What should the highest income tax rate be?

[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.

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.

You want to raise taxes on the poor and lower them on the rich. I don't.

 

[kaz]

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.

I addressed the VAT already and how it's different than the Fair Tax, I'm not going to do it again. I'm not knocking you for asking and I don't expect you to read the whole conversation before posting, I'm just letting you know.

As for the income tax, when you say my examples are not affected by the income tax, of course they are, think about it.

- Your flat tax for example helps foreign companies over American

Employers have to pay employees enough to live and enough to pay their taxes. So if you tax all products equally, then you're agnostic as to where they are made. By taxing income, you are taxing American companies more than foreign companies in general because we have more employees here. That income is paid to the employee by their employer, and embedded in the price of the product.

- Companies that automate over those that hire employees

You automate, your employees salaries, and your employees taxes go away. That means you can charge less than companies that don't.

- Companies that offshore production over keep production in the US.

Same thing again, you move production off shore, your employee salary goes away, and their taxes.

It's undeniable. All taxes are taxes on economic activity. So clearly, the flattest tax of all is a flat tax on economic activity. That way we focus not on avoiding the tax man but just driving efficiency based on economics.

 

[NightFox]

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?

I would but that's not what I indicated as in (hopefully in a just and efficient manner), the fact of the matter is that if we accept the need for government then we must accept the need to fund the services that we expect government to provide. In order to provide adequate funds and design a just and efficient manner to collect those funds then first we need to know , how much does what we expect actually cost? We must also be constantly vigilant against the possibility that government provides those services in an effective and inefficient manner (waste & graft) as well as be on the look out for "scope creep" (engaging in activities outside of the authority we've granted it).

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.

Well honestly my God doesn't require any of my paycheck since my God doesn't have any use for money (if it did I assume it would just create as much as it needed) so unless government is going to abolish all taxation it doesn't have any hope of meeting the bar you've set.

 

[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.

You want to raise taxes on the poor and lower them on the rich. I don't.

I want a Uniform tax code that is simple, and not full of BS as it is now. I'd love to send in my Tax return on a post card and be done with it.

I'd also love to reduce the size of the Federal Government aka the IRS and make them come out and earn a living in the real world.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

I addressed the VAT already and how it's different than the Fair Tax, I'm not going to do it again. I'm not knocking you for asking and I don't expect you to read the whole conversation before posting, I'm just letting you know.

As for the income tax, when you say my examples are not affected by the income tax, of course they are, think about it.

- Your flat tax for example helps foreign companies over American

Employers have to pay employees enough to live and enough to pay their taxes. So if you tax all products equally, then you're agnostic as to where they are made. By taxing income, you are taxing American companies more than foreign companies in general because we have more employees here. That income is paid to the employee by their employer, and embedded in the price of the product.

- Companies that automate over those that hire employees

You automate, your employees salaries, and your employees taxes go away. That means you can charge less than companies that don't.

- Companies that offshore production over keep production in the US.

Same thing again, you move production off shore, your employee salary goes away, and their taxes.

It's undeniable. All taxes are taxes on economic activity. So clearly, the flattest tax of all is a flat tax on economic activity. That way we focus not on avoiding the tax man but just driving efficiency based on economics.

Corporate Taxes are a different entity to me. I understand where you are going, but

If I make $30 an hour at a company to work now, I still make $30 an Hour irregardless of the Tax Code.

So if it goes to a Flat tax, I'll still make $30 an hour but pay the Federal Tax at 15%.

I don't see through to your point.

 

[NightFox]

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.

Your argument is based on shallow assertions since you can't seem to think beyond CURRENT INCOME TAX RATES, trying looking below the surface for a change instead of just mindlessly chanting partisan propaganda in the hope that it will be a workable substitute for reason and research. The poor are getting crushed and wealth inequality is increasing and we already have a progressive income tax system, doesn't that raise any red flags in your mind? Maybe an opportunity to at least delve into the "why is that?" a bit deeper than what your self-serving, partisan politicians are telling you is the reason.

What do you imagine would be the effects on the living standards of the poor if all federal taxation took the form of a flat income tax and all other forms of hidden taxation that the poor are currently subject to were eliminated? What we be the effects on "the rich" if they couldn't benefit from tax favoritism, tax sheltering and the distribution effects of inflation?

 

[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?

