Shagbark Hickory
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-20-11 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #52 |
| 56. Oh, it's simpler, allright! |
| -Here's *MY* simplification of the federal income tax code |
scheming daemons |
Aug-20-11 10:52 AM |
#0 |
 -
I like it! |
ananda |
Aug-20-11 10:54 AM |
#1 |
| -
Don't look at me. |
Shagbark Hickory |
Aug-20-11 10:55 AM |
#2 |
 -
teabaggish? Closing all loopholes for corporations and setting it to 25%? |
scheming daemons |
Aug-20-11 10:57 AM |
#3 |
 -
If the mom and pop diner is making less than $119,643 their tax rate is already 25% or less. |
Make7 |
Aug-20-11 11:12 AM |
#17 |
| -
Ok.... so kick in the 25% rate at some number like profits above $150,000. |
scheming daemons |
Aug-20-11 11:23 AM |
#29 |
| -
Also... payroll tax is separate... I'd keep it the same but remove the caps so wealthy pay it |
scheming daemons |
Aug-20-11 10:58 AM |
#7 |
| -
Good grief. |
Shagbark Hickory |
Aug-20-11 11:14 AM |
#20 |
| -
Why? Payroll taxes are what 6% for SS and 3% for Medicare? |
scheming daemons |
Aug-20-11 11:15 AM |
#21 |
| -
You made a very valid effort to try to simplify the tax code. |
Shagbark Hickory |
Aug-20-11 11:42 AM |
#47 |
| -
tax on profit |
greymattermom |
Aug-20-11 10:59 AM |
#9 |
| -
I would tend to think so! |
Shagbark Hickory |
Aug-20-11 11:13 AM |
#18 |
| -
Indeed, many small businesses "incorporate" to protect their homes, cars, and so on. |
MADem |
Aug-20-11 11:00 AM |
#10 |
| -
Ok... tweak the corporate rates... but what about the individual simplification? |
scheming daemons |
Aug-20-11 11:08 AM |
#13 |
| -
I take it you think people making upper 20's-30 are poor. Why shouldn't they pay any tax? |
Shagbark Hickory |
Aug-20-11 11:16 AM |
#22 |
| -
They're still paying payroll taxes (SS and Medicare)..... |
scheming daemons |
Aug-20-11 11:21 AM |
#26 |
| -
Deleted message |
Name removed |
Aug-21-11 11:07 AM |
#134 |
| -
It really does depend on where you live. |
MADem |
Aug-20-11 11:29 AM |
#34 |
| -
Precisely. So why the same for the entire country when |
Shagbark Hickory |
Aug-20-11 11:36 AM |
#41 |
| -
Because you need to have a "starting point." |
MADem |
Aug-20-11 11:41 AM |
#46 |
| -
Like I said, so much for simplification. |
Shagbark Hickory |
Aug-20-11 11:44 AM |
#50 |
| -
Is it not simpler than the current system? |
scheming daemons |
Aug-20-11 11:45 AM |
#52 |
| -
Oh, it's simpler, allright! |
Shagbark Hickory |
Aug-20-11 11:53 AM |
#56 |
| -
Look that would be the FEDERAL burden. The state tax burden is a different thing entirely. |
MADem |
Aug-20-11 11:48 AM |
#53 |
| -
How's that working out? |
Shagbark Hickory |
Aug-20-11 11:55 AM |
#58 |
| -
How's what working out? I don't take your point. NT |
MADem |
Aug-21-11 09:17 AM |
#124 |
| -
You are arguing apples and oranges. State tax and Federal tax are UNRELATED. |
MADem |
Aug-21-11 09:19 AM |
#126 |
| -
I think your figures might be perceived by Congress as a bit generous. |
MADem |
Aug-20-11 11:26 AM |
# |
| -
30/60 is pretty darn close to the poverty level. |
scheming daemons |
Aug-20-11 11:27 AM |
#32 |
| -
Actually, no, it isn't. The federal "poverty level" for this year is just under eleven grand for an |
MADem |
Aug-20-11 11:33 AM |
#39 |
| -
Deleted message |
Name removed |
Aug-21-11 04:31 PM |
#136 |
| -
Mom and pop stores are usually sole proprietorships |
Lydia Leftcoast |
Aug-20-11 12:17 PM |
#76 |
| -
NO business should be a sole proprietorship! |
jmowreader |
Aug-20-11 04:51 PM |
#112 |
| -
But the FACT is that many are |
Lydia Leftcoast |
Aug-20-11 07:25 PM |
#119 |
| -
I know that, and it worries me |
jmowreader |
Aug-20-11 11:24 PM |
#120 |
| -
Deleted message |
Name removed |
Aug-21-11 11:04 AM |
#133 |
| -
Needs a little tweaking...... |
Uben |
Aug-20-11 10:57 AM |
#4 |
| -
Make another tier at say $2 million and above at 70-80% would be ok. |
scheming daemons |
Aug-20-11 10:57 AM |
#5 |
| -
The corporate tax rate should still be progressive. |
Make7 |
Aug-20-11 10:58 AM |
#6 |
| -
I'm ok with that |
scheming daemons |
Aug-20-11 10:59 AM |
#8 |
| -
Try this: Annual Income / 4,000 = tax rate. (Gets rid of brackets) |
NYC_SKP |
Aug-20-11 11:06 AM |
#11 |
| -
For somebody making $28,000, that's a 7% rate. No good. |
scheming daemons |
Aug-20-11 11:08 AM |
#12 |
| -
Then we add a little thing to the equation... |
NYC_SKP |
Aug-20-11 11:11 AM |
#15 |
| -
Why should someone making 30k pay nothing? |
taught_me_patience |
Aug-20-11 12:08 PM |
#68 |
| -
So.................? |
Coyote_Bandit |
Aug-20-11 11:10 AM |
#14 |
| -
No... somebody making $59,000 pays ZERO on their first $30,000... and 10% on the next 29,000. |
scheming daemons |
Aug-20-11 11:11 AM |
#16 |
| -
I misread the OP |
Coyote_Bandit |
Aug-20-11 04:40 PM |
#111 |
| -
Using your example: |
scheming daemons |
Aug-20-11 11:13 AM |
#19 |
| -
So much for a simplification! |
Shagbark Hickory |
Aug-20-11 11:17 AM |
#23 |
| -
What's so hard about that? |
scheming daemons |
Aug-20-11 11:20 AM |
#24 |
| -
People that think that multiple brackets are too complicated |
Telly Savalas |
Aug-21-11 09:26 AM |
#128 |
| -
This is simplication. |
NutmegYankee |
Aug-20-11 11:22 AM |
#28 |
| -
It is very simple and it is called progressive taxation and it is no different |
Luminous Animal |
Aug-20-11 12:07 PM |
#66 |
| -
That's extremely simple, it's that way already, but with all the BS loopholes... |
joshcryer |
Aug-21-11 09:19 AM |
#125 |
| -
You clearly don't understand how taxes work. |
alcibiades_mystery |
Aug-20-11 12:25 PM |
#85 |
| -
Ummmm...... |
Coyote_Bandit |
Aug-20-11 04:39 PM |
#110 |
| -
Oy vey |
alcibiades_mystery |
Aug-20-11 05:22 PM |
#114 |
| -
Ummmm...... |
Coyote_Bandit |
Aug-20-11 05:35 PM |
#115 |
| -
Gahahahahaha |
alcibiades_mystery |
Aug-20-11 05:59 PM |
#116 |
| -
One thing I don't understand: Why do "Families" get a different rate? |
cleanhippie |
Aug-20-11 11:20 AM |
#25 |
| -
By families, I mean two earners filing jointly.... both parents working... two breadwinners |
scheming daemons |
Aug-20-11 11:22 AM |
#27 |
| -
I understand that, I just don't understand why. |
cleanhippie |
Aug-20-11 11:26 AM |
#30 |
| -
I guess the assumption is that if both spouses work, they should combine their salaries into one tax |
scheming daemons |
Aug-20-11 11:30 AM |
# |
| -
Exactly. Why is there an incentive for marriage? |
cleanhippie |
Aug-20-11 11:31 AM |
#37 |
| -
Conventional wisdom says that married people will produce worker bees who will contribute |
MADem |
Aug-20-11 11:38 AM |
#43 |
| -
Yes, I think you hit it spot on. But I cannot tell whether you agree or not with my premise. |
cleanhippie |
Aug-20-11 12:07 PM |
#65 |
| -
I'll be honest, I'm not terribly invested in an opinion either way--yet. |
MADem |
Aug-21-11 09:21 AM |
#127 |
| -
Couldn't agree more with clean hippie. |
Shagbark Hickory |
Aug-20-11 11:30 AM |
#35 |
| -
While I am 100% Pro-choice, I do not understand why we incentivize having kids. |
cleanhippie |
Aug-20-11 11:34 AM |
#40 |
| -
Me neither! |
Shagbark Hickory |
Aug-20-11 11:38 AM |
#44 |
| -
It isn't an incentive for children - it's for marriage. |
NutmegYankee |
Aug-20-11 11:42 AM |
#48 |
| -
