Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Killfile's column >>

KILLFILE

Home Page
Epicurean Intelligentsia
Articles Posted: 382  Links Seeded: 10284
Member Since: 2/2006  Last Seen: 5/20/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Democrats Must Embrace Tax Reform

Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:57 AM EDT
politics, obama, republicans, democrats, taxes, election-2012, cain, election-news, tax-reform, fair-tax, gop-primary, 999, 9-9-9
By Killfile

Here's how Cain's 9-9-9 plan changes tax liabilities. Since you probably can't read it, the four blue columns represent quintiles of US Tax Payers (bottom 20%, next 20% etc) and the two red columns the upper 1% and 0.1%.

Advertise | AdChoices

Herman Cain has urged Americans to "do the math" on his 9-9-9 plan, a tax reform package which would replace the whole of the US tax code with all its convolutions and deductions, with a simple system of a 9% flat income tax, a 9% sales tax, and a 9% corporate tax.  The math is pretty stark; by any reasonable measure, Cain's plan amounts to a significant tax INCREASE for the majority of Americans.  Indeed, the bottom 80% of Americans would see their total tax burden go UP under Cain's plan.

Yet Cain's tax reform package still enjoys widespread support from the Republican rank and file.  

These people are by no means rich.  Most Republican voters fall, economically, into the same strata as most Democratic voters.  The rural poor (who vote Republican) more or less balance out the urban poor (who vote Democratic) and the middle classes shake out fairly evenly too.  That means that Republicans who support Cain's plan either haven't done the math (and probably don't care to) or support it despite its impact on their personal bottom line.

Much the same can be said of other flat tax proposals, the so-called Fair Tax (which has its own complications), and a host of others besides.  What all of these proposals share, however, is the commonality of simplicity.  

The US Tax Code is stupidly complicated.  


 

Pages upon pages - tens of thousands of them - make up modern American tax law.  Tax law is an entire sub-discipline of legal study in this country and accountants train and study for years to master the complexities of their end of the tax system.  Americans spend upwards of 6 BILLION man-hours doing taxes every year and the tax preparation industry -- and yes, there is such an industry -- employs more than three MILLION people, just over 1% of the working population.  

Dismal employment market notwithstanding, that's too many people.  

So it is no small wonder that Americans support tax reform.  Not only are we frustrated by our taxes, we're unsure of what they are even supposed to be.  Many Americans are rightfully suspicious that, buried within those reams of tax law is a provision or two that could save them a lot of money if they had the expertise to find it.  That suspicion breeds resentment and that resentment leads many to support proposals which, while ultimately bad for them economically speaking, would at least make the whole sordid mess less complicated.

When business leaders make statements like the following there is a problem:

A 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named, told ABCNews.com that she plans to cut back on her business to get her annual income under the quarter million mark should the Obama tax plan be passed by Congress and become law.

"We are going to try to figure out how to make our income $249,999.00," she said.

The tax debate in this country is steeped in ignorance and misinformation and fueled by frustration and resentment.  While the Democrats can afford to embrace the status quo on many fronts, tax policy is not one of them.  It is not enough for Obama to cling to the popularity of raising taxes on the wealthy; he must address the populist underpinnings of the tax reform movement or risk losing disillusioned voters to the understandably cynical notion that the wealthy can always exploit the complexity of the tax code to hide from higher taxes.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Killfile's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: cheapdirtystuntsbyGOPfascists, Democrats, Economic Recovery Watch, EconVine, FIRED UP DEMOCRATS!, GOP Watch , Left of Center, Media Watch, Michael Moore's Army, Obamaholics Anonymous, Old viners, Open Minded, Political Analysis, Political Economy , Stating the Obvious, Talking Heads, US News and Views , Writers Without Boundaries
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (104)
Killfile

Wow. I haven't written an article in forever; the kids are keeping me busy.

In any case, I'm getting a lot of populist tax reform from my Republican friends. As this article points out, I think a big chunk of that stems from frustrations with the complexity of the US Tax code. Americans want something simpler and they're willing to accept a more regressive system if it makes things easier.

  • 17 votes
#1 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:00 AM EDT
trm2008

We missed you.

That graph is priceless. I don't understand how any one that isn't rich can support Cain's "sim city" plan.

  • 19 votes
#1.1 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:06 PM EDT
ChrisRonk

It is nice to see you on the Vine again. It has been a long time. Your liberal perspective is always tempered with a sound sense logic and reason, which is refreshing to see here.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't Obama already working on a tax reform plan?

  • 5 votes
#1.2 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:09 PM EDT
Killfile

If I'm not mistaken, isn't Obama already working on a tax reform plan?

Possibly, but it's not enough to work on it, he has to talk about it. More to the point, he has to get other Democrats talking about it. Taxes and their relationship to jobs will be the major issue of the 2012 elections and if the GOP has an issue monopoly on the position of "overhaul the entire tax code and replace it with something a gradschooler can understand" it's going to be a seriously uphill fight for the Democrats.

  • 9 votes
#1.3 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:26 PM EDT
madvargr

Just reset it back to the code from 1955. Back to a time before the GOP began its assault on the Middle Class.

  • 10 votes
#1.4 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:39 PM EDT
SCTexan

How about this plan- go back to the Clinton tax rates and the Clinton budget?

I believe your graph does show how much the top are paying in relation to the rest of us. But we need to acknowledge that a 1% tax increase on the 2nd & 3rd quintiles will generate far more tax revenues than a 5% on the upper quintile.

  • 1 vote
#1.5 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:57 PM EDT
LCS

No one should be paying 40% to 50% of their income on taxes. Thats working 1/2 of the year, for the government.

We in America are a spoiled bunch, and soon to fall, if we dont start saving. Spend on what you need, and sprinkle in a few wants. Do you need 5 cars per family? Do you need 10 televisions? I suggest buy American? Be it television or car, or find a product that is at least, partly made here.

The 9% sales tax 9% income tax 9% corporate tax, propose, with no loopholes. Sounds fair to me. Personally I think a progressive tax, say 1%, 3%, 5%, 7%, 12%, 17%, 20% with no loopholes or writeoffs would be better. More people pulling the wagon, and lest people sitting in it. Did you ever notice the ones sitting in the wagon are the ones complaining?

back to my Tall Iced Tea & Stogey

  • 9 votes
#1.6 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:59 PM EDT
northtosouth

What struck me was the Louisiana attorney:

A 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named, told ABCNews.com that she plans to cut back on her business to get her annual income under the quarter million mark should the Obama tax plan be passed by Congress and become law.

