BS: New Tax Structure Idea

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jul 11 - 09:04 AM

What is not being talked about here is the 200% - 300% increase in REGRESSIVE TAXES that have quietly been shifted onto the middle class and poor over the last 4 decades... The biggest of these are state sales taxes which are being used to compensate for the loss of federal monies... They account for trillion$ every year and are bleeding the working class and poor alive...

Folks who unthinkingly say that the these folks don't pay taxes need to re-think that blanket statement and rephrase it as part of an overall discussion about who pays what...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Jul 11 - 08:49 AM

First off, if you start out from the perspective of setting a fixed amount of income, you run into problems immediately.

Why would you accept all the extra responsibility and work involved in being a department head or a CEO if you get to keep no more of what you earn than you do now.

The idea of making the rich pay more than the poor is very attractive, but there comes a point when you run out of people altruistic enough to accept responsibility without reward.

The reductio ad absurdum argument is that you do away with rich people altogether, losing all your high fliers, and end up with a nation of happy janitors, who can't be bothered to improve their status because "What's in it for them?"

the original ask was for a simple, fiddle proof system, and the only one I can see which will keep people reaching for the top, while not allowing them to dodge taxes when they get there, is the flat rate percentage,or some derivative thereof.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 27 Jul 11 - 09:14 PM

Don, this is already happening to a large degree.

As I posted a couple of weeks ago on the "Taking a Stand Thread", 2/3 (two-thirds) of wage earners with incomes up to $50,000 already pay no Federal Income Tax. Over 69M earners across all income levels already pay no income tax. I also posted links or addresses to sites, one of which, CNN, is not by any stretch, a Conservative organization.   I invite you, and all, to check them out.

While I'm still not sure what you advocate, let's try it this way. First off, it does not matter where your threshold for paying any tax is. It could be $10,001.00 or 50,001.00, it works the same. So just for argument's sake let's assume the first $35,000 is not taxable, and the tax rate on all income above that...no exceptions or deductions...is 15% (a figure of 15-18% is often bandied about by flat tax advocates) such that:

If your income is $40K...$5000 taxable.. the tax is $750.
If your income is $85K...$50,000 taxable..the tax is $7500.
If your taxable income is $500,000, the tax is $75,000, and at taxable $5million the tax is a whopping $750,000!

But wait, some folks, here, think the wealthy should pay way more...maybe they shouldn't get the $35,000 exemption; maybe they should pay tax from dollar one. No matter their actual income, the tax on the now non-exempted $35,000 brings in $5250 per wealthy taxpayer. I'm not sure that would even bring in enough to build a mile of a interstate highway in total. And you no longer have your flat-rate tax structure, although it comes very, very close the more money earned.

But wait again, some folks feel that the wealthy should not only pay more actual tax, but they should pay a higher percentage rate as well. This brings us back to our progressive (both mathematically and politically) tax structure, so I ask, as I did two weeks ago, what amount of income should a person be allowed to retain?

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Jul 11 - 02:24 PM

And yes, I'm only too well aware that it is so much "pie in the sky", largely because you would be asking for politicians to vote away their little (or not so little) perks and fiddles.

DT

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Jul 11 - 02:21 PM

It's simple John.

The poorest people in the country are assisted by exempting them from tax altogether until they reach a predetermined threshold (an income on which they can realistically survive) and then gradually reducing the assistance until a further threshold at which they can actually have some quality of life.

The idea is to address the comment above from Dick about flat rates.

And it is true that percentages aren't the best way of expressing the idea, but you still achieve the situation where ten times the salary equals ten times the tax.

Saul too is right when he says it must include Corporations and investment returns.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: saulgoldie
Date: 26 Jul 11 - 09:14 PM

Dick,
My proposal was most certainly not a flat tax. Part of the voting when you pay taxes is that the tax structure be totally rejiggered. My proposal is less about the "how" of paying taxes than it is about directing where your tax dollars go so that people truly see what they want to pay for and what they don't want to pay for, and they get exactly what they choose.

However, I do favor a much more highly progressive tax structure than we have now. And taxed income has to be not limited to salaries, but must include corporate profits and income earned from all those Wall Street financial thingies.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 26 Jul 11 - 08:04 PM

The flat tax is one of the most discriminatory ideas ever. A ten percent tax to someone making $500,000 has little effect on his standard of living, a ten percent tax on someone making 20,000 a year may make the difference between eating and not eating.

