benefit corporations, churches, non-profits, and wealthy individuals.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
realshelby
11 hours ago, longjohn said:

Is it just a coincidence that the lines start diverging at about the same time as Reagan started the war on unions?

Yes, and it takes time for any changes in policy/attitude to really show end results. Reagan's stance on Unions was the beginning of a movement to legally sidestep union representation. While the firing of the union traffic controllers was completely legal ( they had a no strike contract in place ), it changed the entire dynamic on what corporations could get away with in the fight to oppose union representation. Once it was obvious that government was standing not with unions outright, the changes in how companies were going to handle unions changed immediately. 

 

But that is a whole other debate.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
longjohn
9 hours ago, realshelby said:

Yes, and it takes time for any changes in policy/attitude to really show end results. Reagan's stance on Unions was the beginning of a movement to legally sidestep union representation. While the firing of the union traffic controllers was completely legal ( they had a no strike contract in place ), it changed the entire dynamic on what corporations could get away with in the fight to oppose union representation. Once it was obvious that government was standing not with unions outright, the changes in how companies were going to handle unions changed immediately. 

 

But that is a whole other debate.........

There is a graph that shows a relationship between Union membership and income inequality. It is startling. I'll try to dig it up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lkchris

The word usually used to describe income tax is progressive ... the more you make, the higher the rate.

 

Yes, the opposite of progressive is regressive and that for sure describes any tax method where everyone pays the same rate.  This of course affects poorer persons most heavily as they obviously can least afford it.

 

The real goal is to have fewer poor persons ... and this is unlikely to be achieved with tax policy ... except perhaps where tax policy stimulates the economy and more jobs become available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul De
32 minutes ago, lkchris said:

The real goal is to have fewer poor persons ... and this is unlikely to be achieved with tax policy ... except perhaps where tax policy stimulates the economy and more jobs become available.

 

Fundamentally I agree.  The only issue I see with this approach is it is a rather blunt tool and the jobs created in the last decade have tended to be low paying service jobs which don't move many out of poverty.  And in this last tax cut much of that extra cash to corporations went to stock buy backs to increase the valuation of the corporation and helped the investor class more that pulling up those at the bottom of the income ladder.  Those at the bottom of the income ladder got hosed yet again.

 

Sure as the economy has moved to full employment we are finally seeing some upward pressure on wages, but this evaporates or even reverses when the economy slows.  In any case I don't see this as an approach as efficient as targeting skill improvement.   The the tax code has provided for credit and tax sheltered monies for education which surely has been used by many to facilitate gaining skills more valued by the market, but frankly this has benefited the middle and upper incomes.  I am not sure that tax policy alone gets the job done for all other than to not have the tax burden crowd out the private sector.

 

I am not one of those that think free education up through college/trade school for all is the right approach because the recipient of that benefit does not need to have real skin in the game.  Free ice cream for all means a lot of melts and is wasted. This is a great topic on its own, and rather than going tangential here I will kick off a new thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Ranalletta

One challenge is defining "poor".  The other is the sad but true fact that many of the poor do not have the intellectual capacity to remain productively employed.  THIS IS NOT A RACIAL ISSUE.  Approx 12-15% of all US and world citizens have an IQ level below 85.  As posted elsewhere, the Army will not induct anyone below that level as they are virtually untrainable.  That's a social issue no one wants to address.  The likely answer will not be found in the tax code nor in our current welfare system; rather, it's likely to be a basic income scheme, but countries that have tried it are having mixed results.  When you give an idle person of limited intellect money, what's the likelihood s/he will spend it wisely?