"We are going to try to figure out how to make our income $249,999.00," she said.

It's funny how she's thinking about cutting back on her business as a way to reduce income exposure instead of hiring an employee. This is indicative of "job creators" and a prime example of why trickle-down economics (voodoo economics as coined by George HW Bush) does not work.

  • 15 votes
#1.7 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:07 PM EDT
madvargr

A 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named, told ABCNews.com that she plans to cut back on her business to get her annual income under the quarter million mark should the Obama tax plan be passed by Congress and become law.

Oh joy - another braindead moron who doesn't know what the @!$%# a marginal rate is or how our tax structure works. This country is so doomed.

  • 14 votes
#1.8 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:17 PM EDT
northtosouth

Oh joy - another braindead moron who doesn't know what the @!$%# a marginal rate is or how our tax structure works.

And she's an attorney. Makes you think what kind of school she went to.

  • 8 votes
#1.9 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:42 PM EDT
SeattleBrian

A 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named, told ABCNews.com that she plans to cut back on her business to get her annual income under the quarter million mark should the Obama tax plan be passed by Congress and become law.

"We are going to try to figure out how to make our income $249,999.00," she said.

The reason she "asked not to be named" is because she doesn't exist. I call BS on this one.

Say she made 251,000 instead of 249,999. That extra $1001 in profit would result in $40 more in taxes "should the Obama Tax Plan be passed" than it would be today. She'd give up $1000 dollars in income to not pay 40 in extra taxes? yea..right..

  • 11 votes
#1.10 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:03 PM EDT
northtosouth

She'd give up $1000 dollars in income to not pay 40 in extra taxes? yea..right..

Believe it or not, there are many people out there who would do this simply because they don't understand the tax code. And for those who are going to chime in about a flat tax, don't because it's regressive and does not work.

  • 7 votes
#1.11 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:51 PM EDT
Jack TX

I think a big chunk of that stems from frustrations with the complexity of the US Tax code. Americans want something simpler and they're willing to accept a more regressive system if it makes things easier.

Nail. On. Head.

9-9-9 is a disaster in the making, but it's easy to understand.

  • 8 votes
#1.12 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:53 PM EDT
northtosouth

It's also easy to understand that a $9.99 pizza from Godfathers was a disaster in the making as well!

  • 4 votes
#1.13 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:56 PM EDT
Sageof50years

I personally do not like the 9-9-9 plan, and I typically vote non-Democrat. It sets up a huge potential for abuse. It won't take long before politicians on both sides start ramping up all three taxes. Note also that his plan does not eliminate other direct and indirect taxes, so your overall tax burden will increase.

The single problem with all the tax plans currently discussed is the same and a simple one. They are all legislation, which means that it can be changed at will after passage, and thus will never last.

Any tax change must be a Constitutional amendment. That way the legislature cannot go right behind it and ramp up the amounts (or gut it/rewrite it entirely), thus negating the value of the law.

    #1.14 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:17 PM EDT
    northtosouth

    Any tax change must be a Constitutional amendment. That way the legislature cannot go right behind it and ramp up the amounts (or gut it/rewrite it entirely), thus negating the value of the law.

    Unfortunately, tax rates fluctuate based on economic conditions and must be able to do so.

    • 4 votes
    #1.15 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:19 PM EDT
    SeattleBrian

    Believe it or not, there are many people out there who would do this simply because they don't understand the tax code.

    Yea, but how many of those people run businesses and make over 250k? I still call "BS" on the quote from the 'unnamed lawyer."

    I do agree the tax code is hopelessly complicated.. (AMT--holy c***--I just fill in the numbers and cross my fingers that "Turbotax" is doing it right). But the complexity has nothing to do with whether taxes are progressive or not.

    • 2 votes
    #1.16 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:22 PM EDT
    northtosouth

    Yea, but how many of those people run businesses and make over 250k? I still call "BS" on the quote from the 'unnamed lawyer."

    Like I said, you'd be surprised. After spending 5 years in Florida I've come to realize that intelligence isn't a pre-requisite to making money.

    • 5 votes
    #1.17 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:32 PM EDT
    I'm God

    The people in that deep red 0.1% bar have now been scientifically identified.

    There are exactly 147 of them.

    • 4 votes
    #1.18 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:59 PM EDT
    Chuck1968

    Any tax change must be a Constitutional amendment.

    Yes , of course. Just as soon we institute a Constitutional Amendment regarding any changes in prices from private businesses.

      #1.19 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:53 PM EDT
      Oliver Closoff

      I've spent a lot of time over the years studying tax ( my Graduate thesis was tax related) and evaluated most tax plans that have come along.

      Here is how I rate them. If I pay more then they are bad, if I pay less then I want to know what's the catch. Then you have the law of unintended consequences to deal with.

      Nevertheless, I have been a supporter of comprehensive tax reform over the years. I do know this however, uncertainty in the tax system can create a lot of problems. Need to come up with a fair plan then stick with it.

      • 1 vote
      #1.20 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:46 PM EDT
      Ben-478550

      The tax code should be reformed. Eradicate most corporate loopholes -- we could effectively "lower" their tax rate and still make a mint on tax revenue.

      • 1 vote
      #1.21 - Fri Oct 21, 2011 10:16 AM EDT
      I'm God

      It's called Georgism.

      It's very simple. You declare all shared resources - arable land, mining rights, roads, carbon credits, network bandwidth, whatever private interests should not control for the public good - to be publicly owned. Then set up a market for leases on those resources.

      This market lets people - corporate or not - bid to secure public leases for limited periods. Each lease goes to the highest bidder and the returns go straight into public pockets - the pockets of the individual people, equally, not into some government purse for redistribution by a corruptible bureaucrat - as a fair payment from the private user to the public owner.

      That last part is called social credit. Then institute a fixed sized money supply controlled by the federal government, not the federal reserve, outlaw all forms of usury, especially fractional reserve lending, and declare a jubilee on all debts owed by individual people to corporate people.

      A bunch of corporations go bankrupt, sure. But 99% of the people immediately and permanently benefit.

      That's what revolution looks like.

      • 4 votes
      #1.22 - Fri Oct 21, 2011 11:24 PM EDT
      Reply
      naughtynumbernine

      Intriguing article. More simplicity would definitely be beneficial.

      • 9 votes
      Reply#2 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:24 AM EDT
      Pacific Northwest Blogger

      Yes ravamp the tax codes, remove the corporate loopholes...

      • 8 votes
      Reply#3 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:25 AM EDT
      naughtynumbernine

      Why not remove all loopholes?

