OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012

Page 1 of 8  
Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
(Yeah it's useless to complain about death or taxes, thanks for letting me rant)
Mark
TAX FAIRNESS ACT of 2012
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local governments from imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For example, a taxpayer should not have to pay taxes to the Federal government on a dollars that are paid to the state or local governments. This example is already true, state and local taxes ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends this to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.
1) Federal income taxes must not be levied on the following:
States Income tax payments
Local income tax payments
Real Estate and school tax payments
Sales tax payments
Charges by municipalities for water sewer garbage collection or other fees
Fees for using roads and bridges i.e. tolls
Fees paid to park on a public street
2) State income taxes must not be levied on the following:
Federal Income tax payments
Local income tax payments
Real Estate and school tax payments
Sales tax payments
Charges by municipalities for water sewer garbage collection or other fees
Fees for using roads and bridges i.e. tolls
Fees paid to park on a public street
3) Local income taxes must not be levied on the following:
Federal Income tax payments
State income tax payments
Sales tax payments
Fees for using roads and bridges i.e. tolls
Fees paid to park on a public street
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Seems Mark wants to pay less in taxes. Admirable. However, you would first have to set priorities where the diverse governments would cut their expenditures. Without doing that you can't cut taxes. So far NO ONE in or outside of Congress or government has set anything like a useful baseline for discussions, except perhaps the failed gang of six plan that (irresponsibly) was canned by both left and right.
If you want more deductions from federal taxes for taxes paid to other levels of government, or vice versa, you would have to raise rates to keep tax receipts at an "appropriate" level. Appropriate is of course a laughable term here.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Let's just go back to the budget of 2008. Add 3% per year for inflation. Then we'd be spending $3.3tril instead of $3.8tril. That's a savings of $500bil a year.

I didn't see the right do any such thing. At the time the plan per agreement was submitted to Obama, the Democrats had control of both the House and Senate. Obama, put it in a drawer and never made any attempt to have it discussed or pursue any of the ideas in it. The Republicans were open to many of the ideas in it. But anytime one of them even dares to put forward a proposal, the Dems just scream bloody murder and accuse them of trying to kill grandma.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much worse?
How will this help others with their home repair projects?
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's time to just dump the income tax altogether. Repeal the 16th Amendment, and institute a sales tax instead.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And this advanced economic theory is based on what? And what is it supposed to accomplish?
Sorry Doug, but the recent trend in American thinking to just say everything is screwed up and we have to change things rubs me the wrong way. Sounds like a perfect prescription for making things much, much worse.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:37:33 PM UTC-4, net cop wrote:

Everybody spends money, but not everybody "makes" money (on the books).

For one thing it would ensure that everyone paid their "fair share." Everyone would pay the same rate, but the rich spend more money so they would end up paying more taxes.
The overall rate would be lower because every dollar spent would be taxed.
It would encourage saving.
It would eliminate complex annual tax returns.
The infrastructure to collect the tax is already in place in most states.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 17, 3:10pm, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

That's true. One benefit of a national sales tax or a VAT tax is that it's harder to avoid.

The problem is that the rich would pay a lot less than they do under the current system or with a flat income tax. The rich do spend more, but I think very few are spending enough to come anywhere close to making up the income tax that would be lost.
Take Warren Buffet for example. He's paying around 18%. Even if he spent everything he makes, you'd have to have an 18% sales tax to equal it. And Buffet lives relatively modestly. I'll bet he doesn't spend 5% of what he earns.
And the tax would hit the poor, who pay no tax at all the hardest. You could partly offset that by making food, housing up to a certain point, etc exempt.
It's interesting, but I believe it would shift a lot more of the tax burden to the poor and middle class.