 

Free education?  A farce.  When everybody has a college degree, each one of them is worth less, like in supply and demand.  Plus, with colleges granting degrees in useless majors; grade inflation, et. al........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
poodad
4 hours ago, John Ranalletta said:

One challenge is defining "poor".  The other is the sad but true fact that many of the poor do not have the intellectual capacity to remain productively employed.  THIS IS NOT A RACIAL ISSUE.  Approx 12-15% of all US and world citizens have an IQ level below 85.  As posted elsewhere, the Army will not induct anyone below that level as they are virtually untrainable.  That's a social issue no one wants to address.  The likely answer will not be found in the tax code nor in our current welfare system; rather, it's likely to be a basic income scheme, but countries that have tried it are having mixed results.  When you give an idle person of limited intellect money, what's the likelihood s/he will spend it wisely?

 

Free education?  A farce.  When everybody has a college degree, each one of them is worth less, like in supply and demand.  Plus, with colleges granting degrees in useless majors; grade inflation, et. al........

 

So free primary and secondary education are worthless?

 

You are confusing the cost of a thing with the worth of a thing. 

 

What does a hammer cost? Maybe $10? What's the value to society of a hammer in the hands of a carpenter?  Magnitudes more than the $10 it cost.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Ranalletta

Referring to college/university, not elementary and high school, though, at any level, when something is "free" what's it worth?  

 

Not sure how it works today, but in the 80's, friends in Holland told how nervous they were around their kids' chances of getting permission to continue their post-high school education.  There was competition for scarce slots.  AFAIKnew, not everyone was guaranteed a spot in university and could be tagged for a skilled trade education.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patallaire

Was in Norway last year, the "Free College" had downsides, after college, since everyone could go for free, if they qualified, no one could find jobs worthy of the education, so after the Tax payer financed the education, people were leaving the country to find employment. It also suppressed the income potential as the degree was devalued.  Not a great rate of return.  Income taxes are progressive, real estate taxes are regressive, sales taxes are regressive, Social Security taxes are regressive. So we are a progressive, regressive system!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rinkydink
On 4/19/2019 at 10:27 AM, Patallaire said:

Was in Norway last year, the "Free College" had downsides, after college, since everyone could go for free, if they qualified, no one could find jobs worthy of the education, so after the Tax payer financed the education, people were leaving the country to find employment. It also suppressed the income potential as the degree was devalued.  Not a great rate of return.  Income taxes are progressive, real estate taxes are regressive, sales taxes are regressive, Social Security taxes are regressive. So we are a progressive, regressive system!

 

 

 

Take an obviously college educated cardiovascular surgeon. He rises early for today’s surgeries and finds his Mercedes won’t start. He hasn’t a clue.

 

All of a sudden this very wealthy highly educated gentleman is at the mercy of that pimple faced kid who has no college degree and tons of grease under his nails. Oops, the vehicle has battery post corrosion which is easily rectified and the German sedan is on its way. 

 

“Dr Smith your differentiated oscillator purged through your backfire gasket and your dwell was mis-timed...twice. 😜 That’ll be $2439.59 plus tax.”

 

No different than $100k for a triple bypass. 

 

My point?

 

College isn’t for everyone. Plumbers, electricians, and mechanics etc have most college grads by the balls. We need them more than someone with a Political Science or Sociology degree. Otherwise we/us (The Government) forgives their $100k student loan debt because their worthless degree won’t supply them with a viable career. 

 

 

Unacceptable. 

 

Taxes?

Barring a flat tax I see a consumption tax,  so everyone pays the same no matter what. Corporations, churches, senators, welfare recipients etc etc. Buy a candy bar or a yacht you pay a xx% tax. Would it be 10% or 23%? I cant pretend to know exactly what % would be required. .

 

Buckle down, suck it up and EVERYONE pay their equal share. You get your entire paycheck less FICA and Medicaid. No IRS, tax attorneys, CPAs, audits, wage garnishments, or tax related bankruptcies. The tax is collected when you buy, if you buy. The earned income credit given to someone who hasn’t paid a dime into the system is a losing proposition, period. 