Yes, but WHY? |
cleanhippie |
Aug-20-11 11:54 AM |
#57 |
| -
Marriage is thought to make for a stable society. |
NutmegYankee |
Aug-20-11 12:19 PM |
#78 |
| -
So they can pay your social security, that's why. |
MADem |
Aug-20-11 11:43 AM |
#49 |
| -
I get that part, but it would seem we are in a never-ending spiral that requires |
cleanhippie |
Aug-20-11 12:05 PM |
#64 |
| -
Why would we need to continually increase the population? |
Luminous Animal |
Aug-20-11 12:24 PM |
#84 |
| -
. |
cleanhippie |
Aug-20-11 12:27 PM |
#87 |
| -
That's why we need to seek out new planets, Cap'n Kirk! nt |
MADem |
Aug-21-11 09:16 AM |
#123 |
| -
So that there are people around to wipe your ass when you can't do it anymore. |
Luminous Animal |
Aug-20-11 11:56 AM |
#59 |
| -
We need to have more children so that they can work in nursing homes? |
cleanhippie |
Aug-20-11 12:08 PM |
#67 |
| -
Among many other things. The children of today are the workers of tomorrow who |
Luminous Animal |
Aug-20-11 12:28 PM |
#88 |
| -
Agreed. And with unemployment near 10%, wouldn't it make sense to decrease |
cleanhippie |
Aug-20-11 12:31 PM |
#90 |
| -
I'm totally for negative population growth. Currently, the U.S. fertility is about |
Luminous Animal |
Aug-20-11 12:37 PM |
#93 |
| -
So how do we accomplish that? |
cleanhippie |
Aug-20-11 12:38 PM |
#94 |
| -
As I stated below, most European countries provide excellent support for families and |
Luminous Animal |
Aug-20-11 12:46 PM |
#96 |
| -
There are several thoughts behind it. |
NutmegYankee |
Aug-20-11 11:30 AM |
#36 |
| -
Yes, but that is a personal choice. |
cleanhippie |
Aug-20-11 11:33 AM |
#38 |
| -
Because society values Families. nt |
NutmegYankee |
Aug-20-11 11:39 AM |
#45 |
| -
Come on, thats not an answer. |
cleanhippie |
Aug-20-11 11:56 AM |
#60 |
| -
In Europe, definitely. Not so much in the U.S. |
Luminous Animal |
Aug-20-11 11:58 AM |
#61 |
| -
Families or married have more earners or mouths to feed. |
NutmegYankee |
Aug-20-11 11:26 AM |
# |
| -
I understand that, but creating "more mouths to feed" is a personal choice, no? |
cleanhippie |
Aug-20-11 11:28 AM |
#33 |
| -
The other mouth to feed may be the spouse. |
NutmegYankee |
Aug-20-11 11:37 AM |
#42 |
| -
While I strongly agree that children ARE important... |
cleanhippie |
Aug-20-11 12:09 PM |
#70 |
| -
Two children per family is a sustaining rate. |
NutmegYankee |
Aug-20-11 12:11 PM |
#73 |
| -
Well, I feel that we would be better off if population DECREASED for a decade or two. |
cleanhippie |
Aug-20-11 12:18 PM |
#77 |
| -
I sure wouldn't. |
NutmegYankee |
Aug-20-11 12:22 PM |
#81 |
| -
Perhaps. I would like to see the numbers on that. |
cleanhippie |
Aug-20-11 12:29 PM |
#89 |
| -
Oh lord, our great grandparents managed to educate the baby boomers. |
Luminous Animal |
Aug-20-11 12:35 PM |
#92 |
| -
Owning a car is a personal choice and that is subsidized with taxes. |
Luminous Animal |
Aug-20-11 11:59 AM |
#62 |
| -
What are you talking about? |
cleanhippie |
Aug-20-11 12:12 PM |
#74 |
| -
No, you clearly stated that you thought combining family income is unfair. |
Luminous Animal |
Aug-20-11 12:22 PM |
#82 |
| -
And I agree with everything you stated. |
cleanhippie |
Aug-20-11 12:25 PM |
#86 |
| -
Most European countries have far greater benefits for families and yet most European |
Luminous Animal |
Aug-20-11 12:41 PM |
#95 |
| -
So is owning a house a "personal choice". Do away with the mortgage deduction then? |
cherokeeprogressive |
Aug-20-11 12:49 PM |
#98 |
| -
As the OP stated, there will be zero deductions. Not for mortgages. Not for children. |