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: PoppaGator
Date: 26 Jul 11 - 02:44 PM

Theoretically: nice idea.

Realistically: never happen.

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 26 Jul 11 - 02:25 PM

Don, your post is confusing to me. First you call for the same percentage across the board, then further down you write, "...decide on the size of that percentage, and give the lowest paid discounts from 100% down to the standard rate as they climb the pay scale."

It seems as if you're calling for a flat percentage rate tax, but are also calling for a riff on a progressive tax structure.

Will you please clarify what you're really suggesting?

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Jul 11 - 01:10 PM

Just cut out all the dodges and fiddles.

Levy the same percentage of gross income across the board (including Companies and Corporations.. No deductibles! You factor all expenses into your business model) so that the more you earn, the more you pay.

And if you live in a country, you pay tax in that country....NO exceptions.

Now all you have to do is decide on the size of that percentage, and give the lowest paid discounts from 100% down to the standard rate as they climb the pay scale.

Comments?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jul 11 - 07:12 AM

Income tax is a very good idea. But set at far too low a level to do what needs doing.

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: Crowhugger
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 11:40 PM

To deal with the unexpected in Saul's system you just need an option called 'Unexpected.' Actually it's usually called 'contingency'. Some unexpected things might fall under, for example policing (an unforeseen riot or an unusually high number of prison break-outs).

And now that I've said that, I'm trying to imagine what is truly unexpected. Hurricane or tornado? Naw, they happen every year. Nuclear accident? Naw, at least yearly on average, or maybe only every decade, depending how it's defined. I guess it would have to mean stuff like epidemics or terrorist felling of buildings or poisoning of water supply--we gotta figure some domestic or imported jackass will succeed sooner or later but no one can predict when, where, or how extensive the event or its aftermath.

I wonder who should get to pick the wording used for each budget category and its explanation? That's where some of the budgeting power would lie, in creating what sounds like something people want to throw money at. So then what should the rules be, if any, for lobby groups in relation to this new budget system? Without advertising limits, such a system would quickly become corrupted as interest groups fund ads designed to attract tax money.

Anyway I definitely think it's worth a pilot project somewhere, if only to see what happens. I would love to know how human nature would average out in this situation; how similar or different would the priorities be compared what they are now?

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 11:39 PM

Good heart Saul but
Democratic social engineering is the one thing that the super wealthy have spent a quarter of thier fortunes on think tanks, astro turf websites and paid politicians to never let social engineering via checklist voting, ever happen.

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 11:33 PM

they would fund really nice animal shelters. mg

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 10:57 PM

saulgoldie-
The debt limit(and thus the default) has nothing to do with future expenditures...it just permits the US to pay for things that Congress has already bought.
Maybe we should cut expenses by eliminating the House of Representatives, who don't seem to be doing anything useful, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: gnu
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 09:32 PM

What? Allowing the government to do whatever they want and then blame it on the taxpayers? The government should be held SOLELY accountable for spending the taxpayers' dollars in the best way. The idea is inane.

EVEN if you COULD trust the government to follow the taxpayers' wishes, consider this... go to a grocery or department store and see how many of the general public cannot even operate a shopping cart... go on! I dare ya!

You said, "And this would force the citizenry to actually LEARN about what it is that government does and the implications and ramifications, and become better informed, and even improve their embarrassing arithmetic skills." They can't even DRIVE A SHOPPING CART! SO many are stunned as me arse and you want to replace elected representatives with the Walmart crowd and ANYONE that can mark an X?

You think the general public can determine fiscal policy? Give your head a shake and see if it rattles.

Saul... I respect much of which you post but... fuck ME!RUN FER THE HILLS!

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 08:39 PM

Two Words: Henry George.

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 07:11 PM

Just repeal all of the Bush tax cuts... And end the wars...

Surpluses over night...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: saulgoldie
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 07:09 PM

So, in order to prevent a default, how would you restructure the tax code, and what would you fund or de-fund?

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 08:43 AM

Yo, bILL,

The US tax rates are the lowest they have been in 50 years and lower than any of our competitors... Meanwhile, we are not investing in our future and they are... Heck, we're not even maintaining our current infrastructure...

