What is a fair tax rate?

[DiamondDave]

Up to $20,000 no tax meaning for EVERYBODY. Nobody pays any taxes on their first $20,000. On their next $20,000 to $50,000 everybody pays 20% taxes, no exceptions no deductions. Everybody pays 30% on their next $50,000 to $100,000, no exceptions, no deductions. Everybody pays 40% on their next $100,000 to $250,000. Everyone pays 50% on their next $250,000 to $500,000. Everyone pays 60% on their next $500,000 to $1,000,000 and above $1,000,000 70% tax.

Now, if you want to give to a charity, 10% of your income you can deduct off the top of your income. IE, if you make $1,000,000 and you give $100,000 to charity, you now make $900,000. Anything less than 10%, no deductions and no deductions for the boxes of crap you gave to the goodwill. If you give one item worth 10% of you income it must be appraised and an appraisal slip included with your taxes.

No corporate welfare. IE for any money or taxbreaks given to a corporation it must provide and equal or better benefit to society. If it fails to do so, it must pay back the money or taxbreaks. Or the state takes over the corporation.


Oh, and corporate tax is on profits after labor and then 30%. If labor is more than 30% of it's cost, then the taxes on the corporation is nil, provided of course that 30% is distributed so that no one makes more than 50 times what anyone else makes. Any stocks given or paid to anyone is INCOME.

All income including capital gains will be taxed as INCOME. Any any income made in the stock market will not be taxed until the stocks are sold (except of course if the stocks are given or paid to you, then they are taxed as income when given and not taxed again until sold). Any income from your home will not be taxed until that home is sold. If you inherit, that's INCOME.

No VAT tax.

No excise tax.

Income tax only! No sales tax. No duty, no nothing, only income.

We will allow a one time only $1,000,000 free inheritance. If your parents die and leave you a $1,000,000 farm, the farm is not taxed UNTIL YOU SELL IT, Then it is income on any value between the $1,000,000 when you inherited and what it is sold for. If the farm is worth $1,000,050, that last $50 is added to you income immediately, etc. Everyone is allowed to inherit up to $1,000,000 without paying taxes on it.

The $1,000,000 will be attached to the cost of living, as will everything else. IE, $20,000 today may be $25,000 next year, etc.

So you're saying that the fucking government is entitled to everyone's net worth over a million dollars?

Shit why wait until people die to steal their money? Every time your net worth goes over 1 million the fucking government should confiscate the "excess".

No, I'm saying if you inherit $1,000,050 then you should add that $50 to you income and pay whatever tax rate you own on your INCOME. If you make $19,050, you owe NO income. If you make $20,000, you owe 20% of that $50 to the government.

So you and/or the government gets to subjectively decide how much is enough in a free society... got it

 

[DiamondDave]

Again.. easy for someone to want to punish those they vilify by treating them unequally... and Sheila is showing the perfect example of that... they act as if everything is the government's, and they decide how much is too much for persons.... that plan is just as bad as the reverse, where lower incomes would be taxed at a higher rate and higher incomes would be taxed nothing or close to nothing... it is ALL pandering, it is all unequal treatment, and it is all bullshit

No it's not, you can't get blood from a turnip. You can make someone who has nothing pay anything. Those making more can afford more. Call it punishment if you like, I prefer to call it paying your way and repaying society for the good it has done for you.

If you don't earn, you don't pay... if you earn, you pay.. no exceptions....

I call it what it is... unequal treatment... you know.. that thing you complain and scream about when someone or something you support is not treated the same as others

 

[Care4all]

Again.. easy for someone to want to punish those they vilify by treating them unequally... and Sheila is showing the perfect example of that... they act as if everything is the government's, and they decide how much is too much for persons.... that plan is just as bad as the reverse, where lower incomes would be taxed at a higher rate and higher incomes would be taxed nothing or close to nothing... it is ALL pandering, it is all unequal treatment, and it is all bullshit

No it's not, you can't get blood from a turnip. You can make someone who has nothing pay anything. Those making more can afford more. Call it punishment if you like, I prefer to call it paying your way and repaying society for the good it has done for you.

If you don't earn, you don't pay... if you earn, you pay.. no exceptions....

I call it what it is... unequal treatment... you know.. that thing you complain and scream about when someone or something you support is not treated the same as others

I disagree, because those couples that earn about 20k a year, don't owe taxes on that 20k due to standard deductions and exemptions, and those of us couples that make a lot more, including millionaires, DO NOT PAY any taxes on that first 20 k earned....there is nothing UNFAIR or UNEQUAL about that Dave?