      • 9 votes
      #3.1 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:36 AM EDT
      Chris-382117

      naughtynumbernine

      Why not remove all loopholes?

      Exactly. I, like many I know understand that we must generate more revenue; that isn't an issue. My issue is that, until we get control of congress and take the bottle of "Ol' Spendaholic" away from them, no matter how much Revenue we give them, they will just spend it all and come back next month for more.

      For the past 50+ years congress has spent like a drunk sailor in a whorehouse. And, it is both parties; The Republicans spend on one thing and the Democrats spend on something else, but the operative word is spend. When they aren't spending, they are giving generous tax loopholes to their friends, contributors, supporters, and ideological brethren.

      I believe that we need to remove all tax loopholes from everyone above the poverty Line. If you don't have any skin in the game, you don't care if the game is sustainable, if it is honest, or if the Refs are doing their job. Everybody needs to pay some tax, even if it is only 2 bucks. Otherwise, you don't care if they raise taxes; it isn't you that pays for it. but, for the past 50+ years, politicians have gotten votes by giving loopholes to their supporters in exchange for votes.

      I'm fine with taxes going up across the board as long as we remove the loopholes for everyone and get congress back under control. However, until we get control of them and their free spending, I am not willing to give them as much as another Brass farthing.

      • 6 votes
      #3.2 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:10 PM EDT
      trm2008

      http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

      http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

      The debt started to increase dramatically in 1980--30 years ago.

      • 8 votes
      #3.3 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:41 PM EDT
      LCS

      naughtynumbernine

      Ya hit the nail right on the head!

      The crooked lobbyist in Washington, are there for one thing, and one thing only, MONEY.

      Take away the MONEY. Getting rid of writeoffs, and loopholes, will take care of most of this, and give less ammunition for politicians, to use class warfare.

      Back to my Tall Iced Tea & Stogey

      • 2 votes
      #3.4 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:05 PM EDT
      hugh b

      all lobby money comes from the people, the cost of lobbying is made up in the costs businesses charge for their products, etc.

      • 1 vote
      #3.5 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:47 PM EDT
      Reply
      bob-1478320

      As long as there is a progressive structure to taxation there will be people that may try to keep income below a certain $ amount because a small increase in income may mean a disproportionate increase in tax liability.
      Simplification is needed. Also we need to decide if income taxes are to be used as a source of funding for spending or as a tool of social engineering

      • 2 votes
      Reply#4 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:40 AM EDT
      Killfile

      As long as there is a progressive structure to taxation there will be people that may try to keep income below a certain $ amount because a small increase in income may mean a disproportionate increase in tax liability.

      Not to be rude, but you sort of proved my point here.

      The US tax structure -- which is progressive -- is a MARGINAL structure. That means that as higher tax rates kick in, they only apply to money you earn above and beyond the floor for that rate.

      Example: Consider, in a hypothetical system, Joe Sixpack and Joe Moneybags. J. Sixpack makes $25,000 a year. J. Moneybags makes $250,000 a year. In this contrived example, there exist two tax brackets. People making $25,000 or under pay 10% of their income and people making more than that have a top marginal rate of 20%.

      So J. Sixpack pays $25,000 * 0.1 or $2,500.

      You might think that J. Moneybags pays $250,000 * 0.2 or $50,000 but he doesn't. Instead his tax liability is calculated as follows

      $25,000 * 0.1 + 225,000 * 0.2 = $47,500

      Every dollar J. Moneybags earns over $25,000 is taxed at the higher rate but any money he earns up to that point is taxed at the lower rate. This ensures that there is never any monetary benefit to keeping your income below a certain threshold.*

      Please, please, please read and understand this. If any of it doesn't make sense for any reason please ask me to explain it. This is the single most important concept in the entire US tax debate. If you don't understand this you can't understand anything else and you're probably going to be manipulated into voting against your own best interests.

      * Caveat: some lump tax credits and some entitlement programs are tied to your income level and are not percentage based. As such, it is possible for one's income to go up by a few dollars and consequently lose a benefit worth hundreds or thousands of dollars. This is stupid. Generally speaking, however, this only happens to people at or near the poverty line as most of these benefits and programs are for the poor.

      • 21 votes
      #4.1 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:59 AM EDT
      trm2008

      a small increase in income may mean a disproportionate increase in tax liability

      In reality, no it doesn't. Any one that follows that strategy is clueless.

      • 9 votes
      #4.2 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:08 PM EDT
      Lukepccpa

      Actually, you're both right.

      Killfile's explanation of how the tax brackets work is correct.

      However, what is missing from the calculation is the phase in/phase out provisions targeted at higher income taxpayers in the code that kick in at certain income levels. If the phase in/phase out provisions are considered, then there can be a significant difference between making $249,999 and making $250,001.

      • 2 votes
      #4.3 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:45 PM EDT
      Killfile

      However, what is missing from the calculation is the phase in/phase out provisions targeted at higher income taxpayers in the code that kick in at certain income levels.

      At higher income taxpayers? Can you give some examples of those? I've never encountered them.

      • 3 votes
      #4.4 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:58 PM EDT
      Lukepccpa

      Just a quick link I found listing the most common phased out deductions and credits. I'll expand more later.

      http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/comprehensive-guide-to-irs-income-phase-outs-rules.html

    • Child Tax Credit
    • Itemized Deductions
    • Personal and Dependency Exemptions
    • Interest on Student Loans
    • HOPE Scholarship & Lifetime Learning Education Credits
    • Coverdell Education Savings Accounts (Education IRA)
    • Education Savings Bonds
    • Individual Retirement Accounts
    • Roth IRA
      • 1 vote
      #4.5 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:06 PM EDT
      madvargr

      Gee Luke - I think all of those are targeted at the middle class. Middle America makes $50,000 a year - about 1/5 of what your previous example was claiming people would try to avoid earning that extra $1.

      If America had a maximum wage instead of a minimum wage, none of this would matter much. The complicating loopholes and credits are written into the law because we have now made it too damn expensive to live in America for the meager amounts of money those urhuman Galtian figures have chosen to trickle down upon us.

      • 7 votes
      #4.6 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:23 PM EDT
      Lukepccpa

      Gee Luke - I think all of those are targeted at the middle class.

      They are. That's why they phase out once you hit a certain level of income.

      about 1/5 of what your previous example was claiming people would try to avoid earning that extra $1.

      I made no such claim that people would avoid earning that extra $1.

      I said that extra $1 of income can have a significant impact on a person's tax liability because of the phase in/phase out provisions in the tax code. I was simply pointing out that the phase in/phase out provisions in the tax code can increase higher income taxpayers effective tax rate more than just the tax bracket rate once the phase in/phase out provisions kick in and you start losing these deductions and credits.

      • 3 votes
      #4.7 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:14 PM EDT
      SeattleBrian

      I said that extra $1 of income can have a significant impact on a person's tax liability because of the phase in/phase out provisions in the tax code.

      Not true. Currently, there are no phaseouts for deductions/exeptions. They 'went away" in 2010 and will be gone until 2013, unless the law is changed.

      Even if there were phaseouts, it's still not true. Phaseouts very gradually reduce the amount of a deduction.

      Say you make one extra dollar about the phaseout amount. Your deduction would be reduced by "3% of the amount over the threshold". In other words, you would lose 3 cents of your mortgage deduction, perhaps resulting in one penny or less of additional tax.

      I don't call that a "significant impact on a person's tax liability" on a 250,000 tax return..

      • 4 votes
      #4.8 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:37 PM EDT
      Lukepccpa

      Currently, there are no phaseouts for deductions/exeptions

      True. But there are still phaseout rules in effect for more than just the standard deduction and personal exemptions. Phaseouts still apply to many tax credits and other deductions.

      I admit that the $1 example is a poor one based on current tax law. However, it you look at some of the proposals being thrown about (such Obama's proposal to cap itemized deductions at 28%) the $1 might not be that far fetched in the future depending on how the law is written.

      Nonetheless, it is safe to say that overall tax rate does start climbing faster than just the tax bracket increase once the phaseouts start to kick in and you start losing deductions/credits.

        #4.9 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:03 PM EDT
        Minan59

        Just reset it back to the code from 1955. Back to a time before the GOP began its assault on the Middle Class.

        That is an outstanding suggestion, but unfortunately it ill never happen.

        • 1 vote
        #4.10 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:07 PM EDT
        Lukepccpa

        Just reset it back to the code from 1955. Back to a time before the GOP began its assault on the Middle Class.

        Are you sure? In 1955, the first $32,997 for married filing jointly was 20% (in inflation adjusted dollars). This is much higher than our current bottom brackets of 10% and 15%.

        http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal&adjusted-20110909.pdf

        The thing that people forget when they spout off about the 90% bracket for top earners was that taxes were higher for EVERYBODY back then.

          #4.11 - Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:18 AM EDT
          Crusher.

          Are you sure? In 1955, the first $32,997 for married filing jointly was 20% (in inflation adjusted dollars). This is much higher than our current bottom brackets of 10% and 15%.

          Yes, taxes were higher for everyone back then. They had to be. We had just gotten out of WWII and had to pay for all of the military expenses incurred from the war. Also, our debt as a percentage of GDP was roughly the same percentage as what we have now. High taxes at that time enabled us to very rapidly pay down the debt as a % of GDP. You'll note that as we got closer and closer to the 80's, the decrease of our debt as a % of GDP started to taper off, as taxes got lower and lower. As soon as Reagan came into office and ramped up the military spending with our significantly lower tax rates, our debt as a % of GDP started going up.

          As for 20% taxes for the first $33,000, adjusted for inflation; if you're going to adjust for inflation, then you have to adjust the $33k into today dollars first and then apply the 20% tax on that adjusted amount. A quick google search found an inflation calculator, I entered in the year and amount (1955 and $33k), in inflation adjusted dollars $33k back in 1955 is equivalent to $265,632 in today's dollars. People making $265k a year aren't paying the full 33% in income taxes today because of all of the deductions and loopholes.

          • 4 votes
          #4.12 - Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:19 PM EDT
          Lukepccpa

          As for 20% taxes for the first $33,000, adjusted for inflation; if you're going to adjust for inflation, then you have to adjust the $33k into today dollars first and then apply the 20% tax on that adjusted amount.

          The $32,997 bottom bracket is in today's dollars. The bottom bracket in 1955 in 1955 dollars was $4,000. Using your inflation calculator, $4,000 in income in 1955 dollars converts into $32,198 in income in today's dollars.

          Your calculations are a bit off.

            #4.13 - Wed Nov 2, 2011 2:05 AM EDT
            Reply
            Middle Class Mama-1025275

            The Boston Tea Party was a protest against taxation without representation. IMO, many of us feel that we are being taxed without representation. Even though we are "represented" by our elected, the elected represent their own interests rather than those whom they represent. On the other hand, those whose income is in the top tier, due deductions, write offs and loopholes, gain more than their share of "representation", while paying a lower percentage of their income to taxes, than the lower income population do. I have a decent income, live in a low COL area, and am not overly bothered by the amount my husband and I pay in state and federal income taxes. We have serious needs in this country that are not being addressed. Whether we like it or not, the most equitable way to provide the benefits we all enjoy is for everyone to contribute to the pot. Under the feudal system, taxes were paid to the Crown and the Crown benefitted, not the taxpayer, because no services were provided. Those in the top tier don't believe these services are necessary, since their perception is that they don't need or use any taxpayer supported services, so why should they pay? That is the general direction of their talking points regarding tax cuts and services.

            • 4 votes
            Reply#5 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:48 AM EDT
            Killfile

            The Boston Tea Party was a protest against taxation without representation.

            Not really. I know that's what was in your US history textbook but, like many things your elementary school teachers told you, it was a lie. Mostly the Tea Party was about a bunch of tea smugglers getting pissed off that the Crown's new monopoly was cutting into their illegal tea business.

            Just FYI.

            • 10 votes
            #5.1 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:02 PM EDT
            Middle Class Mama-1025275

            Thanks, for the FYI. Did a quick search. You're right.

              #5.2 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:51 PM EDT
              Reply
              Middle Class Mama-1025275

              The 9-9-9 is just more of the same, and is not equitable. There is not a simple solution, but no work has really been done at all in the way of tax reform. The only reform that is ever promoted is to cut, cut, cut. Yes, Democrats are going to have to get on board with reform, but like it or not, some people will have to pay more. What I visualize when the most vocal on the right begin the rant against government and taxes, is country of fortresses for the 1%, and the rest of us left to fend for ourselves against each other, in a dog fight for resources.

              • 2 votes
              Reply#6 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:06 PM EDT
              ReasonPlease

              I'm not nearly smart enough to actually know how to do it, but I deeply sense we could simplify & reform our FIT structure to still bring in the same amount, still be appropriately progressive, but incorporate the spirit of flat tax in income categories for individual filers without exemptions or write offs for individuals.

              Possibly start with a 1% flat tax for $1-$10k gross and go up from there, marking 10% at $100k, maybe 11% $100k-$250k, jumping big dollar categories from there to cap out at whatever percentage for the very big income boys and girls.

              I'm sure plenty of smart money people out there can point out where I'm wrong - I said right out front I'm not smart enough to know exactly how. And I definitely am not smart enough to know what to do about actual small businesspeople. I just sense there's an answer.

              • 2 votes
              Reply#7 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:07 PM EDT
              Andrew-1162039

              At the very least it would be nice if the IRS would spend a few bucks and make their own version of Turbo Tax which would be free to the public via download and would guide the average person through basic deductions without costing you $50 every year. I hate buying a piece of software so I can accurately calculate how much to pay the government.

              • 5 votes
              Reply#8 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:29 PM EDT
              Crusher.

              I agree with the sentiment that our tax code needs to be made much more simpler. I would also like to point out that we used to have many more tax brackets than we do now. I think we would benefit from cuts in the loopholes and deductions (for simplification purposes) and bring back more tax brackets. For example, we currently have 6 tax brackets, where as in 1986 we had 15 tax brackets, and in 1978 we had 25 tax brackets.

              It seems to me, we've slowly moved towards a flatter tax structure and it doesn't seem to be helping our debt as a percentage of GDP.

              • 2 votes
              Reply#9 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:35 PM EDT
              Lukepccpa

              You pretty much hit it on the head that the popularity of the fair tax and the flat tax is due to the publics' desire for simplicity in the tax code.

              However, the concepts of "simple" and "fair" can not occupy the same space at the same time when it comes to the tax code. The attempts to make the tax code "fair" by targeting credits and deductions to only certain taxpayers also makes the tax law more complicated.

              Now, before anybody thinks I'm talking about the wealthy and corporations, the changes to the tax code that have increased complexity the most in the last 10 years are the deductions and credits targeted towards the middle class and poor.

              But the bottom line is that the tax code can't be "simple" and "fair" at the same time.

              And the simplicity promised by the fair tax or the flat tax is highly overrated. Why? Because the tax code deals with two basic issues. What is taxable income and when is it taxed. What is a deductible expense and when is it deducted. Even if you could fill out a tax return on a postcard, you still have to deal with these issues.

              I like to use this visual aid for my clients. My US Master Tax Guide (basically the Cliff Notes for the tax code) is 959 pages. If you went to a flat tax, you would eliminate 35 pages.

              Now if you want to get rid of a whole bunch of pages, start eliminating the earned income credit, child tax credit, higher education credits. These are some of the most complicated provisions in the code. The alternative minimum tax is another.

              • 4 votes
              Reply#10 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:37 PM EDT
              ReasonPlease

              I sense a big part of the problem has been trying to devise an essentially same, one-size-fits-all FIT tax table for both low-middle-high individuals and for low-middle-high businesses is a big part of the problem. And especially a FIT tax table trying to lump all businesses together. Joe Electrician making his sole living, and the 250-500 employee business (whether in-state or multi-state) employer - should not be broadly both defined as "business" in my opinion. I sense the core problem is not the tax table, I sense the core problem is comparing apples and oranges.

                #10.1 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:46 PM EDT
                Lukepccpa

                Actually, for businesses, one size does fit all. The business portion of the tax code is actually pretty consistent from year to year, and a deduction is a deduction (for the most part) whether you are Joe Electrician or General Electric.

                Most of the complexity in the tax law is on the individual side, especially in the deductions and credits in a effort to target them to low and middle income taxpayers, and avoid high income taxpayers access to them. Added to that are the special deductions here and there throughout the code for certain individual groups. Then you have the fun of temporary and expiring provisions to deal with.

                And a majority of this stuff is on the individual side.

                  #10.2 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:30 PM EDT
                  Reply
                  Steve-574461

                  Although I favor responsible tax reform I find it ironic that the 9-9-9 plan & other flat tax plans pushed by the right would have an immediate effect of putting millions of accountants out of work.

                  • 1 vote
                  Reply#11 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:49 PM EDT
                  Lukepccpa

                  It wouldn't. Because by the time all the special interests got their pet provisions put into the law, it would be just as complicated as it is now.

                  I love it when anybody starts talking about tax simplification. Because if the last 25 years of practice are any indication, it's job security for me...... :)

                  • 3 votes
                  #11.1 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:55 PM EDT
                  Reply
                  Boudicea

                  Killifle, I rarely agree with you, but yes, we must address the tax code. I believe that the progressive tax structure is wrong, though. I think a flat tax makes the most sense, keeping a "standard deduction" which is right at "poverty" level. All other deductions should be removed. (Basically leaving us with the 1040 EZ) Bottom line - no more negative tax rates for anyone.

                  Even that great bastion of Socialism (Great Britain) has a 20% tax rate on income over 7500 pounds a year (that's about $11,000) and below 35,000 pounts ($55,000) Can you imagine in America - charging 20% on income over $11000 a year? (most people in America making less than $50,000 don't pay ANY income tax) Of course they have to pay for those entitlement programs. We don't consider that when we exclude the "poor" from income tax.

                  Now, here's where I'm gonna get accused of "loving the rich". I don't believe there should be ANY income tax on corporations. We whine about job outsourcing and forget that we have the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Can you imagine how many foreign companies would rush to open operations in America if their profits were tax free? How many jobs that would create? How much corporations could lower their prices? What a gift to the American people - lower prices on goods. Their paychecks would go farther! New Industries created! New Jobs! After all, corporate income taxes just get passed on to the consumer. (To those of you who say they would not pass savings on to consumers - you're wrong. MARKET SHARE is every company's dream! Lowering prices increases market share, which increases bottom line profits.)

                  I am certain most of you won't agree with me, but there it is.

                  • 9 votes
                  #12 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:53 PM EDT
                  Steve-574461

                  How much corporations could lower their prices? What a gift to the American people - lower prices on goods. Their paychecks would go farther!

                  History shows that corporations don't lower prices when costs go down, they just give their CEO's more $. And please show some source for your statement that most people making $50,000 a year pay no income taxes!

                  • 6 votes
                  #12.1 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:22 PM EDT
                  naughtynumbernine

                  I don't believe there should be ANY income tax on corporations.

                  I agree. If corporations aren't people (and no, they're not), why should they pay taxes? Everyone from the CEO down to the janitor pays taxes every year so why should the corporation pay taxes as well?