Very narrow minded on our part...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 08:17 AM

Yes, they do. But they also reallocate funds that were previously earmarked for one job and spend it on something else. It would need some careful consideration how this could happen if all the taxes are hypothecated as saulgoldie suggested.

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 07:54 AM

What does the government do about such emergencies right now ... they go and borrow it, or print more money or (more yikes) take a bigger slice out of your pay pie.

biLL ... :)

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 07:39 AM

I don't see see how this deals with one important aspect of government: the unexpected. Would the government have been unable to do anything about 9/11 at all until the next year's tax round, or about the banking crisis? In the latter case, do they only have one opportunity a year to deal with any issue that might arise? Ok, you may say, there needs to be a contingency fund, the size of which is also voted for as part of this scheme. Who decides what that can be spent on? And how do we know it is big enough in the first place?

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 07:26 AM

bottom line is ... how can you work out a good idea on a bad idea (income tax) ... if the federal government is grabbing a good size slice of my pay pie ... I would at least like to see it go to where I would like it to go.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 01:43 AM

Yeah, just fuck money and everyone work out of Love, knowing what needs to be done.....ooops, wrong dimension....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 10:05 PM

"Wink" back atcha, GfinS... As per usual I am clueless (there, you can take that outta context when ya' need to) as to what you are talkin' about??? Bet you have a Bobert voodoo doll... jus' funnin"...

I mean, this is one mess of an idea...

Departments plan well into the futire and if they know that they can be cut in an election then they can't plan... But worse, they don't do the jobs we have hired them to do... They go out and spend their time trying to convince folks that what they do has value... Now you have the entire bureaucracy out there pitchin' their goods/services so they will be refunded???

This is a very bad idea, saul...

I mean, I give you a "10" for thinkin' but I'd have to give you a solid "8" for, ahhhhh, bad thinking...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 09:49 PM

Would that mean those who have no kids, or those whose kids are no longer in school, could opt out of paying for basic education for the next generation?

If you don't use the highways, well I guess you wouldn't want to pay to build or maintain them? I suspect that alone would eliminate many highways.

Criminals and the mob wouldn't want to pay for the police?

Pacifists wouldn't want to pay for the military?

I suspect it would be very complex and would have far reaching impact beyond what we could imagine.

As an alternative, I favour a basic tax that all have to pay (that you can't use tax breaks to reduce), including the corporations, for the infrastructure we all benefit from in some way or another throughout our lives. The amount beyond the basic could be reduced by tax dodges.

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 08:25 PM

Actually I liked that idea of Bush sr. and yours Saul ... if somehow one can direct their taxes to some meaning expenditure rather than having your taxes squandered off on the war machine, bailing out corporations or banks, going to pay off senators $fat$ lunches ... or whatever.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 08:17 PM

If I recall didn't Bush Sr. (when he was running for president the 2nd time) propose some idea where the income tax form would have a box where one could apply up to a certain percent of their tax to the national deficit.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 08:06 PM

Bobert: "Why??? It leaves to many decisions to whim and to corporations who buy media time to manipulate public opinion..."

...and why bother PAYING for media time to manipulate public opinion, when they can get yours, for free!!

Wink!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 12:00 AM

What I think is true, Saul, is that people often want less government, except for the things they favor...much as people find government in low esteem, except for their own legislators which they elect again and again.

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: saulgoldie
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 07:07 PM

Bobert,
My idea is ga-ron-teed to piss off everyone on some level. Therefore, it is a *good* idea.

It is "free market" since people will get exactly the government they want. No more, and no less. Probably, a lot less, actually. And being "free market," it should appeal to people who think that process is just this side of FSM.

John,

The "election" (in my idea, but subject to adjustment) would be every year, as paying taxes and the presentation of the national budget are done now.

Tabulating the results should not be any more difficult than any other election-type process, tax collection, or census. For people filing jointly, they would separately allocate their resources.

With regard to mingling, Paul, and Mary, things would be no worse or better than they are now. Perhaps, people could vote to allocate more money to handle the process and prosecute the nasties.

Personally, less government? Then you allocate for the tanks, and I'll allocate for the clean water supply and new hospital wings.