 

[Erand7899]

I'm sorry alan, I had answered your basic question in a post to someone else and presumed you had read it....I do believe that I and any corporation would raise the price of the product to cover that 35k more in taxes, IF AND ONLY IF the market, the consumer could absorb the full hike without it hurting my sales....if it was going to cut my sales +/ - in half due to the product being way over priced then I would have to absorb that 35k and have to find other means of cutting back my cost of goods or expenses, to cover such, without raising the price of the product.

Thanks Ms Care4all,
now my reply....

Corporations often lower prices for items, for many reasons, including cost of raw materials, cost of transportation, market demand and many other things. Cost of taxes would just be another thing that affects the final consumer cost. Lowering taxes for an item or company would reduce the cost to the consumer. For example, CA has a higher state tax rate on gasoline than SC has and guess what, in SC gasoline costs less than in CA. So yes, taxes do contribute to and affect the cost of goods. If CA lowered their taxes on gasoline, the price would drop for the consumer.

if the gvt would eliminate all corporate taxes tomorrow, I do not believe corporations would all lower their retails tomorrow....one, because the retail of their products have been established already, and they know consumers are willing to pay the price that was established, so there is absolutely no incentive to lower their prices, only an incentive to collect more profit for themselves....

BUT, eventually one of their competitors, in order to capture more market share, or to capture their competitor's consumer, may lower their price because there is room to do such without these corporate taxes....which can EVENTUALLY lead to a price war which could end up lowering the retail prices.

Gasoline is not a market like most retail and I don't understand it, or know enough about it to comment one way or the other.....but widgets for sale, with true competition, I do understand, thus my answer above....

No, not all corporations would lower their prices immediately, only the smart ones. An opportunity to increase sales to existing customers and pick up new customers would not be overlooked by a competent sales department.

One of the keys to reduced cost of production is increased sales. That means that a company can earn more profit, even with reduced pricing by distributing fixed costs over a larger production run.

The price of gas in California is far more involved with the requirement for special blends than with taxes. Those special blends increase the costs of gas for all, even those that do not require the special blends, because refineries have to stop normal production to create those special blends. The stopping and restarting costs us all.

 

[Shelzin]

So you're saying that the fucking government is entitled to everyone's net worth over a million dollars?

Shit why wait until people die to steal their money? Every time your net worth goes over 1 million the fucking government should confiscate the "excess".

No, I'm saying if you inherit $1,000,050 then you should add that $50 to you income and pay whatever tax rate you own on your INCOME. If you make $19,050, you owe NO income. If you make $20,000, you owe 20% of that $50 to the government.

So you and/or the government gets to subjectively decide how much is enough in a free society... got it

WTF are you talking about? That's how it works now. Only... It goes up with the more money you have.

 

[Erand7899]

OK, we'd all like to pay 0%, but what tax rates do you think would be fair - and sustainable?

For simplicity, I've broken it down here into these main categories:

Low income 20%
Middle income 27.5%
High income 35%

Corporate tax 30%

VAT 15%

Tax on dividends & shares 25%

Any other major tax categories needed?

My plan is to raise income for the state with a VAT, which will hit the shadow economy and mean even drug dealers are paying some tax.

With that extra income I can then trim corporate taxes.

Feel free to add more details in - I did this very quickly!

This shows ignorance at the lowest level. The entire point of a PERCENTAGE is that it ensures those who make more, pay more. Those who make less, pay less.

You're double-punishing those who are successful to say you not only have to pay more, but we're going to make your percentage higher. That's so far beyond fucking unfair, there are no words for it.

Anyone who thinks a VAT would affect the shadow economy or drug dealers, does not know what a VAT is. A VAT is a hidden tax that is collected on the value added at each stage of production, and added to the cost of the product as it moves through the production chain. It is finally paid, in the cost of the product, by the ultimate consumer. It would only exist in legitimate production chains.

On the other hand, a national sales tax would grab some of the profits of the shadow economy and would affect drug dealers, thieves, etc.

 

[Erand7899]

Why is 30% "fair?" Why is paying more than you pay now "fair?"

Because it would allow the state to function.

Apprently you do not want sewerage, road, street lighting etc to be provided, but many people do.

A 30% flat tax rate is the lowest level that could sustain those services.

Or you could go with the more conservative model, and adopt a VAT.

You are mixing levels of government, and their funding mechanisms. The federal government does not provide sewerage, roads, street lighting, etc. Those are the functions of state and local governments and paid for with sales taxes, gas taxes, fees, state income taxes, and real estate taxes.

A flat tax is not a panacea for fair taxes because most of the tax code is involved with how one determines the income to be taxed. That is where reform is needed.

 

[DiamondDave]

No it's not, you can't get blood from a turnip. You can make someone who has nothing pay anything. Those making more can afford more. Call it punishment if you like, I prefer to call it paying your way and repaying society for the good it has done for you.

