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.
$0.00 to $50,000 in household income = $0.00 tax withheld Meaning zero tax on the first $50,000
$50,001 to $200,000 in Household income = 5% income tax withheld on income over the $50,001 mark
$200,001 to $1,000,000 in household income = 10% income tax on income over the $200,001 mark.
$1,000,001 and above in household income = 15% income tax over
I would also want to opt out of Social Security and invest the money myself. We need the option.
I would prefer zero income tax. The Government has not shown the ability to manage the money the American people work so hard for and give to the Government. Since that will never happen I would push for the above.
You just gave an argument AGAINST Land value taxation. Gentrification will still happen under that system. The affluent will move into an area, raise the value this increasing land value tax on the poor....forcing them to sell or lose their land.
$0.00 to $50,000 in household income = $0.00 tax withheld Meaning zero tax on the first $50,000
$50,001 to $200,000 in Household income = 5% income tax withheld on income over the $50,001 mark
$200,001 to $1,000,000 in household income = 10% income tax on income over the $200,001 mark.
$1,000,001 and above in household income = 15% income tax over
I would also want to opt out of Social Security and invest the money myself. We need the option.
I would prefer zero income tax. The Government has not shown the ability to manage the money the American people work so hard for and give to the Government. Since that will never happen I would push for the above.
Opting out of SS and allowing people to invest it would defeat the purpose of SS not to mention SS doesn't just cover retirement
The government can print its own money, it does not need taxes! Although I would like to get rid of the IRS as a reform I would eliminate taxation of earned income, such as wages and heavily tax income from property speculation and resource extraction instead. Small business with profits under 1 Million a year would be fully exempt. All current deductions, credits and exemptions would be eliminated. The tax system would be phased out, and the IRS would eventually be back to pre 1914 status. Accountants would still have jobs because business would still have to manage cash flow and investments.
The accounting industry would not be destroyed, it would just be put in its rightful place. Accountants would be doing taxes and keeping the books for businesses, large corporations, and organizations, not for individuals, which is the way it should be. It is absurd that a low income or middle class individual in the US need pay an accountant/tax preparer to do their individual or family taxes. If the tax reform is done properly, no longer would individuals flock to their accountants or tax preparer to simply file their taxes.
Can we just for a moment stop pretending that every accountant out there is a tax preparer, when they're actually a very small minority of all accountants? The majority of accounts work for businesses keeping track of monthly financial activity. Tax prep is a very small minority of what accountants do.
Also, what's really absurd is if you're a low income or middle class individual and you pay a tax preparer. If you're not running a business or day trading, there's no reason you can't just pay $20 for turbo tax or an equivalent. It's really not that hard.
I was a freshman in college and they made us do our tax returns by hand the second semester I was there as part of a class. Granted, I was taking a tax course, but still, if a college freshman can do it by hand, I'm pretty sure you can do it with a computer.
Only one tax and no others apart from Pigovian taxes like alcohol, pollution and tobacco.
Land cannot be moved to off-shore accounts.
The tax cannot be avoided - do not pay and the land is taken by the state and sold off to pay the debt.
The tax is super cheap to collect.
I like your idea, but lets expand it here. Land needs to be broken up. Are we dealing with the location aspect of land or the resource value of items inside or on top of the land. The first needs to be dealt with with a property tax. The second is a different matter.
Nobody here is addressing the fact that this form of taxation would be detrimental to the poor. A sudden spike in land value would increase their tax basis to the point where they would be forced to sell their land or lose it.
Nobody here is addressing the fact that this form of taxation would be detrimental to the poor. A sudden spike in land value would increase their tax basis to the point where they would be forced to sell their land or lose it.
Already happens.
Living in Maine I've seen valuations triple or more over a few years, forcing families that have lived there for generations to sell.
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.