I would but that's not what I indicated as in (hopefully in a just and efficient manner), the fact of the matter is that if we accept the need for government then we must accept the need to fund the services that we expect government to provide. In order to provide adequate funds and design a just and efficient manner to collect those funds then first we need to know , how much does what we expect actually cost? We must also be constantly vigilant against the possibility that government provides those services in an effective and inefficient manner (waste & graft) as well as be on the look out for "scope creep" (engaging in activities outside of the authority we've granted it).

Everyone else in the world has to first identify what they can afford, and then figure out what they can afford to buy with that. Why does government get to go the other way around? We decid what we want, then figure out what it costs? Then government will arbitrarily decide who's going to pay it and then collects it with the force of guns.

it's just wrong.

 

[kaz]

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

I addressed the VAT already and how it's different than the Fair Tax, I'm not going to do it again. I'm not knocking you for asking and I don't expect you to read the whole conversation before posting, I'm just letting you know.

As for the income tax, when you say my examples are not affected by the income tax, of course they are, think about it.

- Your flat tax for example helps foreign companies over American

Employers have to pay employees enough to live and enough to pay their taxes. So if you tax all products equally, then you're agnostic as to where they are made. By taxing income, you are taxing American companies more than foreign companies in general because we have more employees here. That income is paid to the employee by their employer, and embedded in the price of the product.

- Companies that automate over those that hire employees

You automate, your employees salaries, and your employees taxes go away. That means you can charge less than companies that don't.

- Companies that offshore production over keep production in the US.

Same thing again, you move production off shore, your employee salary goes away, and their taxes.

It's undeniable. All taxes are taxes on economic activity. So clearly, the flattest tax of all is a flat tax on economic activity. That way we focus not on avoiding the tax man but just driving efficiency based on economics.

Corporate Taxes are a different entity to me. I understand where you are going, but

If I make $30 an hour at a company to work now, I still make $30 an Hour irregardless of the Tax Code.

So if it goes to a Flat tax, I'll still make $30 an hour but pay the Federal Tax at 15%.

I don't see through to your point.

I wasn't talking about corporate taxes. Your company has to pay you enough to pay your income taxes. Your salary is not calculated regardless of the taxes you pay.

Let's say you got a graduate degree, work experience and are reliable.

Joe didn't do any of that. You're worth three times what Joe is.

Your expected tax rate is 25%. Joe's is 0%.

Joe makes $10 an hour.

Well, you then have to make $40 an hour. You pay 25% tax, and you get the $30 an hour that is three times Joe.

If your company does not pay you $40 an hour, then you will not work for them. You're three times as valuable as Joe economically. You're not going to work for $30 and just give 25% of what you're worth to the government.

Your company collects that money from their customers, it's baked into the price of their product. If they can't, they go bust.

So, your company can do that, or they can go off shore or they can automate. Or an overseas competitor who doesn't have to pay $10 an hour to you to pay your taxes can beat them.

Money does not appear from nowhere and it doesn't go nowhere.

 

[NightFox]

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?

I would but that's not what I indicated as in (hopefully in a just and efficient manner), the fact of the matter is that if we accept the need for government then we must accept the need to fund the services that we expect government to provide. In order to provide adequate funds and design a just and efficient manner to collect those funds then first we need to know , how much does what we expect actually cost? We must also be constantly vigilant against the possibility that government provides those services in an effective and inefficient manner (waste & graft) as well as be on the look out for "scope creep" (engaging in activities outside of the authority we've granted it).

Everyone else in the world has to first identify what they can afford, and then figure out what they can afford to buy with that. Why does government get to go the other way around? We decid what we want, then figure out what it costs?

it's just wrong.

Kaz, it's not about what GOVERNMENT can afford, it's about what WE (as in the tax payers) can afford to have government perform on our behalf. If we don't like the price tag for what we say we want government to do then we need to lower our expectations.

Then government will arbitrarily decide who's going to pay it and then collects it with the force of guns.

Who said anything about government "arbitrarily" deciding anything? I clearly pointed out the need to quantify the costs of what we expect and then designing a just and efficient system for collecting the funds required to pay for it. The alternative to that is what we have right now , which is the government basically spends whatever it wants on anything it wants and then collects taxes based on all sorts of unjust and inefficient variables, borrows the excess and then lies to us about the reality of and the justification for what it spends.

