What Do You Think Would Be A Fair Tax Rate Percentage For Different Income Levels (politicians, compared)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Percentage based income taxes are progressive and inherently unfair to higher earners. This is fair: Divide the required tax revenues by the number of people in the country. Everyone pays that amount. If you have children under 18, you pay their share. There's obviously some practical issues with this approach, but it sets the baseline for "fair". The idea that higher earners should pay more taxes for the same government services is preposterous and doesn't pass the common sense test. Would you adjust the price of a home you have for sale based on the potential buyer's income? Of course not.
Because it's not about fair. It's about politics. You have any idea what the unemployment rate would be if income taxes could be done on a 3x5" postcard and how many IRS people, accountants, etc would suddenly become obsolete?
I've made that very point about the employment implications myself over the years.
As a solidly 'middle class' taxpayer for many years (and now retired), I would absolutely be in favor of a flat tax even if my name was Bill Gates or Warren Buffett... because it wouldn't hurt me a bit.
Why not just abolish income tax for individuals entirely and go to a VAT tax on all purchases? 20% on purchases, or something similar. It would ensure everyone pays, even those who make money but don't report their income to the IRS. I wonder if that would be enough to replace or exceed the current amount of tax revenue for the govt?
First, Congress would adopt a budget including all spending plans. Then, this total spending amount would be divided by the number of taxpayers to derive a per capita figure. Then this would be adjusted up or down by income bracket, but the total amount has to be covered in the end.
This is a balanced budget approach, but the impact of spending would be immediately felt by the taxpayers. Members of Congress would have to explain to their constituents why they voted for a 10% increase in spending, for example, which resulted in a $2000 increase in their tax bill.
Right now the connection of spending to taxes is too obscure, and the growth in federal debt is merely an abstraction.
Percentage based income taxes are progressive and inherently unfair to higher earners. This is fair: Divide the required tax revenues by the number of people in the country. Everyone pays that amount. If you have children under 18, you pay their share. There's obviously some practical issues with this approach, but it sets the baseline for "fair". The idea that higher earners should pay more taxes for the same government services is preposterous and doesn't pass the common sense test. Would you adjust the price of a home you have for sale based on the potential buyer's income? Of course not.
Total federal spending = $4.8 trillion
US population = 333 Million
Per capita spending = $14,414
Tax bill for family of 4 = $57,656
So how will a family earning $40,000 per year pay their taxes?
Also, the idea is that if you are wealthy you benefit more from government. For example, say you own a business. Your products are shipped all over the country on the interstate highway system. Your website is on the internet, which was developed by the government, and you communicate through satellite communications, made possible by NASA. You fly around to visit clients through airports managed by the FAA. Maybe you received a loan through the SBA. You and your employees received free or subsidized education through our public schools and universities. Barack Obama was correct (but phrased it indelicately) when he said "you didn't build that".
First, Congress would adopt a budget including all spending plans. Then, this total spending amount would be divided by the number of taxpayers to derive a per capita figure. Then this would be adjusted up or down by income bracket, but the total amount has to be covered in the end.
This is a balanced budget approach, but the impact of spending would be immediately felt by the taxpayers. Members of Congress would have to explain to their constituents why they voted for a 10% increase in spending, for example, which resulted in a $2000 increase in their tax bill.
Right now the connection of spending to taxes is too obscure, and the growth in federal debt is merely an abstraction.
The only think I like about this, is it would make our politicians held accountable. And perhaps we would end up with better candidates in our elections.
Problem is personal tax- corporate tax and loopholes and incentives . No matter how you slice it, Corp n the wealthy not giving an inch. Only some have so much that they just give it to charities etc as will never spend it. There also a lot of money overseas- we don’t have a chance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