Yes, but with an economy just barely moving, it could also put us in a depression when people reduce buying.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Very doubtful. Investment income is taxed at a considerably lower rate than wage or salary income -- with the result that the rich generally pay a lower rate under the current system than do the middle class. Remember Warren Buffet and his secretary? Congress has been using the tax code as an instrument of social and economic policy for several generations. Without addressing the merits (or lack thereof) of doing so, I wish to point out that a sales tax can be *much* more finely tuned, in that respect, than an income tax, for example: -- no sales tax whatever on staple foods such as flour, sugar, eggs, milk, etc. but substantial sales tax on soda, potato chips, Twinkies, etc -- sales tax *rate* on meat tied to the per-pound price, e.g. 1% on hamburger and 10% on filet mignon -- no sales tax whatever on any used goods -- first $50K of the price of a home exempted and so on. We can argue about the specifics all day long, but there are many, many ways that a sales tax can be structured to minimize or eliminate its impact on the very poor.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

show that there are BIG differences in the effective rates between the top and bottom groups. Also, the bottom 40% actually get access to credits that result in them having a NEGATIVE effective rate.

He hasn't yet earned most of what he has earned since he takes relatively little salary and most of his wealth is in B-H stock. These we will never taxes from because he will most likely hold them until death and is giving most of it away as a tax deduction. We also wouldn't see them under a sales tax scenario.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yes, if you look only at the rates levied on "earned income" (wage and salary). "Unearned income" from capital gains is taxed at a much lower rate.
Making things worse, the "payroll taxes" (Social Security and Medicare) are levied only on earned income, and on the lower end of that to boot. For earned incomes above the social security cap, the higher the income the *lower* the effective rate of the so-called payroll tax (which is, of course, just another income tax with a different name).

In other words, a massive income redistribution scheme. That is not a good thing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Taking money away from those who work, to give that money to people who don't work. Sounds communist to me. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
I thought the USA was a constitutional republic with liberty and justice for all. Not a regime that rewards the idle.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .

In other words, a massive income redistribution scheme. That is not a good thing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Here's some information:
To qualify for EITC you must have earned income from employment, self-employment or another source and meet certain rules.
There are more details, go here:
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id 406,00.html
So, this particular money does not go to "people who don't work".
There goes your "communism" theory.
The people I know that qualify for EITC are doing jobs like dish washing making minimum wage. You could stop EITC and even tax them. The most likely result is that they'd end up homeless or resort to crime and wind up in prison.
Ever wash dishes for a living? I'm glad to say I have not, except when I was a soda jerk while in HS. Even as a HS student, I was working pretty hard.
As far as "rewarding the idle", I'm _still_ pretty sure Newt and company largely solved that problem. But if you have more reforms you can think of, I'm all ears. Because I don't want to reward the idle either.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So, I'm writing about giving money to people who don't work, and you use EITC as a rebuttal. Please include in the rest of the agencies and programs that give my tax dollars to people who don't work. And give yourself the bigger picture.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
writes:

Here's some information:
To qualify for EITC you must have earned income from employment, self-employment or another source and meet certain rules.
There are more details, go here:
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id 406,00.html
So, this particular money does not go to "people who don't work".
There goes your "communism" theory.
The people I know that qualify for EITC are doing jobs like dish washing making minimum wage. You could stop EITC and even tax them. The most likely result is that they'd end up homeless or resort to crime and wind up in prison.
Ever wash dishes for a living? I'm glad to say I have not, except when I was a soda jerk while in HS. Even as a HS student, I was working pretty hard.
As far as "rewarding the idle", I'm _still_ pretty sure Newt and company largely solved that problem. But if you have more reforms you can think of, I'm all ears. Because I don't want to reward the idle either.
--
Dan Espen



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you aren't talking about EITC, which IS in this thread, then I have to GUESS what you're talking about?
No thanks.
Let me repeat for the third time:
As far as "rewarding the idle", I'm _still_ pretty sure Newt and company largely solved that problem. But if you have more reforms you can think of, I'm all ears. Because I don't want to reward the idle either.
So I guess you and I agree on the matter.