The whole point of this is that most people talk, talk, *scream* about "excessive government spending," (or at least the parts of it THEY don't like) and even attacking it with their "second ammendment options." But when they are polled, time after time by reliable poling organizations they indicate that they want far more from the government than they indicate they are willing to pay for.

With this program, they would have direct control over the government they get, and they would only have themselves to blame for what they got. If it was not to their liking, they could change their choices for the next round.

They would have to be more engaged in government, and understand what it is, what it is not, and what the cost is for what they want out of it. And along the way, they'd learn a few facts and arithmetic, too, which can only be a *good thing.*

Yes, the more I think about it the more brilliant this idea becomes.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 06:08 PM

Bad idea...

Why??? It leaves to many decisions to whim and to corporations who buy media time to manipulate public opinion...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 04:00 PM

I don't know, Saul, but that sounds more than a little cumbersome to me. I was taking you very seriously until this: "Environmental Protection, including protection of endangered species and cleaning up after "corporate people who evaded jailtime"" But I will pretend you are serious.

How often would we make these choices? Could they be changed as our individual priorities change?
You're dealing with a hundred-million-plus tax returns each year. In my household we file jointly, but Mrs. Sunset Coast and I have different views on what the Feds should do for the polity. Do we have to make a joint decision, or can we each apportion a share.
Also, can the government be trusted to use the monies as we wish? We know they comingle funds, borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, and from Alice to pay Peter...maybe.
And are you speaking of the Federal Government, State Government, Local Government, some combination or all?
Personally, I think the Feds should get out of almost everything except Military, Diplomacy, and some Infrastructure programs which affect interstate problems...roads, rivers, and air traffic for example.
Virtually all the rest should be returned to the states and to the people to determine.
Federal programs which should be eliminated should be phased out in an orderly manner which allows the states and localities to phase in their versions of the programs as approved by their citizenry.

Subject: BS: New Tax Structure Idea
From: saulgoldie
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 10:53 AM

Given that there is such confusion about the manifold taxes we pay, how we pay them, who pays them, and what they buy us, I have devised a novel approach. I am not going to go into the whole program--clear in my mind--which, although it is considerably less cumbersome than what we have now, is still several thousand words. Here are the high points:

"The people"--John Beohner's "people," Bernie Sanders' "people," the Koch Bros' "people," Keith Olbermann's "People," and Glenn Beck's, um "people," etc--decide how the taxes are spent. Yes, really. When we pay our taxes, which many (but not all) of us do, we are given a checklist for how to allocate our tax bill. (More detail is needed about this for many reasons, since some poor people pay no taxes, and many rich people, and "corporation 'people'" pay none at all.)

People would indicate how much of their tax dollars would go to:

Prisons
Health care
Unemployment
Regulation of, well, everything--building codes, food and medicine safety, professional regulation--teachers, doctors, lawyers, interstate commerce, broadband
Infrastructure--roads, bridges, airports, trains, the USPS, protection of the water supply, etc.
Military--service personnel, their health care, their education, planes, boats, tanks, guns, bullets, "intelligence,"
State Department--including maintaining embassies and disbursement of foreign aid
Police
Fire Departments
Hospitals
EMT personnel
Medicaire
Medicaid
Social Security
Environmental Protection, including protection of endangered species and cleaning up after "corporate people who evaded jailtime"
Dept of Agriculture
Salaries for government officials, including Congress, their staffs, the Supreme Court, including their staffs, and the President, including his/her staff
And more that I cannot think of at this moment without my next cup of jolt juice.

There are many advantages for this program. One is that, well, if you DO pay taxes, then you get to decide. Of course, I envision a basement income level--perhaps $40K--for which people would be given a ballot/checklist for X amount of expenditures. And also of course, this structure would necessarily be progressive, so that those making more money could not be grossly disproportionately represented. And of course, of course, those making gazillions and CHOOSE to NOT pay taxes, would have NO say in the process.

As I said, there are many details that I have left out. But this would allow us to get the government that we "the people:" truly want. You want all your dollars going to tanks? My money goes to education, health care, and prison reform. Oh, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, so they may ever be free of the necessity of beg-a-thons. We would see EXACTLY what "the people" want government to do and what they are willing to allocate to it.

And this would force the citizenry to actually LEARN about what it is that government does and the implications and ramifications, and become better informed, and even improve their embarrassing arithmetic skills.

OK, Catters. Have at it...

Saul