What should the highest income tax rate be?

[RKMBrown]

I want a flat rate at around 15 percent. No loop holes no deductions and a base amount earned before paying taxes at all.

That is the most sensible approach. But liberal can't fund their agenda with only 15% and conservatives won't go along with it because they wouldn't have any thing to bitch about.

Antiquity said "I want a flat rate at around 15 percent" with "no loop holes no deductions " except for one deduction for me such that there is "a base amount earned before paying taxes at all."

ROFL flat tax with no deductions, except for a massive deduction for 51% of the country so they don't have to pay any taxes. ROFL that's what we have now. Progressive taxes is a top tax rate with deductions based on ability to pay. Flat tax with a massive deduction is no different than a progressive tax with one rate and one massive deduction. You could call it tax simplification, but it's not a flat tax.

 

[Darkwind]

15% for citizens.

25% for Politicians

In addition, a unbreakable tax cap must be placed upon these rates. If government needs money for other projects, they have to cut from something.

None of this matters until the 16th is repealed.

 

[eagle1462010]

Agreed. That's my fear too that we end up with both a sales tax and an income tax. Actually we need to ban more then the income tax. Payroll, business and other taxes as well as they are all included in the Fair Tax.

Except Fair Tax sucks for a variety of reasons.

Such as?

All taxes are built into the price of the products we buy except the death. Taxing economic activity directly with a "flat" tax cannot be exceeded regarding it's ability to not negatively affect economic activity.

Your flat tax for example helps foreign companies over American, companies that automate over those that hire employees, and companies that offshore production over keep production in the US. I'm a true capitalist, I don't want to punish those companies either. But I certainly don't want taxes to drive production off shore or companies to automate, I want economic efficiency to drive that decision.

Individual Income Tax doesn't do that. Which is what I agree to. Your thinking of the VAT I believe.

 

[NightFox]

15% for citizens.

25% for Politicians

In addition, a unbreakable tax cap must be placed upon these rates. If government needs money for other projects, they have to cut from something.

None of this matters until the 16th is repealed.

Just out of curiosity why does it require the 16th Amendment to be repealed?

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats---Historic-Table-2

Click total file for United States gives you the absolute numbers via Excel for 2011.

No BS data for all to see.

 

[eagle1462010]

Summary............. Look for yourself if you doubt the numbers. Correct me if I'm seeing this wrong.

Taxation is a numbers game, so we need actual data to go by.

1. 146,455,970 returns filed.
2. 8,378,794,024,000 AGI
3. 1,254,759,876,000 in Itemized Deductions
4. 5,756,956,202,000 in Taxable Income
5. 137,641,267 people with total tax payments due
6. 1,384,653,275,000 Amount of Taxes to be paid MINUS CREDITS
7. 95,411,479 people who have to actually pay taxes after the credits aka EIC
8. 1,109,317,023,000 final numbers for actual REVENUE TO THE FEDS VIA INDIVIDUAL TAXES


I hope you find these numbers useful. As I would add that the budget is at 3.7 TRILLION now. Individual Returns are only a portion of TOTAL FEDERAL REVENUE and do add the rest of the ways the Fed gets Revenues.

 

[eagle1462010]

A 15% Flat tax on the AGI with no deductions in 2011 would have generated

$1,246,819,103,600

total revenues actual

$1,109,317,023,000

The Federal Government would have had an extra Revenue of

$137,502,980,600

using the flat tax system in 2011.

We could cut the IRS Staff by 70% because the BS of 70,000 of regs would be gone, and the people would be able to do their taxes by post card.

No more BS. Increased Revenue. And the ability to cut the Federal Budget by reduced staff at the IRS.

Please feel free to check my Math and numbers.

 

[eagle1462010]

As long as I'm crunching numbers and boring every poster to death, I might as well throw some other data out.

How many tax payers payed no taxes at all?

1. 51,044,491 tax filers didn't pay any taxes at all
2. 34.85% of all tax payers didn't pay any taxes at all
3. $275,336,252,000 was deducted aka CREDITS.

That's a little over 275 Billion Dollars for that year. These credits include the EIC's and such. The data is on that site via the IRS.

This is how people who pay NOTHING in taxes, get returns. aka Welfare via the Taxpayer system.

Which leads me to the question of should those who pay No taxes get a check from the IRS every year when they already pay no taxes?

Again, I'll look for responses on my numbers. If not, I'll simply move on.

 

[percysunshine]

My tax should be 0% and everyone else's should be 100%....sounds fair....

 

[Desperado]

10% - It's good enough for God, it's good enough for Obama could not have said it better.
If the government would stop foreign welfare and Nation building wars they would be more than able to survive on 10%

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dunno.. they do state all over the place that it is 'right' that the lowest earners pay nothing

The rate on money most likely to be spent on necessities should be lower than the rate on money that is not so spent.

and who will determine how much someone "needs" for necessities? some govt beaurocrat? Would the first 20K be tax free? News for ya, it already is.

The progressive tax already determines it. I'm a against flat taxes because they will lower taxes on the richer and raise taxes on the poorer.

 

[eagle1462010]

Sigh......................

Probably wasted my time again as pushing the actual numbers doesn't appeal to the normal postings.

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, you people talking about a 15% flat tax, no deductions, loopholes, credits, etc.,

and you think that's a good deal.

