OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012

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.

...

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?

MarkK wroted,

All I know is I'm one of the 53% that make up the households that still pay federal income taxes. But I'm getting closer to the 47% that don't. Then it won't matter what Obama or Romney does...

Dan Espen wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@home.home:

It's time to just dump the income tax altogether. Repeal the 16th Amendment, and institute a sales tax instead.

and institute a

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.

and institute a

It will never happen. Best is a flat income tax or even something like Cain's

Good idea. In that vein, I'd like to repeat my "Flat-Flat Tax" idea.

Assuming, in round numbers, the federal government needs $3.5 trillion. Assuming, again in round numbers, there are 350 million people in the U.S., then each person should pay $10,000 and that's the end of it.

Think of the simplicity!

"But," you might say, "what about the person who doesn't HAVE ten thousand dollars?"

They could donate one unit of blood plasma per month for which the government would credit $1,000 per unit (I call this the Federal Withdrawing Plan). In ten months each person could eliminate his or her liability.

"But, but, but..." you might complain, "what about the 18-year old mother of four precious snowflakes? She would be responsible for $50,000/year. Are you suggesting we draw blood from infants and toddlers?"

Of course not. That would be absurd, not to mention cruel. It's true that mom is on the hook for fifty large, and we certainly can't expect her to provide five units of blood plasma per month. But what she could do is contribute a kidney.

A kidney could replace a dialysis machine and is easily worth $250,000. One kidney would pay up her tax bill for FIVE YEARS!

"And at the end of five years, what would you do? Take her OTHER kidney?"

Absolutely not. That would be silly. She can't function without a kidney!. What she COULD do, is contribute a cornea.

Assuming a cornea is roughly the same value as a kidney, she'd have her tax liability controled for ANOTHER five years.

These two marketable items, coupled with the aforementioned blood platelets, would totally solve her tax problem for twelve, thirteen, or more years. By then, her children would be out on their own (or in jail), and she could go back to being a single taxpayer.

Now I know the above is not a COMPLETE solution, we may have to make exceptions for members of the military or those in necessary professions, like members of Congress.

I'm sure there will be tweaks.

But it's a starting point.

Every single one of these plans has "unspecified offsets" (don't worry, everything will be okay, just vote for me).

Someone will be along shortly to explain this to you.

"Bob F" wrote in news:jmictg$6f9$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

Ummmm.... no, actually it would have exactly the opposite effect. Think it through: who spends more, the rich or the poor?

In the case of the over taxed people of the US.

Tax cuts lead to prosperity, and growth. Reduces the stifling effect of over taxation.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

Every single one of these plans has "unspecified offsets" (don't worry, everything will be okay, just vote for me).

Someone will be along shortly to explain this to you.

Ummmm, yes.

This is basic tax theory, I shouldn't have to explain it.

Current income taxes are on a graduated scale. The more you make, the more you pay as a percentage.

With a sales tax that percentage difference goes away. Everyone pays the same rate. Big benefit number 1 to the rich.

Add to that, the poor are likely to spend 100% of their income. The rich are likely to save a good percentage of their income, thereby deferring any sales tax paid.

Depends on how it is structured, although that causes additional problems of its own. For instance most state sales taxes don't include most food, housing, health care, etc. This addresses these issues to a certain extent.

With a flat tax, I suspect there will be more economic activity. And the rich folks will do more spending. So, the increased number of transactions will make up for the lack of percentage points.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

Ummmm, yes.

This is basic tax theory, I shouldn't have to explain it.

Current income taxes are on a graduated scale. The more you make, the more you pay as a percentage.

With a sales tax that percentage difference goes away. Everyone pays the same rate. Big benefit number 1 to the rich.

Add to that, the poor are likely to spend 100% of their income. The rich are likely to save a good percentage of their income, thereby deferring any sales tax paid.

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.

Agreed.

Reminds me of every proposed flat tax plan. They all have "unspecified offsets".

Specify the offsets and we can talk. Until then it's a huge benefit to the rich.

You suspect?

Don't you really mean you pulled that out of your nether orifice?

And I guess you completely missed the current graduated tax part.

I guess you missed the part where the current graduated system has so many loopholes that the rich folks aren't paying those high rates anyway. You know, everything from tax free municipal bonds, to capital gains. Haven't you heard Obama whining? A flat tax, with just one or two rates would fix that. But of course, Obama isn't interested in that, is he? No. He wants to add to the complexity of the existing mess.

Is that a bad thing? After all, rich people buy stuff, and hire others.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

Specify the offsets and we can talk. Until then it's a huge benefit to the rich.

One of the problems wtih the current tax code. By giving loopholes and exemptions to certain behaviours, the tax people can reward and punish what behaviours they want. Changing behaviour, isn't the Constitutional reason for the tax system. The reason is to fund the (minimal) needs of the government.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

I guess you missed the part where the current graduated system has so many loopholes that the rich folks aren't paying those high rates anyway. You know, everything from tax free municipal bonds, to capital gains. Haven't you heard Obama whining? A flat tax, with just one or two rates would fix that. But of course, Obama isn't interested in that, is he? No. He wants to add to the complexity of the existing mess.