I really don't see what your issue is with figuring out where we stand on actual expenditures before deciding how to approach designing a tax system. Don't you want to know where the money is going? Don't you want the revenue collection system to be as efficient as possible in meeting the requirements of what we say we want government to do?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Your argument is based on shallow assertions since you can't seem to think beyond CURRENT INCOME TAX RATES, trying looking below the surface for a change instead of just mindlessly chanting partisan propaganda in the hope that it will be a workable substitute for reason and research. The poor are getting crushed and wealth inequality is increasing and we already have a progressive income tax system, doesn't that raise any red flags in your mind? Maybe an opportunity to at least delve into the "why is that?" a bit deeper than what your self-serving, partisan politicians are telling you is the reason.

What do you imagine would be the effects on the living standards of the poor if all federal taxation took the form of a flat income tax and all other forms of hidden taxation that the poor are currently subject to were eliminated? What we be the effects on "the rich" if they couldn't benefit from tax favoritism, tax sheltering and the distribution effects of inflation?

We've actually been flattening the tax rates for decades, taking OUT the progressivity of the rate structure, concurrent over time with the 'crushing' of the poor and the rising wealth inequality,

so it is wholly fallacious for you to attempt to blame this occurrence on the 'progressive tax system'.

 

[kaz]

I would but that's not what I indicated as in (hopefully in a just and efficient manner), the fact of the matter is that if we accept the need for government then we must accept the need to fund the services that we expect government to provide. In order to provide adequate funds and design a just and efficient manner to collect those funds then first we need to know , how much does what we expect actually cost? We must also be constantly vigilant against the possibility that government provides those services in an effective and inefficient manner (waste & graft) as well as be on the look out for "scope creep" (engaging in activities outside of the authority we've granted it).

Everyone else in the world has to first identify what they can afford, and then figure out what they can afford to buy with that. Why does government get to go the other way around? We decid what we want, then figure out what it costs?

it's just wrong.

Kaz, it's not about what GOVERNMENT can afford, it's about what WE (as in the tax payers) can afford to have government perform on our behalf. If we don't like the price tag for what we say we want government to do then we need to lower our expectations.

Then government will arbitrarily decide who's going to pay it and then collects it with the force of guns.

Who said anything about government "arbitrarily" deciding anything? I clearly pointed out the need to quantify the costs of what we expect and then designing a just and efficient system for collecting the funds required to pay for it. The alternative to that is what we have right now , which is the government basically spends whatever it wants on anything it wants and then collects taxes based on all sorts of unjust and inefficient variables, borrows the excess and then lies to us about the reality of and the justification for what it spends.

I really don't see what your issue is with figuring out where we stand on actual expenditures before deciding how to approach designing a tax system. Don't you want to know where the money is going? Don't you want the revenue collection system to be as efficient as possible in meeting the requirements of what we say we want government to do?

We can't decide is fair for the most evil, rich bastard in the country to pay on the last dollar that they earn until we decide what government needs, then we can design a tax system.

First of all, I think it is completely reasonable to directly answer the question. I do not think it's fair for government to take more than 10% of any dollar earned by any American ever. And if government wants or needs more they have to suck it up, the answer is no.

And second, because you're going with maximum ambiguity, you're opening it up for politicians to make those decisions, and they're going to do to us what they are doing now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You want to raise taxes on the poor and lower them on the rich. I don't.

I want a Uniform tax code that is simple, and not full of BS as it is now. I'd love to send in my Tax return on a post card and be done with it.

I'd also love to reduce the size of the Federal Government aka the IRS and make them come out and earn a living in the real world.

You don't have to eliminate progressivity in the tax rates to do that.

 

[kaz]

BTW, Nighthawk, we have answered the question what we want the Federal government to do. It's what's in the US Constitution. Defense is there, as is some say over trade between the States and internationally and a few, specifically enumerated other things.

Welfare isn't there, including social security, medicare, medicaid, obamacare or most of the other useless crap our government spends our money on.

So the answer is there, that's what we want the Federal government to do. So, now, what should the most rich, evil bastard in the country pay on the last dollar they earn? I say 10% would be major surplus and a cause for tax cuts in future years.

 

[kaz]

Kaz, it's not about what GOVERNMENT can afford, it's about what WE (as in the tax payers) can afford to have government perform on our behalf. If we don't like the price tag for what we say we want government to do then we need to lower our expectations.

So how is that different than the question then?

Who said anything about government "arbitrarily" deciding anything?

