Hypothetical Proposal for Income Tax Reform

[no1brownsfan]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Expecting to be rewarded for your work is not special treatment, those opportunities are available for everyone. You need rewards for success and consequences for failure.

You're rewarding mediocrity...... It's those people that go out and make millions that grease the wheels of our economy, you can't expect to replace them with less sucessful people. Less successful people are less successful for a reason.

Yep. And therefore, it is best to tax EVERYONE at the same rate.

[no1brownsfan]

Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated

Children need rewards and prizes.

That tax plan won't prevent a single person from striving for wealth. It didn't in the 20th century, why would it now? You don't go to work every day just to be uber-rich, do you?



I'm not rewarding anything.

People go to work for a number of reasons. At any rate I work in sales, so it is my goal to make as much commission as possible!

[TrapperJohn]

Originally Posted by GregW

As late as the 1960's the top income tax rate was 90% and the economy was doing far better than now. The current problem is the hyper wealthy are hoarding their ill gotten gains (you think everybody lost their shirts in 2008? Not the people that deliberately started the collapse and shorted the bond markets) and the Republicans blocking desperately needed domestic spending while wasting money in the Middle East.

I agree with the OP's concept. I usually put it as all income from all sources including illegal (a dollar is a dollar), lottery winnings and inheritance are counted and the amount above the 85th percentile taxed at geometrically increasing rate sufficiently to pay for all the military spending while domestic spending can be covered by transfer payments (Social Security also based on all earned income with no cap) or borrowing. This is based on the premise that the more you have to protect the more you pay.

I would laugh if this system were in place and I won the lottery but so what. Both items are about equally possible in our wealth and glory dominated economy and society.

The effective tax rate in the 60's was almost identical to the effective tax rate over 2002-2012. Marginal rates are meaningless if nobody pays them. What we learned during the era of 90% marginal rates is that the wealthy simply altered their compensation and income structure to avoid the highest tax brackets. What we know from history is that 35% is the highest federal marginal rate that Americans will tolerate before altering behavior, usually to the detriment of the lowest quartile. This data and research is readily available online and prepared by uncle sam himself.

Ironically it is liberals who advocate the least fair and least socialist approach to taxation: they pay nothing, a few rich guys pay everything. So much for shared responsibility.

[cephalopede]

Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated

Furthermore, it is intriguing that no one noticed that corporate taxes have been eliminated as well.

That's one of the primary reasons I voted no.

I am using the hell out of tax-funded services right now. I work, but end up paying nothing after refunds. I am okay giving the government a small, interest-free loan. And in years past when I have worked and actually paid income taxes, I didn't mind. I prefer to contribute reasonably at whatever income level I'm at, because I or someone else will need those services. I feel this way living below the poverty line, and I'd feel the same making $60,000 or $500,000 or $17 million.