 

Before you call me a heartless bastard or flame me, contemplate my theory. Not perfect, nor fail-safe but something has got to give.  I am not an accountant but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last year.  YMMV 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ponch

How about a relative flat tax. 5-10% tax, nothing else gets taken out. You can have a sliding scale of 5-10% based on income if that makes you happy, but everyone pays, no deductions, no loopholes, businesses and individuals alike. People's take home would be higher as the tax load on their paycheck is actually less, it's just that they won't get a check from the government in the first quarter of the year. The flip side of this would be congress couldn't spend more than 90% of the revenue generated by taxes. The 10% left goes towards paying off the debt. Of course the narcissistic psychopaths we send to DC would never go for it. It would be much more difficult to bribe us with our own money. No need for tax returns either, nor the IRS in it's current state. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Red

Compelling every earner to pay the same percentage of their income has some problems.  Consider that 47% (plus or minus 2% percent over the last decade) currently do not pay any Federal tax, zero nada nunca nuttin.  There is zero tax load on their paychecks.  With your plan, the bottom 47% of wage earners will simply be 5 to 10% further in the hole.  Then there's me.  No deductions for anything.  I own my home & vehicles.  No kids.  I have pension income, interest/dividend income, some capital gains or losses.  Since I have no deductions and a better than average income, your plan could save me several thousands of dollars.  Would it be fair that the guy with the 50K income 3 kids and a wife is now paying $5,000 more in tax and I'm paying $5,000 to $7,000 less?  Dunno.  By allowing no deductions, you do know you're screwing with some pretty powerful social, not just economic, values.  Consider the deductions for children.  Don't know what the impact of loosing 4 exemptions on a family earning 50K a year but it ain't peanuts.  And if the family has (had) a mortgage deduction, there's another hit. 

Our federal, state, and local gubmints fund all manner of  social assistance programs, infrastructure and skools by selling tax exempt low interest rate bonds.  Either the programs and projects go away or price of gubmint just went up.  Any time you gigger one end of the tax string, the other end moves.  Somebody benefits and somebody looses.  That's the problem with this 'fair' thing.  Everyone has a different definition of fair.  You offer that if everyone pays the same percentage of earnings, that is fair.  Others think high earners should pay a higher percentage than low earners and that is fair.  Some feel gubmint should redistribute wealth from the more fortunate to the less fortunate. Others think distribution of wealth is a function of a free economy, philanthropy, and social/religious organizations.  Fair is in the eye of the beholder perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stir
On 4/16/2019 at 7:51 AM, realshelby said:

Wealthy people pay proportionally less tax now. Sales tax is even across the board. Buy a new yacht, pay sales tax. Buy a 10 lb bag of flower and one of beans, enough to eat on for a while, pay sales tax. 

 

Tax assets? How many times? Every year? First thing that will happen is an age 65 exemption. Texas taxes assets ( property ) instead of income. Too many ways out of paying that. 

 

Corporations? Not "people". Doesn't matter, they buy something they pay sales tax. Including when they buy something out of the country and import it, they pay sales tax on value. 

 

Say no, Hell no, or I don't know....Sales tax is the only fair tax proposal. Underground cash? First of all I suspect "cash" will be gone before long. Sure, there will be ways to beat the system. Oh, some of the ones in use now will no doubt work. That is not a credible excuse for sales tax not working. 99.9 percent of us are honest. I gladly pay my taxes. But I want a system that is more fair. A system that doesn't have a book of rules too big to read in a lifetime. One thing I have learned in my years is that you don't cheat the IRS easily. The more simple the tax code is, the more easy it is to enforce. 

 

Buy something, pay federal sales tax. Economy doing good, guvmint gets more. Not so good, less to spend. 

 

I like the idea of only a sales tax.  But what about people who rent?  Do they pay a tax on the rent?  What about people who buy a house?  Do they owe the entire tax upfront?  Does it get added on to the financing?  If they sell it after one year, do they get a refund or are they out?  Buy a stock, pay a sales tax on it?  That would radically change asset values and many peoples' retirement is connected to the markets.  There are issues, however, the idea of taxing someone on assets is horrible.  Hey, successful guy, who saved his/her money, we want a piece of it now.  I don't like property taxes.  It really means that owning a piece of property never happens.  You pay someone a lot for the right but then you rent it from the government.  