--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope those numbers are based on the AGI, which includes income from all sources. It isn't until you get AGI that you start playing with the different rates.

your benefits, not someone else's (allegedly anyway). The cutoff for payroll taxes is exactly the cutoff for benefits. If I make a $1 million dollars, I only get MCare based on the cutoff point. Also, as I point out, the very lowest tax brackets have Earned Income and Child Care Credits and other such things which means they get money back over and above any withholding tax refunds. IRS figures clearly show that the bottom quintile STILL has a negative effective tax rate even after payroll taxes and the second one pays a very low rate.

Nope. But is then hard to suggest that the rich don't pay enough if the bottom 40% not only pay nothing, but get money, also.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry, but that's just not true. Income from long-term capital gains is taxed at a different [lower] rate than income from wages and salaries.
Here, learn something about how capital gains are taxed in the United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States
Note in particular these sentences extracted from the first paragraph of the article:
"Capital gains are generally taxed at a preferential rate in comparison to ordinary income. ... Short-term capital gains are taxed at the investor's ordinary income tax rate ... Long-term capital gains ... are taxed at a lower rate than short-term gains."

That "allegedly" is the key. The whole damn thing is a Ponzi scheme, everyone knows it, and if anybody other than the Federal government were running it, he would have been thrown in jail two generations ago.

That's not relevant to the point that higher earners have a lower effective tax rate.
Let's look at some real numbers, shall we?
The FICA tax of 6.2% applies only to the first $102,000 of wage or salary income; Medicare tax of 1.45% applies to all wage and salary income; and neither one applies to income from capital gains, interest, or dividends. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax
If your income is $100,000 from salary or wages, you pay 7.65% ($7,650) in these so-called "payroll taxes" which of course are income taxes disguised as something else.
If your income is $200,000 from salary or wages, you pay 6.2% on the first $102,000 ($6,324) plus 1.45% on all of it ($2,900) totalling $9,424 or 4.7%.
If your income is $500,000 from salary or wages, you pay 6.2% on the first $102,000 ($6,324) plus 1.45% on all of it ($7,250) totalling $13,574 or 2.7%.
If your income is entirely from investments, regardless of the amount, you pay NOTHING in these taxes.
The higher the income, the lower the effective rate.
The so-called "payroll tax" is a disguised income tax that is levied disproportionately on the poor and the middle class, and exempts most income received by the wealthy.
Oh, and by the way... if you're self-employed, you pay double.

So do you contend that this income redistribution scheme is a good thing?

Do you mean, nope it's not a good thing, or nope you disagree with me?

I have no problem with the bottom xx% paying nothing in tax. I do have a problem with giving other people's money to the bottom xx%.
And I have a *major* problem with someone whose income from capital gains far exceeds my income from salary paying a lower rate than I do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

explaining it. My figures are taxes paid as a %age of AGI. AGI is all income minus a few things every body takes off like deductions. What I am quoting is looking at the bottom line and dividing that by AGI. It is all of the various brackets and things like cap gains melted together, the final taxes due computed and THEN divided by the AGI.

Mr. Ponzi who did not send people armed with guns and asset seizure orders to get his investors.

money going to a specific program and thus I'll get it back (albeit at a VERY low rate of return.

Everybody pays double. To say otherwise is to pretend that the employer doesn't look at all employee-related expense when deciding what to a job is worth to them.

leave the efficiency part to others) addresses some of the progressivity issues you are bringing up.

Why, other than it offends you? (serious question, honest)
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You've never completed a Schedule D, have you?
Did you even read the article I cited?
Long-term capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than earned income. Period.

That may be -- but the fact still remains that the higher your income, the lower the rate you pay for these taxes.

Because it's fundamentally unfair: apart from exemptions for the very poor, everyone should pay the same rate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It would take a flat tax rate of around 20% to be revenue neutral. It would kick in above a certain threshold and cover all income types, no deductions. I'd be OK with that. I'd also be OK with a lower rate for low incomes so that they wind up paying some small amount in taxes and pay like the rest of us instead of zero. I'd be interested in what our liberal friends here think of that.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.