                  • 4 votes
                  #12.2 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:26 PM EDT
                  Boudicea

                  I am SO tired of posting this link:

                  http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm?hpt=T1

                  68% of Americans making less than $50K a year paid NOTHING in income tax

                  Steve: Please show me where corporations don't lower prices when costs go down. Link please. quid pro quo

                  • 5 votes
                  #12.3 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:31 PM EDT
                  ReasonPlease

                  ... (most people in America making less than $50,000 don't pay ANY income tax) ... I'm not going to link my personal income tax for 2010 so forget about it, kjmgirl.

                  Are you freakin' kidding me? I was born on a Sunday, but not last Sunday. I'm literally using my 2010 personal income tax return 1040: $33,889 taxable income (yee haw, I own my own home and I did get to claim Head of Household, though not the child who lived in my home and I supported all year because it was my ex-husband's turn to claim him), $4,484.00 federal income tax total due. State income tax due $887.00. Total 2010 FIT and SIT: $5,371.00.

                  Dunno about you kjmgirl, but that's a hell of a lot of FIT and SIT I personally paid: $5,371.00. I'm neither ignorant nor not claiming what I'm entitled to ... TurboTax guaranteed it.

                  • 4 votes
                  #12.4 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:41 PM EDT
                  northtosouth

                  But wait, according to that chart, 4.6% of Americans making over $100k pay no income tax either. Hmmm.......oh yeah and the article says this:

                  For tax year 2010, roughly 45% of households, or about 69 million, will end up owing nothing in federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Some in that group will even end up getting paid money from the federal government.

                  That does not mean such households end up paying no taxes whatsoever. For instance, those in the group still pay other taxes such as state and local income taxes, as well as property and sales taxes.

                  And the group doesn't necessarily get off scot-free when it comes to payroll taxes -- which support Social Security and Medicare.

                  More than two-thirds -- or 49 million of the 69 million households -- pay payroll tax. Of those, 34 million end up paying more in payroll taxes than they get back on their federal return. The other 15 million pay payroll tax but they get enough refundable credits to offset what they paid.

                  • 3 votes
                  #12.5 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:48 PM EDT
                  Boudicea

                  I see you didn't read the link. Oh well - I guess you'll just stay ignorant of the statistics, then. Oh, and by the way, I am also one of those who didn't get to take all those bull@!$%# deductions. I pay my taxes, too. So get OFF MY BACK! I don't write tax law and I didn't make up the Friggin numbers!

                  northtosouth - are we talking about other taxes or income taxes? My infomation applied to income taxes

                  • 5 votes
                  #12.6 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:48 PM EDT
                  northtosouth

                  Ah. Wouldn't let me post the pic. I'm looking at INCOME tax from your link.

                  • 3 votes
                  #12.7 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:51 PM EDT
                  Boudicea

                  I know, I've tried to post it myself many times. I don't disagree that there are people in other tax brackets who don't pay incomes either. That's wrong as well. Everybody should either pay some income tax or have a zero tax rate (for really really really small incomes). Since SS and Medicare are both mandatory, those should not be part of the "income" tax system at all. I also believe that people should be permitted to opt-out of medicare if they wish.

                  • 4 votes
                  #12.8 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:04 PM EDT
                  whino33

                  We whine about job outsourcing and forget that we have the highest corporate tax rates in the world.

                  We may have high corporate tax rates, but we also have enough loopholes that corporations in our country are not actually PAYING these rates. Therefore, this is not a REAL factor of anything.

                  How much corporations could lower their prices?

                  The idea that corporations would lower prices based on corporate tax rates is nothing short of delusional.

                  I am certain most of you won't agree with me, but there it is

                  Correct. This is due to the fact that you are completely wrong. There are only a handful of countries in the world with a corporate tax rate of 10% or less. They include the Bahamas, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Uzbekistan, Syria and Macedonia. These are not exactly thriving Countries. Bottom line is that there is no evidence to support your theories and plenty of evidence to contradict it. Even Bill Kristol said, “Republicans are making a mistake if they focus on big businesses and corporate tax rates. Corporations have a ton of cash. The corporate tax rate is not killing big business in America.”

                  Another fun fact - The U.S. is actually one of the least taxed developed countries in the world. When measured as a percentage of GDP - we actually have the second lowest rate in the world behind Iceland.

                  • 4 votes
                  #12.9 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:32 PM EDT
                  Boudicea

                  Corporations ALWAYS are willing to lower prices when their costs go down. Couple of FACTS to back that up:

                  my new plasma TV was $499, NOT $14,999. My computer was $299, NOT $2,999. My cell phone was $49, NOT $499. Duh

                  • 4 votes
                  #12.10 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:10 PM EDT
                  northtosouth

                  My cell phone was $49, NOT $499.

                  The other two examples, the TV and computer, I'll give you. There's some truth there. Demand has a bit to do with that too. They produce many more HDTV's and PC now than 10 years ago. The cell phone on the other hand is a poor example. Your carrier subsidizes much of the cost of your phone when you sign a new contract/extend your contract and actually loads much of that into your monthly bill. You don't see it, but it's there. Price an Android, Blackberry or iPhone without the contract. It'll be much more than $499.

                  • 2 votes
                  #12.11 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:24 PM EDT
                  whino33

                  It may be a fact that your TV was $499, however you are once again mistaken if you believe it is due to the manufacturer's cost going down. The TV was not $14,999 because nobody would buy it at that price.

                  Corporations right now are sitting on record amounts of revenue. They are not using this windfall of cash to create jobs or lower prices.

                  Nice try though, I guess....

                  • 3 votes
                  #12.12 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:26 PM EDT
                  naughtynumbernine

                  That's true. I've had to replace a couple of iPhones before I was eligible for upgrades - ouch.

                    #12.13 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:28 PM EDT
                    northtosouth

                    That's true. I've had to replace a couple of iPhones before I was eligible for upgrades - ouch.

                    I feel your pain. I'm sitting on an HTC phone with a crack in the display. Not eligible for an upgrade for another month.

                      #12.14 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:34 PM EDT
                      Boudicea

                      northtosouth:

                      our carrier subsidizes much of the cost of your phone

                      you have actually PROVED my point. It's all about market share.

                      Whino, you're wrong. The cost of production on a plasma tv ten years ago FORCED them to put it on the market at $14,999. Now they've paid for the R & D, and they have competition. THAT is why the cost dropped.

                      • 3 votes
                      #12.15 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:38 PM EDT
                      northtosouth

                      It's all about market share.

                      That has nothing to do with the cost of manufacturing. Remember, you still pay the full price of the device. Just not all at once. It's built into your monthly fee.

                      Whino, you're wrong. The cost of production on a plasma tv ten years ago FORCED them to put it on the market at $14,999. Now they've paid for the R & D, and they have competition. THAT is why the cost dropped.