On some level, I like the idea of a hefty estate tax.  It would actually be a great equalizer.  If your grand dad was a Rockerfeller, other than the best education money can buy, and limited gifts, you still have to pull your weight.  It would keep old families from becoming a defacto ruling class.  If they are caught cheating or hiding assets, every penny is seized and jail time.  There would have to be an exclusion level so we aren't killing family farms and business.  But over a certain level, it goes back to the people.

Government doesn't like the idea of only a sales tax because it puts the control of when to pay the tax in the hands of the citizen.  If I want to invest and grow my assets, I can choose not to buy a car...etc.

It's funny that people think our tax system is progressive.  It's not.  When California taxes gasoline at $1 plus per gallon, it hits the poor the hardest.  People like me, we buy Volts and solar panels and become immune to rate and fuel increases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stir
18 hours ago, Red said:

Compelling every earner to pay the same percentage of their income has some problems.  Consider that 47% (plus or minus 2% percent over the last decade) currently do not pay any Federal tax, zero nada nunca nuttin.  There is zero tax load on their paychecks.  With your plan, the bottom 47% of wage earners will simply be 5 to 10% further in the hole.  Then there's me.  No deductions for anything.  I own my home & vehicles.  No kids.  I have pension income, interest/dividend income, some capital gains or losses.  Since I have no deductions and a better than average income, your plan could save me several thousands of dollars.  Would it be fair that the guy with the 50K income 3 kids and a wife is now paying $5,000 more in tax and I'm paying $5,000 to $7,000 less?  Dunno.  By allowing no deductions, you do know you're screwing with some pretty powerful social, not just economic, values.  Consider the deductions for children.  Don't know what the impact of loosing 4 exemptions on a family earning 50K a year but it ain't peanuts.  And if the family has (had) a mortgage deduction, there's another hit. 

Our federal, state, and local gubmints fund all manner of  social assistance programs, infrastructure and skools by selling tax exempt low interest rate bonds.  Either the programs and projects go away or price of gubmint just went up.  Any time you gigger one end of the tax string, the other end moves.  Somebody benefits and somebody looses.  That's the problem with this 'fair' thing.  Everyone has a different definition of fair.  You offer that if everyone pays the same percentage of earnings, that is fair.  Others think high earners should pay a higher percentage than low earners and that is fair.  Some feel gubmint should redistribute wealth from the more fortunate to the less fortunate. Others think distribution of wealth is a function of a free economy, philanthropy, and social/religious organizations.  Fair is in the eye of the beholder perhaps.

 

In general, why is anyone else life choices your problem.  If he has an income of 50k and three kids, why is his kids your burden?  So yes, it's fair that the guy with three kids pays the same amount in taxes as you.  With his kids, he is probably a larger burden on government than you so he should pay his fair share.

As to your situation, good planning on your part.  Saved your money, paid off your home, made good investments and now you think you should pay more because of your good life choices?  As to the bottom wage earners, they should be more in the hole.  Maybe they would think a bit before they voted for the free stuff.  It's easy to be the bottom 47% and demand more from the rest who actually contribute.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ponch
11 minutes ago, Stir said:

 

In general, why is anyone else life choices your problem.  If he has an income of 50k and three kids, why is his kids your burden?  So yes, it's fair that the guy with three kids pays the same amount in taxes as you.  With his kids, he is probably a larger burden on government than you so he should pay his fair share.

As to your situation, good planning on your part.  Saved your money, paid off your home, made good investments and now you think you should pay more because of your good life choices?  As to the bottom wage earners, they should be more in the hole.  Maybe they would think a bit before they voted for the free stuff.  It's easy to be the bottom 47% and demand more from the rest who actually contribute.
 