So who is going to decide then? It sounds like a lot of hand waiving that ends us up where we are now.

 

[NightFox]

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.

Your argument is based on shallow assertions since you can't seem to think beyond CURRENT INCOME TAX RATES, trying looking below the surface for a change instead of just mindlessly chanting partisan propaganda in the hope that it will be a workable substitute for reason and research. The poor are getting crushed and wealth inequality is increasing and we already have a progressive income tax system, doesn't that raise any red flags in your mind? Maybe an opportunity to at least delve into the "why is that?" a bit deeper than what your self-serving, partisan politicians are telling you is the reason.

What do you imagine would be the effects on the living standards of the poor if all federal taxation took the form of a flat income tax and all other forms of hidden taxation that the poor are currently subject to were eliminated? What we be the effects on "the rich" if they couldn't benefit from tax favoritism, tax sheltering and the distribution effects of inflation?

We've actually been flattening the tax rates for decades, taking OUT the progressivity of the rate structure, concurrent over time with the 'crushing' of the poor and the rising wealth inequality,

That's a bald face LIE, the income tax system has been anything but flattening since we have nearly 50% of the wage earners paying no income taxes at all. You seem to have no clue that your beloved state is in fact one big economic exploitation machine and that the poor you claim to care about (and have made it obvious that you really don't) are the people that are it's hardest hit victims.

so it is wholly fallacious for you to attempt to blame this occurrence on the 'progressive tax system'.

It is wholly ignorant for you to make such claims when it is crystal clear that you have no interest in finding the truth and are (as usual) stuck in partisan reactionary mode, you know if you keep refusing to use your brain for anything besides engaging your fingers to parrot partisan rhetoric it's going to shrivel up on you. Continue to wallow in your ignorance if that is what you wish, it will only keep reality at bay for so long though.

 

[NightFox]

Kaz, it's not about what GOVERNMENT can afford, it's about what WE (as in the tax payers) can afford to have government perform on our behalf. If we don't like the price tag for what we say we want government to do then we need to lower our expectations.

So how is that different than the question then?

It's a different question because until you know what the price tag actually is how do you know what it is you can afford and how best to pay for it? One of our problems as a people is that we have become completely disconnected from the price of what we say we want and what the government ends up really charging us for it. We seem to think that government can magically grant goodies at no cost to us personally.

Who said anything about government "arbitrarily" deciding anything?

So who is going to decide then?

In a world that's not completely upside down the people and the states would decide, after all we're the ones that granted the federal government it's authority in the first place. However we have a mechanism at hand that will begin the process if only the political courage exists to use it, namely a refusal to raise the debt ceiling (aka the mythical "government shut down"). You and I both know that forbidding further debt increase isn't really a "shut down" since government still has cash flow, the debt can be serviced, social security checks can still go out, etc.., but what it will do is FORCE Washington to begin jettisoning that which is unnecessary (i.e. setting priorities), give it a year and when the world doesn't come to an end I'm betting people will start to wake up to the fact that what we've been told is the price tag for what we want and the actual price we've been forced to pay are two different things.

It sounds like a lot of hand waiving that ends us up where we are now.

All of this is "a lot of hand waiving" since nothing discussed on this board is going to solve a damn thing in the real world, it's all entertainment.

 

[Desperado]

Tax rates should never ever be more than 50% no matter how much one makes.
There is just something intrinsically wrong with the Government taking more than the person that made the money.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Tax rates should never ever be more than 50% no matter how much one makes.
There is just something intrinsically wrong with the Government taking more than the person that made the money.

Do you understand the idea behind a progressive income tax?

 

[Desperado]

Tax rates should never ever be more than 50% no matter how much one makes.
There is just something intrinsically wrong with the Government taking more than the person that made the money.

Do you understand the idea behind a progressive income tax?

Yes I do. Now ask me if I agree with it?

 

[Ava]

For the richest, most evil bastard in the country, what should their maximum income tax rate be?

I say 10%, that's enough for God.

I favor the Fair Tax, but this question assumes we don't change tax systems.

EDIT: Per an excellent point from iamwhatiseem, my intent in the ranges is that your rate is somewhere in that range. I did not mean you are OK with the entire range. I didn't want to get carried away with the number of choices.

How much??

If you had been Barack Obama Jr. or Barack Obama Sr., you would want 100% of every one's income taxed and the government would dole back to you in goods and services, an amount based upon that income.