                      What you don't get is that there are only really 3 manufacturers of the televisions we buy today. If you look at the guts, they're pretty much all the same. You pay a premium for a brand name. Do they cost the same now as they did 15 years ago to manufacture? No. Did they warrant a price tag of $15k then? No. Just like DVD players cost $1000 when they first hit the shelves. The technology was new, so they could charge a premium. As the technology ages and the market becomes saturated Sony can't charge $1000 when LG charges $300 for the same box of circuits. Why do you think Apple rolls out a new iPhone or iPod so often? So they can charge a premium. It's marketing, man.

                      • 4 votes
                      #12.16 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:52 PM EDT
                      whino33

                      KJM - When plasma televisions were selling for $15K, they were not selling a large volume of them at all. If companies thought they could sell a ton of plasma tv's at a $15K price point - then that is exactly what they would do.

                      The way a company determines it's price point is based solely on the goal of achieving the most revenue. In order to maximize revenue, a company will try to sell a product at the highest price point possible that will still enable them to achieve a large volume. The cost has absolutely nothing to do it.

                      I have seen you make comments in the past, correctly insinuating that companies don't hire based on how much money they are sitting on. The same logic applies here. Companies do not determine their price points based on costs with the obvious exception of setting a minimum benchmark.

                      • 6 votes
                      #12.17 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:55 PM EDT
                      Education For the Masses

                      It's called the Law of Supply and Demand, kjm. At 15k no one but the rich would buy them, ergo the demand was low and supply was high but profit was huge. Drop the price to a more reasonable level, well looky, looky! Demand goes up and supply is maintained at a sustainable rate and while profits are less per piece the overall profit is the same.

                      • 2 votes
                      #12.18 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:40 PM EDT
                      SCTexan

                      We may have high corporate tax rates, but we also have enough loopholes that corporations in our country are not actually PAYING these rates

                      To a point that is correct, the issue is that most corporations are much smaller than the GEs of the world and do pay the higher tax rates.

                      • 2 votes
                      #12.19 - Fri Oct 21, 2011 7:42 AM EDT
                      Boudicea

                      Education - yep. Market share.

                      • 1 vote
                      #12.20 - Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:57 PM EDT
                      northtosouth

                      Education - yep. Market share.

                      No, not market share. Market share is the amount of one particular market that your product/service occupies (Sony vs LG vs Samsung vs Visio vs Magnavox). Having the majority market share does not cause one to reduce their pricing. On the contrary, the market share leader typically charges a bit more as they are seen as a premium. Typically. There are some anomalies to this, but it most often holds true.

                      Misunderstanding of economic principles is a big reason for our infighting as a citizenry.

                      • 3 votes
                      #12.21 - Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:38 PM EDT
                      Boudicea

                      northtosouth - I don't agree with you and I don't think it's a "misunderstanding of economic principles" on my part. Lowering prices DOES increase market share most of the time (unless your product is a piece of crap). Having my own business I am WELL AWARE that price is almost EXCLUSIVELY the determining factor in a bad economy.

                      • 3 votes
                      #12.22 - Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:06 PM EDT
                      whino33

                      Education - yep. Market share.

                      KJM - You do realize that his comment is directly contradicting your false theory that companies will lower their prices based on their cost, right? Strange that you would agree....

                      • 2 votes
                      #12.23 - Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:06 PM EDT
                      Boudicea

                      No, it supports it.

                      • 3 votes
                      #12.24 - Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:07 PM EDT
                      whino33

                      No - the point is that prices are established based on supply and demand (which isn't totally accurate either but whatever). Costs have absolutely nothing to do with supply and demand. Therefore, it is a contradictory point.

                      Like I said before, I have seen you make comments in the past, correctly insinuating that companies don't hire based on how much money they are sitting on. The same logic applies here. Companies do not determine their price points based on costs with the obvious exception of setting a minimum benchmark.

                      I don't know why you are unable to understand this as it is a very basic concept. This is Business 101 - freshman year of college type stuff. The truth is that I think you already know this but are staying true to form in never even admitting to being wrong about anything ever. Oh well.

                      • 3 votes
                      #12.25 - Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:35 PM EDT
                      northtosouth

                      Cost of products has zero impact on price points except to set a bare minimum. That is it. Anyone with any practical business experience know this. Hell, most college graduates know this.

                      I learned that in high school econ.

                      • 3 votes
                      #12.26 - Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:37 PM EDT
                      whino33

                      I bet you ignore everything except the last paragraph - that's what I would do if I knew I was wrong...

                      northtosouth - u got me before I edited. You're right though - this isn't even college level

                      • 2 votes
                      #12.27 - Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:38 PM EDT
                      Reply
                      Mo BettaDeleted
                      Borncorn

                      We should start by making Social Security a flat tax. Take off the cap on income subject to the tax. Everyone pays the same exact percentage. Leave the benefit levels the same and the program is solvent into the foreseeable future. I bet the Pizza man isn't for this flat tax.

                      • 6 votes
                      Reply#14 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:18 PM EDT
                      madvargr

                      No, like the rest of the GOP field, he is for eliminating SS alongside Medicare/Medicaid.

                      • 3 votes
                      #14.1 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:25 PM EDT
                      bob-1478320

                      Then lets expand that method of taxation to income taxes also

                        #14.2 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:56 PM EDT
                        Reply
                        HollyKl

                        Excellent article. And the graph is fantastic; that says it all.

                          Reply#15 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:54 PM EDT
                          mrkirchner

                          The Fair Tax is a much better proposal. Visit Fairtax.org to find out more.

                          • 1 vote
                          Reply#16 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:35 PM EDT
                          Killfile

                          And for a counterpoint: http://killfile.newsvine.com/_news/2006/03/04/120004-a-fair-critique-a-pragmatic-analysis-of-the-fair-tax-proposal

                          • 2 votes
                          #16.1 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:49 PM EDT
                          Reply
                          hugh b

                          i don't pretend to understand taxes

                          but i also don't have a problem using some of the money i've earned to help my fellow citizens

                          I have no children yet I support my schools, etc.

                          I do have a very big problem with using our military the way we do.

                          Managing budgets, projects, and people. I learned that budgets are won with pennies, know where all of them go. Know what projects will benefit the most people, that is called value. And it isn't about how much you know, as much as it is about how much you care and how willing you are to do the best possible in any given situation.

                          Supporting the basics, creating a sustainable economy balanced with services and production, and improving the lives of our citizens is where our taxes should be spent. Once things are under control move on to the nice to haves.