Luminous Animal |
Aug-20-11 01:11 PM |
#100 |
| -
## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ## |
DU GrovelBot |
Aug-20-11 11:26 AM |
#31 |
| -
I agree with this. There are WAY too many deductions. |
Odin2005 |
Aug-20-11 11:44 AM |
#51 |
| -
Works for me. My very small business nets me considerably less than 30k these days. |
kestrel91316 |
Aug-20-11 11:49 AM |
#54 |
| -
Armies of unemployed accountants |
Turbineguy |
Aug-20-11 11:51 AM |
#55 |
| -
I like a flat progressive tax but not this idea |
taught_me_patience |
Aug-20-11 12:05 PM |
#63 |
| -
Oh for fucks sake! |
NutmegYankee |
Aug-20-11 12:09 PM |
#69 |
| -
No shit. I live in San Francisco and 250K is wealthy. |
Luminous Animal |
Aug-20-11 12:14 PM |
#75 |
| -
What is a flat progressive tax? |
Luminous Animal |
Aug-20-11 12:11 PM |
#71 |
| -
Progressive tax rates with no deductions or credits. n/t |
taught_me_patience |
Aug-20-11 12:19 PM |
#79 |
| -
Ah, I was confused because flat rate and progressive rate are two different things. |
Luminous Animal |
Aug-20-11 12:47 PM |
#97 |
| -
Think this through |
Lydia Leftcoast |
Aug-20-11 12:23 PM |
#83 |
| -
I'm for the rich paying more, but for everybody to pay |
taught_me_patience |
Aug-20-11 02:31 PM |
#109 |
| -
Wow, how humanitarian of you |
Lydia Leftcoast |
Aug-20-11 07:24 PM |
#118 |
| -
In the 1950s IRS Form 1040A was literally a postcard. N/T |
GreenStormCloud |
Aug-20-11 12:11 PM |
#72 |
| -
For corporate tax, the "deductions" come at the point where you figure profit or loss |
Lydia Leftcoast |
Aug-20-11 12:20 PM |
#80 |
| -
As a family between 60-120K, you would be raising my taxes. |
aikoaiko |
Aug-20-11 12:32 PM |
#91 |
| -
I think that is fair. |
Luminous Animal |
Aug-20-11 12:49 PM |
#99 |
| -
Sure, a middle class family like mine can take another hit. |
aikoaiko |
Aug-20-11 01:18 PM |
#104 |
| -
Edited because, as pointed out below... your whining is unwarrented. |
Luminous Animal |
Aug-20-11 01:42 PM |
#107 |
| -
basd on your post #102, you misunderstood too. |
aikoaiko |
Aug-20-11 06:55 PM |
#117 |
| -
Based on the OP, wouldn't your effective tax rate be 0 - 5% for that income level? ( n/t ) |
Make7 |
Aug-20-11 01:11 PM |
#101 |
| -
Not if deductions are eliminated. |
Luminous Animal |
Aug-20-11 01:12 PM |
#102 |
| -
No, it would go up 2 - 4 % to 10% |
aikoaiko |
Aug-20-11 01:15 PM |
#103 |
| -
If your income was $120,000 for a family... |
Make7 |
Aug-20-11 01:25 PM |
#105 |
| -
The effective tax rate is not the same as a bracket. |
NutmegYankee |
Aug-20-11 01:30 PM |
#106 |
| -
That's a huge tax cut and we can't afford it |
Yo_Mama |
Aug-20-11 01:45 PM |
#108 |
| -
no offense but until you model |
melm00se |
Aug-20-11 04:58 PM |
#113 |
| -
Eliminating the home owner's mortgage interest & property tax deductions would be a BIG HIT for the |
supraTruth |
Aug-21-11 02:11 AM |
#121 |
| -
Add able to deduct all overhead and you have me. |
RegieRocker |
Aug-21-11 02:16 AM |
#122 |
| -
Haven't read the whole thread, has anyone done the numbers on this? (edit) |
joshcryer |
Aug-21-11 09:31 AM |
#129 |
| -
Found the tables: |
joshcryer |
Aug-21-11 09:38 AM |
#131 |
| -
For companies what do you mean by profits? Amount left after expenses? |
Logical |
Aug-21-11 09:33 AM |
#130 |
| -
Everyone who makes a lot of money will just incorporate and pay the corporate taxes |
metalbot |
Aug-21-11 09:58 AM |
#132 |
| -
Your last line is what is wrong w/ALL little stevie forbes' "flat" tax plans. |
supraTruth |
Aug-21-11 04:06 PM |
#135 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