Same amount or same percentage? Different concepts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ponch
18 hours ago, Red said:

Compelling every earner to pay the same percentage of their income has some problems.  Consider that 47% (plus or minus 2% percent over the last decade) currently do not pay any Federal tax, zero nada nunca nuttin.  There is zero tax load on their paychecks.  With your plan, the bottom 47% of wage earners will simply be 5 to 10% further in the hole.  Then there's me.  No deductions for anything.  I own my home & vehicles.  No kids.  I have pension income, interest/dividend income, some capital gains or losses.  Since I have no deductions and a better than average income, your plan could save me several thousands of dollars.  Would it be fair that the guy with the 50K income 3 kids and a wife is now paying $5,000 more in tax and I'm paying $5,000 to $7,000 less?  Dunno.  By allowing no deductions, you do know you're screwing with some pretty powerful social, not just economic, values.  Consider the deductions for children.  Don't know what the impact of loosing 4 exemptions on a family earning 50K a year but it ain't peanuts.  And if the family has (had) a mortgage deduction, there's another hit. 

Our federal, state, and local gubmints fund all manner of  social assistance programs, infrastructure and skools by selling tax exempt low interest rate bonds.  Either the programs and projects go away or price of gubmint just went up.  Any time you gigger one end of the tax string, the other end moves.  Somebody benefits and somebody looses.  That's the problem with this 'fair' thing.  Everyone has a different definition of fair.  You offer that if everyone pays the same percentage of earnings, that is fair.  Others think high earners should pay a higher percentage than low earners and that is fair.  Some feel gubmint should redistribute wealth from the more fortunate to the less fortunate. Others think distribution of wealth is a function of a free economy, philanthropy, and social/religious organizations.  Fair is in the eye of the beholder perhaps.

That's not true. Everyone has something taken out. It's just that they get more back than they put in so the net is that they get surplus from the government. A flat tax would give them a bigger paycheck, but they wouldn't get anything back come what was tax time. As far as estate taxes and asset taxes, how many times are you going to tax? If the assets and property were bought with taxed income, is that enough? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stir
1 minute ago, Ponch said:

Same amount or same percentage? Different concepts. 

 

Similar percentages.  Not same amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
realshelby

I still stick with a sales tax. On EVERYTHING where money/payment/services rendered come into play. Buy a house? Pay sales tax (already paying a percentage to realtors). Buy a car? Most pay 3-8% already. Buy $10,000 worth of stock? Pay sales tax. Make $100,000 on investments or savings? Pay a tax when it is pulled out.

 

ANYTHING  you buy, you pay sales tax. NO exceptions. Don't even start that, we can see where that leads. 

 

What most don't realize is how small a percentage this tax would be and still be effective.  

 

ANY other form of taxation is easily slanted to favor.....someone that has control over who makes the rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Antimatter

I'd be ok with the sales tax as long as it came with a 100% inheritance tax.  The pure sales tax approach will have to be really high (north of 15% if memory serves me), and will fall dis-proportionally on the folks who spend all of their income.  For the wealthy, there's a limit to how many fur coats and Lear jets you can buy, meaning their effective tax rate would be less than 1%.  If this is really about being fair and making everyone compete, make everyone start from the same place.  If a family business is involved, then the heir can pay a tax based on the market value of the company.  Heck, lets be generous and let the rich pay for their kids education, and give them all the incentives (better housing, less exposure to crime and pollution, etc.).  But no fair running a race where a group of folks gets to start one yard away from the finish line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ponch
58 minutes ago, Antimatter said:

I'd be ok with the sales tax as long as it came with a 100% inheritance tax.  The pure sales tax approach will have to be really high (north of 15% if memory serves me), and will fall dis-proportionally on the folks who spend all of their income.  For the wealthy, there's a limit to how many fur coats and Lear jets you can buy, meaning their effective tax rate would be less than 1%.  If this is really about being fair and making everyone compete, make everyone start from the same place.  If a family business is involved, then the heir can pay a tax based on the market value of the company.  Heck, lets be generous and let the rich pay for their kids education, and give them all the incentives (better housing, less exposure to crime and pollution, etc.).  But no fair running a race where a group of folks gets to start one yard away from the finish line.

100% inheritance tax? That's nutty. So people aren't allowed to inherit anything. It goes to the government. That's fucked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
greiffster
1 hour ago, Antimatter said:

I'd be ok with the sales tax as long as it came with a 100% inheritance tax.  The pure sales tax approach will have to be really high (north of 15% if memory serves me), and will fall dis-proportionally on the folks who spend all of their income.  For the wealthy, there's a limit to how many fur coats and Lear jets you can buy, meaning their effective tax rate would be less than 1%.  If this is really about being fair and making everyone compete, make everyone start from the same place.  If a family business is involved, then the heir can pay a tax based on the market value of the company.  Heck, lets be generous and let the rich pay for their kids education, and give them all the incentives (better housing, less exposure to crime and pollution, etc.).  But no fair running a race where a group of folks gets to start one yard away from the finish line.

100% inheritance tax.? Ridiculous.  So, all the money then sits in a family trust or some other entity?  I guess we can get rid of that too?  Then, the money simply leaves the country.

 

So the heir of the family business pays tax equivalent to the market value of the company?  Explain how that works?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ponch
10 minutes ago, greiffster said:

100% inheritance tax.? Ridiculous.  So, all the money then sits in a family trust or some other entity?  I guess we can get rid of that too?  Then, the money simply leaves the country.

 

So the heir of the family business pays tax equivalent to the market value of the company?  Explain how that works?

 

 

 

And the way around it is no inheritance. Assets can be passed on directly before death through a transaction or put in a trust. That's done now. Musterbation is a difficult thing to overcome. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
realshelby
1 hour ago, Antimatter said:

I'd be ok with the sales tax as long as it came with a 100% inheritance tax.  The pure sales tax approach will have to be really high (north of 15% if memory serves me), and will fall dis-proportionally on the folks who spend all of their income.  For the wealthy, there's a limit to how many fur coats and Lear jets you can buy, meaning their effective tax rate would be less than 1%.  If this is really about being fair and making everyone compete, make everyone start from the same place.  If a family business is involved, then the heir can pay a tax based on the market value of the company.  Heck, lets be generous and let the rich pay for their kids education, and give them all the incentives (better housing, less exposure to crime and pollution, etc.).  But no fair running a race where a group of folks gets to start one yard away from the finish line.

I really don't think the rate would be ANYWHERE near 15%. Remember, everything is taxed. No loopholes. No deductions. NO EXCEPTIONS. Inheritance? You would not be buying anything when you get it, but you sure would be spending it......and there again the tax gets paid. Business? Well there are few that are not some kind of a corporation. So whoever buys the "stock" pays a sales tax. The CEO or whomever are salaried positions, they may or may not have stock. If they die, the corporation hires a replacement. 

 

It really is that simple. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rinkydink
11 hours ago, realshelby said:

I still stick with a sales tax. On EVERYTHING where money/payment/services rendered come into play. Buy a house? Pay sales tax (already paying a percentage to realtors). Buy a car? Most pay 3-8% already. Buy $10,000 worth of stock? Pay sales tax. Make $100,000 on investments or savings? Pay a tax when it is pulled out.

 

ANYTHING  you buy, you pay sales tax. NO exceptions. Don't even start that, we can see where that leads. 

 

What most don't realize is how small a percentage this tax would be and still be effective.  

 

ANY other form of taxation is easily slanted to favor.....someone that has control over who makes the rules. 

Seems to be double taxation. The builder already payed taxes ( under the proposed national sales tax plan) on all of the building materials to build the house. They shouldn’t be taxed again should they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
greiffster
4 hours ago, realshelby said:

I really don't think the rate would be ANYWHERE near 15%. Remember, everything is taxed. No loopholes. No deductions. NO EXCEPTIONS. Inheritance? You would not be buying anything when you get it, but you sure would be spending it......and there again the tax gets paid. Business? Well there are few that are not some kind of a corporation. So whoever buys the "stock" pays a sales tax. The CEO or whomever are salaried positions, they may or may not have stock. If they die, the corporation hires a replacement. 

