You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #56: Oh, it's simpler, allright! [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
Shagbark Hickory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-20-11 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #52
56. Oh, it's simpler, allright!
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -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 
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC