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.
Our current tax-code doesn't give much incentive for business to pay rather than to avoid taxation, it doesn't adequately fund what's most needed, it gives obvious favoritism, and its just far too complex. I'm all for spending billions upon billions to restructure the IRS so that everyone truly pays their fair share as opposed to just pointing the finger at the 'wealthy' whom may be your doctor rather than Warren Buffett or Bill Gates. Maybe we all could trade ideas for what needs to be done to the tax-code, and lets be reasonable here, don't say 'abolish the IRS and everything will be fine'; trust me I hate paying taxes myself but I believe that taxes are necessary evil for us.
I'm not sure how I feel about a flat-tax so maybe someone can list the pros and cons of it. I'd like a tax-system that directly corresponds with what people buy, i.e. grocery taxes are directed straight to WIC programs, gun taxes are used to directly fund the US military, gas tax directly towards highways, and etc. Then our regular income taxes are used to pick up the slack the slack if those taxes aren't sufficient enough to meet the funds needed for the budget. That may be a little hard to understand so I'll explain it with numbers:
(These are imaginary numbers by the way)
WIC Program Cost: $400,000,000
Taxes Collected from groceries: $350,000,000
Income taxes pay $50,000,000 to keep the program operational. So essentially the income tax is just a rainy day fund.
And vice versa can occur as well:
WIC Program Cost: $400,000,000
Taxes Collected from groceries: $500,000,000
Income tax reimbursed by $100,000,000.
How likely are programs to run a surplus though? Not very likely, so a reimbursement of taxes would be highly unlikely.
Pretty much I think our tax-code needs to adapt to our consumerism. They say we, as a people, spend about $4.5 trillion annually and that isn't projected to go down anytime soon therefore if we lower income taxes more money could be spent to boost how much people spend annually which ultimately under my tax-code means higher revenues. Of course under what I propose, deficits wouldn't go away but things would be a lot simpler. In regards to corporate taxes I'd like to just make them 20% and no loop holes at all, small businesses receive a break for hiring and expansion though.
Anyways, my proposal has its loop-holes solely because I'm no tax professional but just a dreamer and one that believes change is needed in our tax-code, so what do you all propose could changed to our tax-code and the IRS?
Our current tax-code doesn't give much incentive for business to pay rather than to avoid taxation, it doesn't adequately fund what's most needed, it gives obvious favoritism, and its just far too complex. I'm all for spending billions upon billions to restructure the IRS so that everyone truly pays their fair share as opposed to just pointing the finger at the 'wealthy' whom may be your doctor rather than Warren Buffett or Bill Gates. Maybe we all could trade ideas for what needs to be done to the tax-code, and lets be reasonable here, don't say 'abolish the IRS and everything will be fine'; trust me I hate paying taxes myself but I believe that taxes are necessary evil for us.
I'm not sure how I feel about a flat-tax so maybe someone can list the pros and cons of it. I'd like a tax-system that directly corresponds with what people buy, i.e. grocery taxes are directed straight to WIC programs, gun taxes are used to directly fund the US military, gas tax directly towards highways, and etc. Then our regular income taxes are used to pick up the slack the slack if those taxes aren't sufficient enough to meet the funds needed for the budget. That may be a little hard to understand so I'll explain it with numbers:
(These are imaginary numbers by the way)
WIC Program Cost: $400,000,000
Taxes Collected from groceries: $350,000,000
Income taxes pay $50,000,000 to keep the program operational. So essentially the income tax is just a rainy day fund.
And vice versa can occur as well:
WIC Program Cost: $400,000,000
Taxes Collected from groceries: $500,000,000
Income tax reimbursed by $100,000,000.
How likely are programs to run a surplus though? Not very likely, so a reimbursement of taxes would be highly unlikely.
Pretty much I think our tax-code needs to adapt to our consumerism. They say we, as a people, spend about $4.5 trillion annually and that isn't projected to go down anytime soon therefore if we lower income taxes more money could be spent to boost how much people spend annually which ultimately under my tax-code means higher revenues. Of course under what I propose, deficits wouldn't go away but things would be a lot simpler. In regards to corporate taxes I'd like to just make them 20% and no loop holes at all, small businesses receive a break for hiring and expansion though.
Anyways, my proposal has its loop-holes solely because I'm no tax professional but just a dreamer and one that believes change is needed in our tax-code, so what do you all propose could changed to our tax-code and the IRS?
There is a concept - going back to a 1962 book by this title - that "the poor pay more" than the rest of us for what consumers buy.
There can be a number of reasons for this, e.g. corner ripoff stores that move into "food deserts" where supermarkets are absent, for example. these stores are commonly characterized by lame selection (tending toward junky food) and exorbitant prices. Consumers with impaired credit will pay more if they buy goods on credit - the market correctly charges these customers more but I don't think they should be further penalized by having to pay more tax. Insurance costs more for consumers who live in poor neighborhoods or have damaged credit - should they also pay a tax penalty? Renters pay a premium (above what they would pay to buy) to rent, should they pay a tax penalty on top of their rent? Would homeowners get to consume housing tax-free or would they pay on their housing consumption like renters do?
A concept could be to take away all taxation except for the tax payed on each commodity bought and sold.(it may or may not be what you call "VATS", we have another word for it here)
this means a completely consumtionbase taxing, so those who use a lot of money pay a lot of taxes...
this means the rich are still rich and the poor still don't get overtaxed....
A FAIR TAX! Even a flat tax can be abused. A tri-level tax based on income and consumption. This is the only way to preserve statehood. Don;t be fooled into thinking a federal VAT or flat tax will be fair, because it will not be.
A concept could be to take away all taxation except for the tax payed on each commodity bought and sold.(it may or may not be what you call "VATS", we have another word for it here)
this means a completely consumtionbase taxing, so those who use a lot of money pay a lot of taxes...
this means the rich are still rich and the poor still don't get overtaxed....
But renters would pay more tax than homeowners for equal housing consumption, and poor people can't buy homes, so they would pay a premium to rent (hence would pay more tax than homeowners), so I would say the poor would get overtaxed.
A FAIR TAX! Even a flat tax can be abused. A tri-level tax based on income and consumption. This is the only way to preserve statehood. Don;t be fooled into thinking a federal VAT or flat tax will be fair, because it will not be.
That's an interesting idea, I think some set of multiple taxes or levels would be better than taxing income or consumption exclusively.
I think overall taxation should be capped, perhaps at some percentage of GDP.
But renters would pay more tax than homeowners for equal housing consumption, and poor people can't buy homes, so they would pay a premium to rent (hence would pay more tax than homeowners), so I would say the poor would get overtaxed.
Poor people could buy cheaper/smaller homes. 500 sq ft is very livable.
17% is good, but it has to be a sales tax, not an income tax. The rich can avoid income tax in a million ways up to and including simply moving their official residence, But when they play they pay. It's the only thing that will work. Do not imagine that the wealthy spend less than the rest of us. They spend much, much more. Tax it. For this reason, a national sales tax such as this will never be implemented. The rich put people in office to protect their interests, and so that they will never be effectively taxed.
But renters would pay more tax than homeowners for equal housing consumption, and poor people can't buy homes, so they would pay a premium to rent (hence would pay more tax than homeowners), so I would say the poor would get overtaxed.
Oh, here we go again.
Not everyone everywhere is going to buy a house.
If you want to buy a house, get a damned job where you earn the money to do so.
Holey moley, if you don't want to pay taxes or rent, go move into your car.
It's a heck of a lot easier to whine than to take action to get what you want.
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.