 

It really is that simple. 

There are plenty of privately owned companies, big and small.

 

Cargill is one of the largest privately owned companies with revenues over $100B a year (that's a B).  It's mostly owned by family members.  So, they can simply give their shares to their kids when they die?  Getting rid of an inheritance tax, completely, is problematic on most people's "fairness" scale.  Certainly not simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul De
10 minutes ago, greiffster said:

There are plenty of privately owned companies, big and small.

 

Cargill is one of the largest privately owned companies with revenues over $100B a year (that's a B).  It's mostly owned by family members.  So, they can simply give their shares to their kids when they die?  Getting rid of an inheritance tax, completely, is problematic on most people's "fairness" scale.  Certainly not simple.

I am getting the streamlined system concept in that it is taxed up front. The back end gets tougher.  Oh but the mess we have created.  The ox that gets gored are people and entities that had legal tax filings using granted exceptions to being taxed (Lawyers licking their chops to define what that means),  It would have to define a clear cut off of old VS new rules, no weaselly delays. You have to bring that money into the system and yet avoid taxing it more that once. Special interest FOOD FIGHT to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Antimatter

Another solution would be to tax folks based on their wealth.  Say, a flat 10% tax on all of your assets.  That's more fair if you think about it; the government is actually doing more work to protect yours stuff if you have more stuff, right?  So, no tax shelters, no incorporation, or companies as people.  If you get $100 million in stock options, you get taxed on that.  If you say your yacht is worth $50, and you later sell it for $100,000, you get a retroactive tax bill on that. 

Or, we could continue to base the tax system on tiered incomes, although we really should do away with companies being able to shelter assets overseas if they want to behave like individuals and lobby the government. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
realshelby
12 hours ago, greiffster said:

There are plenty of privately owned companies, big and small.

 

Cargill is one of the largest privately owned companies with revenues over $100B a year (that's a B).  It's mostly owned by family members.  So, they can simply give their shares to their kids when they die?  Getting rid of an inheritance tax, completely, is problematic on most people's "fairness" scale.  Certainly not simple.

Privately owned has NOTHING to do with being a corporation. WERKS Parts LLC is a privately owned corporation.....and yet there are stock certificates......

 

I stand firm on a sales tax on EVERYTHING bought. If you want to add an inheritance tax on top of that, then that is simply another discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
realshelby
12 hours ago, Rinkydink said:

Seems to be double taxation. The builder already payed taxes ( under the proposed national sales tax plan) on all of the building materials to build the house. They shouldn’t be taxed again should they?

Yes. 

 

This is where the plan works so well. EVERYTHING bought is taxed. Simple to put in place. But most importantly this keeps the percentage down. 

 

If you are concerned about double taxation....what we have now probably qualifies for that anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
greiffster
8 minutes ago, realshelby said:

Privately owned has NOTHING to do with being a corporation. WERKS Parts LLC is a privately owned corporation.....and yet there are stock certificates......

 

I stand firm on a sales tax on EVERYTHING bought. If you want to add an inheritance tax on top of that, then that is simply another discussion. 

Of course, but the privately owned companies like to give or pass down the stock to their heirs, not sell it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rinkydink
On 6/6/2019 at 9:58 AM, realshelby said:

 

If you are concerned about double taxation....what we have now probably qualifies for that anyway

 

I don’t disagree, real estate tax, personal property tax, my SS is taxed. Do we ever really own what we imagine we own?😳

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ponch
1 hour ago, Rinkydink said:

 

I don’t disagree, real estate tax, personal property tax, my SS is taxed. Do we ever really own what we imagine we own?😳

According to George Carlin, no. We are owned. I’ll say we live in a big company town.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...