That's $7500 in taxes on a gross income of $50,000. I'll bet 95% of taxpayers making 50 grand a year aren't paying that much in federal income taxes now.

You need to think that one through a bit.

 

[RKMBrown]

Sigh......................

Probably wasted my time again as pushing the actual numbers doesn't appeal to the normal postings.

Were you expecting someone to argue with how to calculate a percentage?

 

[NightFox]

The rate on money most likely to be spent on necessities should be lower than the rate on money that is not so spent.

and who will determine how much someone "needs" for necessities? some govt beaurocrat? Would the first 20K be tax free? News for ya, it already is.

The progressive tax already determines it. I'm a against flat taxes because they will lower taxes on the richer and raise taxes on the poorer.

That's a shallow assumption on your part since it assumes that only the INCOME TAX RATES be subject to reform, right now the largest tax on the poor is generated by the distribution effects of inflation (being the last to get their hands on newly printed greenbacks) coupled with business and consumption based taxes that are especially destructive to low income people because it causes their costs of living to rise faster than their wages.

Inversely "the rich" are the largest benefactors of the current progressive income tax system (they receive the most tax favoritism and have the wherewithal to shelter and/or offshore their income) as well as being direct beneficiaries of the distribution effects of inflation.

If what you say you want to achieve is really what you want to achieve then a flat system of taxation is more conducive to that end, if on the other hand you really want to achieve the opposite of what you say then our current system is just what Doctor "Expansion of Wealth Inequality" ordered.

 

[eagle1462010]

Sigh......................

Probably wasted my time again as pushing the actual numbers doesn't appeal to the normal postings.

Were you expecting someone to argue with how to calculate a percentage?

Nope. I was expecting a discussion based on facts and figures.

Not emotions or political motivations.

 

[eagle1462010]

lol, you people talking about a 15% flat tax, no deductions, loopholes, credits, etc.,

and you think that's a good deal.

That's $7500 in taxes on a gross income of $50,000. I'll bet 95% of taxpayers making 50 grand a year aren't paying that much in federal income taxes now.

You need to think that one through a bit.

I've already shown that 51 MILLION pay no taxes at all. I've already shown that they actually receive a check at the end of the year with Credits which add up to 275 Billion a year.

Of course you don't agree. You want them to get a check at the end of the year which basically equals a Welfare Check.

All proposals so far tried in Congress have EXEMPTED taxation by those in the poverty levels.

 

[kaz]

Once one has some credible numbers on expenditures then one can begin to design a system of taxation that can generate the revenues required (hopefully in a just and efficient manner)

So you don't find it disturbing at all your idea that government should tax for what is "required" to pay for it's "expenditures" without addressing what is fair to be asked of a person out of a dollar they earned to be confiscated by force?

What about that Obama wants more of your paycheck then God does? I'd think God has both higher expenditures and more of a right to ask for it.

 

[kaz]

The ignorant people seem to believe - and you seem to support their ignorance - that those who pay a top rate of 90% do so on all of their income.

Actually my ignorance was underestimating your ignorance. OK, I could have said marginal rate, but I really didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to not realize that is what I was referring to.

I stand corrected.

EDIT: Re-reading my poll, read the comment on the 90-100% range, and then feel really, really stupid...

I think your blinded by greed

You voted that government should confiscate 90 cents of a dollar (or more) earned by a citizen of this country and ... you ... call ... me ... greedy? Wow. I'm glad you're generous, I'd hate to see you being greedy if that isn't.

Suggesting I'm stupid in the context of what I wrote is a silly ad hominem

Hmm... I never thought of it that way. That calling you stupid was an ad hominem. Wow, I think you're right! BTW, what is it when you call me "greedy?"

And I called you stupid because you said I thought that 90% tax rate meant someone paid that on ever dollar earned when I pointed out to you in my poll that I clearly did not think that. And in fact I said that no where, and no one else did either. You just made it up because you're stupid.

and not dealing with how we have become more and more of a Plutocracy, the gist of my point, is to lie by omission.

That's some good weed, dude. Are you going to Bogart that joint or pass it around. Or are you not high, you're ... stupid. Jesus, what about addressing the discussion instead of making up crap that has nothing to do with anyone anyone said? Just a thought.

 

[NYcarbineer]

and who will determine how much someone "needs" for necessities? some govt beaurocrat? Would the first 20K be tax free? News for ya, it already is.

The progressive tax already determines it. I'm a against flat taxes because they will lower taxes on the richer and raise taxes on the poorer.

That's a shallow assumption on your part since it assumes that only the INCOME TAX RATES be subject to reform, right now the largest tax on the poor is generated by the distribution effects of inflation (being the last to get their hands on newly printed greenbacks) coupled with business and consumption based taxes that are especially destructive to low income people because it causes their costs of living to rise faster than their wages.

Inversely "the rich" are the largest benefactors of the current progressive income tax system (they receive the most tax favoritism and have the wherewithal to shelter and/or offshore their income) as well as being direct beneficiaries of the distribution effects of inflation.

If what you say you want to achieve is really what you want to achieve then a flat system of taxation is more conducive to that end, if on the other hand you really want to achieve the opposite of what you say then our current system is just what Doctor "Expansion of Wealth Inequality" ordered.

The effective tax rate on the lowest quintile is far lower than the effective tax rate on the highest quintile. That makes what you're claiming nonsense.