|
Post by davidindc on Jun 10, 2012 19:04:26 GMT -5
(A) The U.S. Tax Code shall be thoroughly rewritten.
(B) No household with an income at or below the federal poverty line (responsibility for making this calculation having been shifted to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) shall be subject to federal income taxation.
(C) All others shall be subject to a progressive tax on gross income, from a minimum tax rate of X% to a maximum tax rate of 3X%.
(D) All gross income, regardless of whether earned or unearned, whether generated by royalty, patent, capital gain or any other distinction without difference, shall be taxed at the same rate.
(E) There shall be only three, limited, deductions from taxable gross income:
¡Interest paid on mortgages for one's primary residence, up to a total of $YY,000.00; ¡Contributions to charitable institutions, up to a total of one-tenth of gross income; ¡Interest earned on bonds issued by the govenments of any state, municipality or other sub-division of U.S. domestic government.
|
|
|
Post by tonydestefanis on Jun 14, 2012 7:44:00 GMT -5
This is a good start. I believe that economic justice in taxation should be if not the number one grievance, at least in the top three. I like Section B as it incentivizes all stake holders to work toward raising the incomes of those on the bottom rung. I like section D, but I am a little concerned about eliminating deductions that much of the middle class depends upon such as the child tax credit, child care credit, medical expenses, student loan interest etc. Would love to see this expanded to also prevent corporations from not only paying no taxes, but getting huge amounts of cash back in credits.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 14, 2012 10:28:51 GMT -5
Does anyone have any polling data on a plan similar to this? I know there are bipartisan conversations around three brackets. And a Buffett tax on the super wealthy.
|
|
john
New Member
Texas-12
Posts: 39
|
Post by john on Jun 15, 2012 14:28:01 GMT -5
"Elimination of all tax deductions except: (1) interest paid on mortgages for one's primary residence; (2) Contributions to charitable institutions, up to a total of one-tenth of annual gross income; (3) Interest earned on bonds issued by the governments of any state, municipality or other sub-division of the federal and U.S. domestic government."
This seems a restrictive type of micromanaging. Shouldn't congress be allowed to use the tax deductions to encourage society beneficial behavior? Did they not so when they deemed it appropriate to allow deductions for mortgage interest?
If we can get the money out of elections and gratuities out of the hande of politicians, then they can be trusted to make decisions on tax deductions. They with the consent of the governed should be making the laws not us.
|
|
john
New Member
Texas-12
Posts: 39
|
Post by john on Jun 15, 2012 17:21:56 GMT -5
"Elimination of all tax deductions except: (1) interest paid on mortgages for one's primary residence; (2) Contributions to charitable institutions, up to a total of one-tenth of annual gross income; (3) Interest earned on bonds issued by the governments of any state, municipality or other sub-division of the federal and U.S. domestic government."
This seems a restrictive type of micromanaging. Shouldn't congress be allowed to use the tax deductions to encourage society beneficial behavior? Did they not so when they deemed it appropriate to allow deductions for mortgage interest?
If we can get the money out of elections and gratuities out of the hande of politicians, then they can be trusted to make decisions on tax deductions. They with the consent of the governed should be making the laws not us.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 16, 2012 1:39:51 GMT -5
The biggest problem I see with this is that it's not a "grievance".... it's a set of solutions, or a 'wish list'.
What is the grievance that those solutions redress?
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 16, 2012 1:41:59 GMT -5
I would also keep the deductions for dependants. A single mom with two kids to feed and clothe can't afford to be laying out even $500 to the IRS every year, but if she can't deduct her kids, she will end up paying when she should be getting a refund.
|
|
|
Post by indecankelly on Jun 18, 2012 16:25:47 GMT -5
I really like parts C & D.
Part C would get us back to the original intention of the Income Tax, as it was intended, to redistribute wealth. We need to reclaim that phrase "redistribute wealth" and put a proper positive connotation on it again. Also, the Income Tax should not be a tool for Congressional Pork Projects, where specific company A gets a tax advantage for specific product B, as a favor for campaign financing (It all comes back to Campaign Finance Reform, doesn't it?).
For Part D, I'm not sure why "stocks" are not subject to the same property standards as "goods and services", and or "real property". Why should Capital Gains have a better tax standard? Well, we all know the reason it does (rich people write the law), but we should be postulating that very notion to the public at large. Real investments are a good thing for the economy, but the buying and selling of stocks at nanosecond speeds for microscopic profits (fractions of a penny) with no barrier in doing so is not only bad politics, it's bad economics. We need clear language to end that "Las Vegas Economic" practice and theory.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan Duncanson on Jun 18, 2012 21:10:00 GMT -5
I feel that any tax on the producing of useful goods and services is generally bad for the economy and bad for society. That means we should not have any income taxes or sales taxes.
Instead, government should be funded by taxing land, natural resources, and special privileges to the full economy value of those resources and privileges. Land and natural resources are limited and required by everyone. Their market value increases with population, technology, and scarcity. All the things that give financial value to land and natural resources comes from society as a whole. Instead of taxing individual labor, tax the natural resources.
Doing this would make hoarding, monopolization, and speculating in land and natural resources unprofitable. It would strike at the root of unequal wealth distribution. And it would greatly simplify our tax system. Indeed, anyone who did not own land, natural resources, or special, limited privileges from the government would be free of taxation. The wealthiest people and corporations on earth own large amounts of land, rights to vast deposits of natural resources, and extremely valuable privileges granted to them and enforced by governments. The own these resources and have these privileges because they know they can use their monopoly (or monopoly-like) position to accumulate more wealth from society than they contribute to society.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene Karrels on Jun 19, 2012 9:01:04 GMT -5
I agree with the fact that our tax code needs to be changed and that all deductions need to be eliminated. I sent my congressmen my tax code; anyone making $25K or less wouldn't pay any taxes. Do we have a way of posting a file to this site? I never got a response from my congressman. If the republicans want corporations considered as people, this would be OK since we all would be paying taxes on income and it would be progressive.
|
|
john
New Member
Texas-12
Posts: 39
|
Post by john on Jun 19, 2012 9:50:32 GMT -5
indecankelly says: "Why should Capital Gains have a better tax standard? "...buying and selling of stocks at nanosecond speeds for microscopic profits...with no barrier in doing so is not only bad politics, it's bad economics. We" "...end that 'Las Vegas Economic' practice and theory."
Would not a transaction tax curtail speculation and increase federal revenues? I know I pay taxes on almost everything I purchase.
|
|
|
Post by kjlowry on Jun 19, 2012 13:09:28 GMT -5
The following suggestion is quoted from a comment by Richard Fobes on the New Declaration page at www.the99declaration.org/full_text?recruiter_id=835 Grievance is "Wall Street financial firms and similar politically active "taker" businesses avoid paying their fair share of taxes, while less-political "maker" businesses – such as Apple Corporation and family-owned restaurants and small software companies – struggle under a burden of excessively high tax rates, and this occurs because large "taker" corporations donate huge amounts of money to election campaigns to "buy" tax loopholes that unnecessarily complicate the tax code, and this legal tax evasion will continue until "taker" businesses are taxed at higher rates than "maker" businesses, with allowance for the in-between categories of "sales," "communication & packaging & transportation & storage," "maintenance & health care," and "teaching."
|
|
|
Post by athribiristan on Jun 20, 2012 12:19:01 GMT -5
2% flat tax across the board. No exceptions, no deductions. Simple as it can possibly get.
Maybe the rate would need to be adjusted but I think no higher than 5% at most.
Shane
|
|