Dems should keep a PROGRESSIVE tax system

[Melodybe]

if you make millions a year then you can pay more fucking taxes.

A flat tax sounds simple but 30% of $12 grand is crippling for the poor.

I like to call it the Fair Share Tax plan, if you make more money you pay more taxes.

[The Magistrate]

1. Indeed, Ma'am

For the record, Mr. Adam Smith, who many rightist claim to swear by but evidently have not read, is foursquare in favor of progressive taxation, on the ground that as the wealthy derive more benefit from government, they ought to pay a greater proportion of its costs. That remains as true today as it was in the eighteenth century....

[queeg]

2. Why should somone with 12K pay any tax?

while a Knee jerk reaction just to say No, No,No. may have worked in the past it is time to get on with the business of moving this nation into the 21st century ---I think a tax plan where those under say 35k would pay No tax, and those above that would be subjected to a flat tax with deductions ONLY for child credits to be completely reasonable---

The whole F-ing point of a flat tax is to get rid of deductions for being a Republican or for owning three houses or for owning a nuclear power plant---its all those freking deductionss that allow millionaires to pay No tax---

I am For a reasonable flat tax system with the understanding that there are NO deductions and that at a specific point and below a person is not subject to tax.

[Spider Jerusalem]

4. Do you have any actual points?

Or can you only accuse those who disagree with you of "having knee-jerk reactions" and being "obstructionist", without even bothering to acknowledge any valid arguments against your position?

Hardly conducive to constructive debate.

[The Magistrate]

5. It Is Not That Simple, Sir

Deductions for mortgage interest, for example, are essential to widespread ownership of homes. Deductions for medical expenses are often invaluable.

The real fiddles have nothing to do with wage income. They involve wrinkles in investment, that generate paper losses deducted from actual income. The leading iniquity is the taxation of investment income at a lower rate than wage income. A flat tax on wage income would do nothing to adress any of these things, and no "flat tax" proposal suggests applying the rate to investment income as well as wages.

[Selatius]

6. Take the existing tax code and remove those deductions you oppose

It doesn't require you to totally toss out the baby with the bathwater.

Also, you can make the first 35,000 in earned income free from taxation by writing it into the existing tax code without having to restructure the entire code. All you'd have to do is increase the minimum amount where anything beyond that is taxed. In this case, you'd be moving the limit upward to 35,000.

For the current income tax, for instance, you could set a tax rate at 10% for everything after 35,000 but before 50,000. For everything between 50,000 and 250,000, you could set a rate at 20%. Then you could set a 30% rate for everything that falls between 250,000 to 500,000. You can make the existing code more progressive by readjusting the tax brackets up the income ladder as well as going through and systematically eliminating the loopholes and credits and gimmicks and whatever but at the same time incorporating in child tax credits and exemptions for purchasing a home, for instance.

[queeg]

7. and you just added 5000 pages to the tax code as it stands

Its the bigest pile of weasley ass loopholes and underpasses that Washington has ever contrived, and unless you can start with a blank slate it will NEVER get any better---it's time to think like a progressive and not an obstructionist.

[Selatius]

9. Demonstrate where you got the 5,000 figure from then

How long did it take you to come up with that calculation? Or are you tossing out a number on the fly?

You'd like to have an open conversation, and I'm trying to give you my views, but continuing to claim everyone who may hold a differing view as obstructionist isn't going to do anybody here any good. It would more likely harm the atmosphere needed for constructive discussions.

[queeg]

11. Point being you don't have a different view

other that No,No,No,No.NO

lot of good that does--and yeah obstructionist--if the shoe fit buddy

[Selatius]

13. That's an unfair characterization of my position, imho

I do propose reforms to the existing income tax, but I'm not going to do it at the expense of the working class while letting off the wealthiest corporatists in the land.

If you want the first 35,000 free, then write it into the current tax code. If you want to make the tax code even fairer, you could also couple that 35,000 credit with a 90% tax rate for earned income beyond, for instance, 1,000,000 dollars. You could also equalize the disparity between current capital gains taxes and the income tax and undo the current changes to the capital gains tax when the Bush tax cuts were enacted.

As far as taxes go, the ones who should pay should be the ones most able to pay. That's not true of the current tax code.

Also, you have yet to demonstrate where you got "5,000" from...

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. That's highly amusing.

No matter what anyone says to you on the issue, you just stick your fingers in your ears and chant "obstructionist" over and over again, like a bad-tempered child.

Can you see all right, with that beam in your eye?

[The Magistrate]

10. Ninety Percent Of Taxpayers, Sir

Encounter none of those things. Do not make the mistake of conflating personal wage income tax with all federal taxation. The things are very different.

[OneBlueSky]

3. progressive taxation worked very well in this country . . .

for a long time . . . until the greedy wealth-holders and their Congressional minions (many of whom are millionaires themselves) started chipping away at it . . . a return to true progressive taxation would be a good first step toward correcting the massive wealth imbalance that has resulted . . .

[podnoi]

8. Progressive Taxation is tied to the rise of the middle class

The tax code was changed to be more progressive at the end of the depression and is closely paralleled to the rise of the middle class.

[McKenzie]

12. as a high UK income tax payer

I totally agree that tax should be progressive. WTF I'd do with more money I can't fathom. That might sound a tad stupid but if we all asked ourselves "how much is enough?" we might get the basis of a good debate going. The ceaseless pursuit of more and more wealth is obsessive behaviour imho. It's not necessary so it must be driven by motivations other than simple necessity. Let's leave out the argument that personal advancement underpins our struggle to succeed in material terms because that requires detailed discussion; I want to keep this simple for now.

The oriental concept of yin and yang is relevant here. The current wealth imbalance is so great that our societal structures are waaay out of balance with the concomitant tensions that result therefrom. As long as we live in a society where wealth imbalance is so great that a large part of that society has to struggle to survive in the midst of obscene wealth is just asking for trouble. The imbalance wil eventually trigger a breaskdown to try and redress the situation.

In short, progressive taxation is an essential component of a fair and just society where equality of opportunity is open to all. The current concentration of wealth in a tiny segment of society excludes entrepreneurs from the market and makes a mockery of free market principles that would have Adam Smith turning in his grave.

[sweetheart]

15. But do you have to file

My UK taxes are taken without any obligation on my part of file
anything at all. It is impressively efficient and WAY more effective
than the US system of filing state and federal income tax forms of
awesome complexity to account for every possibility of how you earned
and spent money the previous year.

That said, the VAT is a progressive flat tax, and what a lot of tax
reform thinking is about, is to apply a similar progressive flat tax
as the european VAT.

[McKenzie]

16. PAYE Sweetheart

I've never filled out a tax form except when my taxation liabilities have changed.

Yes, it efficient and avoids abuses apart from corporate tax evasion (edit: avoidance is the correct term because it's legal)and offshore shell companies.

I'm glad I live in the UK (Scotland) although I'd live in France, Germany, Belgium or Holland at the drop of a hat. Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark are other possibilities.

regards

[sweetheart]

17. Flat taxes can be progressive

There is no reason, with the computer technology of 2005 for an
individual to have to assemble the tax returns of a previous era.
A progressive tax can be implemented at the "point of payment" all
across the economy, and not a single bit of paper need be filed or
filled out to achieve 100% compliance.

The mistake many folks make is th presume that the existing code IS
progressive to start with, and/or that a flat tax system will
be regressive. A flat tax like the european VAT is clearly progressive,
by the way it was implemented. Tax regimens are tools, like
screwdrivers, they are only regressive if you screw poor people, but
to attach this moral power to the tool is getting overly emotional.
You can just as well put the screws on rich people with a comprehensive,
unavoidable 100%-coverage payment tax.

[queeg]

18. DAMN straight

and exactly some of the points I am attempting to make--

Even pointing out that there may be a different way to implement a reasonable tax system that simplifies life seems to get jumped on without even an ounce of consideration that there may indeed be a better method that does away with the 10s of thousands of pages of the completely incomprehensible current tax system.

I lived in Australia 15 years ago when the Tax number system came into effect and trhe screams could be heard far and wide until the actual day that everyome filed...and guess what it was ok---and for the nuttos out there, this was proposed and implemented during the prime ministership of a progressive liberal. so there.