If you don't earn, you don't pay... if you earn, you pay.. no exceptions....

I call it what it is... unequal treatment... you know.. that thing you complain and scream about when someone or something you support is not treated the same as others

I disagree, because those couples that earn about 20k a year, don't owe taxes on that 20k due to standard deductions and exemptions, and those of us couples that make a lot more, including millionaires, DO NOT PAY any taxes on that first 20 k earned....there is nothing UNFAIR or UNEQUAL about that Dave?

It is a disguised PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM.... I have broken down the inherent percentages it bring about before... if you want, I will do it AGAIN... and a progressive system, by definition, is unequal treatment...

 

[DiamondDave]

No, I'm saying if you inherit $1,000,050 then you should add that $50 to you income and pay whatever tax rate you own on your INCOME. If you make $19,050, you owe NO income. If you make $20,000, you owe 20% of that $50 to the government.

So you and/or the government gets to subjectively decide how much is enough in a free society... got it

WTF are you talking about? That's how it works now. Only... It goes up with the more money you have.

And hency why I am against the current system and how it has progressively gotten worse...

 

[Erand7899]

Because it would allow the state to function.

Apprently you do not want sewerage, road, street lighting etc to be provided, but many people do.

A 30% flat tax rate is the lowest level that could sustain those services.

Or you could go with the more conservative model, and adopt a VAT.

More examples of how ignorant of the United States Saigon is... He has no idea that the federal government is NOT involved in any capacity with sewage, roads, street lights, etc.

YOu really need to read a book about REVENUE SHARING, Rott because you clearly do not know what the fuck your talking about.

Federal, state, and local governments together will spend billions every year to maintain highways, streets, and bridges.

State budgets are capital intensive. States control most U.S. higher order roads such as freeways; expressways; and the National Highway System, including interstate highways.

To help meet these capital demands, most federal funds are paid to the states. In recent years, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) pays the STATES AND LOCALITIES billions annually.

Federal funds cover more than 50 percent of state capital outlays and about 40 percent of total highway capital outlays.

The money that the federal government pays states to maintain federal highways comes directly from the federal gas taxes paid by citizens of the states. The federal highway system, including the interstate highway system is built, and it is past time for the federal government to get out of the gas tax business and let the states collect that money themselves. Cut out the middleman, and the gas taxes hijacked to support subway and bus services in the big Eastern cities.

Believe it, or not, states and local entities do not need the federal government doling our money that belongs to them in the first place.

 

[Erand7899]

I keep hearing that corporate taxes are truly paid for the most part, by the consumer who buys the corporation's product....

Do you think this is true or close to being true boe?

yeah, I take it you dont?

yes, I think it is true, up to the point of what the market or consumer can bear....if raising the price due to taxes being raised on them causes resistance in buying the product on the consumers part, then I think the corporation will take a portion of that increase in taxes out of their own bottom line....

Taxes do not fall on just one individual, and usually affect competitors in pretty much the same way. Consequently the price of the product will rise to cover the extra taxes. There are always a few exceptions to every rule, but we do not consider consequences of taxes on the few exceptions.

Many economists figure that the price of most consumer products in the United States contain about 17% worth of state, federal, and local taxes. If the FAIR tax was implemented the price of most products would fall 17%, since there would no longer be a tax component in the price. Therefore, a 17% federal sales tax (replacing the income tax, corporate taxes, and capital gains tax) would leave consumers with the same buying power, finance the federal government, and bring manufacturing back to the United States.

 

[GoneBezerk]

The highest revenue taken in by the US Treasury was after the Bush tax cuts were implemented.

Liberals like to claim Clinton had a booming economy with high tax rates, which is a lie. Once the GOP took over Congress and lowered the tax rates....the economy took off.

As for our taxes today, just do a flat tax across the board. Of course there will be a poverty line where it doesn't apply for low income people but everyone above it should pay the same rate.

Also, the social security tax should apply to all income, no limit. This will fix the social security shortage and ensure even rich people can get some of it when they retire.

 

[Shelzin]

So you and/or the government gets to subjectively decide how much is enough in a free society... got it

WTF are you talking about? That's how it works now. Only... It goes up with the more money you have.

And hency why I am against the current system and how it has progressively gotten worse...

But everyone paying a certain percentage at a start of a wage is hardly unfair... I mean your argument falls apart given that everybody doesn't tax for the first "X" amount.

 

[Againsheila]

So you're saying that the fucking government is entitled to everyone's net worth over a million dollars?

Shit why wait until people die to steal their money? Every time your net worth goes over 1 million the fucking government should confiscate the "excess".

No, I'm saying if you inherit $1,000,050 then you should add that $50 to you income and pay whatever tax rate you own on your INCOME. If you make $19,050, you owe NO income. If you make $20,000, you owe 20% of that $50 to the government.

So you and/or the government gets to subjectively decide how much is enough in a free society... got it

The question was asked what would I do? I gave my answer. You don't like it, come up with your own idea....

 

[Againsheila]

Again.. easy for someone to want to punish those they vilify by treating them unequally... and Sheila is showing the perfect example of that... they act as if everything is the government's, and they decide how much is too much for persons.... that plan is just as bad as the reverse, where lower incomes would be taxed at a higher rate and higher incomes would be taxed nothing or close to nothing... it is ALL pandering, it is all unequal treatment, and it is all bullshit

No it's not, you can't get blood from a turnip. You can make someone who has nothing pay anything. Those making more can afford more. Call it punishment if you like, I prefer to call it paying your way and repaying society for the good it has done for you.

If you don't earn, you don't pay... if you earn, you pay.. no exceptions....

I call it what it is... unequal treatment... you know.. that thing you complain and scream about when someone or something you support is not treated the same as others

The world is not fair, it has never been fair. People sometimes work their entire lives in low wage jobs, working their asses off. Others are born with silver spoons in their mouths and never work a real job in their lives. That's life. We need a tax system to support our infrastructure, that can't be done on the backs of those working their assess off and making barely enough to survive.

 

[DiamondDave]

WTF are you talking about? That's how it works now. Only... It goes up with the more money you have.

And hency why I am against the current system and how it has progressively gotten worse...

But everyone paying a certain percentage at a start of a wage is hardly unfair... I mean your argument falls apart given that everybody doesn't tax for the first "X" amount.

FAIR is SUBJECTIVE.. we are talking about equality in treatment

It does not fall apart.. that is plain idiocy.... what a ramped up floor does is nothing more than create a disguised PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM

Person A earns 15K, gets taxed on none and pays a 0% rate on all money earned in the year
Person B earns 25K, gets taxed on 5K at say a 20% rate, which equates to a 4% rate on all money earned in the year
Person C earns 50K, gets taxed on 30K at a 20%, which equates to a 12% rate on all money earned in the year
Person D earns 100K, gets taxed on 80K at 20%, which equates to a 16% rate on all money earned in the year
Person E earns 1MIL, gets taxed on 980K at 20%, which equates to a 19.6% rate on all money earned in the year

BY DEFINITION A PROGRESSIVE TAX IS UNEQUAL TREATMENT BY GOVERNMENT UNDER LAW... this is not in error, this is not debatable, this is pure unadulterated fact

 

[DiamondDave]

No it's not, you can't get blood from a turnip. You can make someone who has nothing pay anything. Those making more can afford more. Call it punishment if you like, I prefer to call it paying your way and repaying society for the good it has done for you.

If you don't earn, you don't pay... if you earn, you pay.. no exceptions....

I call it what it is... unequal treatment... you know.. that thing you complain and scream about when someone or something you support is not treated the same as others

The world is not fair, it has never been fair. People sometimes work their entire lives in low wage jobs, working their asses off. Others are born with silver spoons in their mouths and never work a real job in their lives. That's life. We need a tax system to support our infrastructure, that can't be done on the backs of those working their assess off and making barely enough to survive.

Then you fully support unfair treatment by government in other cases... say gay marriage.. because you set the precedent...

I support equality in treatment.. not subjectively singling out purely for the feel good factor of the cause or group I support

 

[TakeAStepBack]

0%

 

[DiamondDave]

No, I'm saying if you inherit $1,000,050 then you should add that $50 to you income and pay whatever tax rate you own on your INCOME. If you make $19,050, you owe NO income. If you make $20,000, you owe 20% of that $50 to the government.

So you and/or the government gets to subjectively decide how much is enough in a free society... got it

The question was asked what would I do? I gave my answer. You don't like it, come up with your own idea....

I did.. based on equality.. not subjective pandering

 

[Againsheila]

If you don't earn, you don't pay... if you earn, you pay.. no exceptions....

I call it what it is... unequal treatment... you know.. that thing you complain and scream about when someone or something you support is not treated the same as others

I disagree, because those couples that earn about 20k a year, don't owe taxes on that 20k due to standard deductions and exemptions, and those of us couples that make a lot more, including millionaires, DO NOT PAY any taxes on that first 20 k earned....there is nothing UNFAIR or UNEQUAL about that Dave?

It is a disguised PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM.... I have broken down the inherent percentages it bring about before... if you want, I will do it AGAIN... and a progressive system, by definition, is unequal treatment...

I guess fair is subjective. I think it's fair for those who have more to pay more. Some think that someone who inherits $10 billion but doesn't do a lick of work in his life should pay nothing while someone who works his ass off for $10,000 a year should pay $1,000 in taxes.....