                          Taxing and Spending, Spending and Taxing what are the priorities.

                            Reply#17 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:56 PM EDT
                            JohnRussell

                            I think that it is lobbyists, and the attempt to manage society through the tax code, that has put us in this place. Because home ownership is believed to stabilize society, mortgage payments and property taxes are made deductible, along with, for other reasons , charity gifts, various business machinations and other expenditures.

                            We should have a progressive tax that changes as the income increases. A new rate for every thousand in salary, in increments. People have computers now. It can be done.

                            A million different rates would discourage people from this

                            "We are going to try to figure out how to make our income $249,999.00," she said.

                            No deductions other than for dependent children and charities whose administrative costs are under a certain, determined percentage.

                            • 2 votes
                            Reply#18 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:37 PM EDT
                            thelyamhound

                            This may have already been addressed, but do any of these proposals significantly increase the standard deduction, or perhaps tie the SD to local economic markers? It seems to me that some of the burden on the lower- and middle-classes could be lifted if that deduction actually reflected the cost of living. I actually subscribe to the notion that the standard deduction could be comfortably doubled; ideally, it would also account for, say, the higher costs of living in urban areas. This makes for some complexity, but that complexity needn't be written into the tax code; variations in the deduction could be accounted for by determining housing and fuel costs in each Congressional district. The IRS could employ fewer policy wonks and more accountants.

                            I still don't support a national sales tax (sales taxes are too inherently and irremediably regressive), but a flat income tax wouldn't raise the taxes on base survival income for working families, even if it increased taxes on anything above that income.

                              Reply#19 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:19 PM EDT
                              rick-2988168

                              so I pay in all year long. then I get a small refund. wow. the gov't got to use all my money for a year and then give me a few bucks back. big deal.

                              • 1 vote
                              Reply#20 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:02 PM EDT
                              G from Godley

                              Nice to see you back Kill, even though I disagree with you again. :)

                              Considering federal tax wise, the top 55% or 58% (depending on whose parties graph you use) pay 100% of personal income taxes with those under that mark either receiving all of their federal taxes back or more then they paid in. The tax area killing most americans is state, county, and local taxes plus federal taxes not related to income (i.e. gas or cigarette tax.) So a 9-9-9 tax may be a good starting point to look at with an eye to modifying it to properly fit the need. Right now. the tax code is such a mess that no-one knows all of it. And that is bad on so many levels.

                              Now to the next problem. Federal debt interest. How much can be done with the $454,393,280,417.03 in interest payments the goverment is projected to spend this year alone? Right now, debt payments are larger then most of the other budgeted items (DOD, SS, Medicare, etc...) Cut the amount of debt, and large amounts of money will be available for programs that both conservatives and liberal want as well as cut the tax bill for everyone overall.

                              • 1 vote
                              Reply#21 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:34 PM EDT
                              northtosouth

                              So a 9-9-9 tax may be a good starting point to look at with an eye to modifying it to properly fit the need.

                              Let's see, someone making $25000 a year should pay an additional 18% in taxes while the top income earners will see a 28% reduction in marginal rates. The 9% federal sales tax is a non-starter. It is punitive on middle and low income earners. Here's how: Jim makes $40,000 a year and drives a vehicle that takes 15 gallons of regular gas. Lets' say it takes $45 to fill his tank up three times a week. That's $135 a week in fuel costs. Multiply that out 52 weeks and he's paying $7020 a year in fuel costs now. Let's add another 9% to that and we're at $7651.80. That's an increase of over $600 a year just on fuel. Now factor in groceries and every other expense that individual has and he's busted. Why? Because now that 9% federal income tax is a higher effective tax rate than Jim had before due to his loss of his personal deduction and mortgage interest credit, not to mention his student loan interest deduction. He's paying 9% more on everything he buys, including food and other items that may be exempt from the state and local sales taxes. God forbid Jim decides he wants to buy a newly constructed home. He now has an additional 9% in sales tax to pay on that home. Buy a new car? Forget that! It now costs 9% more! Why? Because it's new. That's why. Might as well shut the doors at Ford, Chrysler and GM. Why would you buy or lease a new car? Now used car prices go through the roof. Good if you're selling, not so good if your buying. Why? Because 999 only affects new goods, not used. Now, to someone making $250,000 a year. They now have a reduction in effective federal tax rate by, lets say they have a good CPA, 18%. They are now very much ahead of the game. Let's say our individual making $250k, let's call him Dave, is frugal and spends the same amount each month as Jim does. He's paying much less as a percentage of his income than Jim. Why? Because he makes more than 5 times what Jim makes. Unless he spends 5 times as much as Jim does, he will be taxed much less. I know it was long, but does that make sense?

                              • 4 votes
                              #21.1 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:52 PM EDT
                              G from Godley

                              It is punitive on middle and low income earners.

                              Actually, the current tax code is more punitive then a flat tax rate. It opens up more tax loopholes that allow the higher tax brackets to pay less. If congress is not allowed to add deductions for their supporters without being forced to spread it throughout the entire bracket, then we'll continue to have these discussions without solving anythings.

                              I know it was long, but does that make sense?

                              Lol, I've done longer without bringing all my points out, So you did pretty good.

                              But many of the items you brought up on interest rates. That is a current hidden federal tax. Interest rates are set by the goverment. The higher the rate the goverment sets, the more it makes off of banks and financial instatututions. Then those same places add more interest so they make money. So the goverment gives you a deduction based on a rate that they artificially set?

                              As I pointed out, a flat rate is a place to start looking at and modifying to match what would actually work.

                              As to your comparison on the two people. I can use myself as a comparrison. Currently, my monthly expenses (food, property, gas, etc...) is about $1100. Add in college, and it goes to about 1600 if it is spread out over the year. My cash net worth is over 1 mil and my stock/bonds are higher. My fed tax bill last year was a little over $75k (108k if you add my prepayments), state $38k, county $14k, and town $5k. I also pay direct department taxes to the dept of energy for solar and wind generators on my property at a tune of $3k since it goes directly into the power grid though it was offset in part due to federal rebates. I will be on the hook for the amount in full on next years tax bill. This does not include the incidental taxes that you mentioned (food, gas, etc..) BTW, my income from work is just under $42k.

                              My neighbor, which is a good friend, makes about 36k per year (I work with him,) but what is killing him is interest on his credit cards, payments on his vehicles, house payments, and various other items. Are taxes killing him, listening to his complaints, I can take it as no. He's more worried more about the things that he's making payments on. I just got off the phone with him before writing this, and according to him, he has received money back from the goverment for the last 6 years. (I owe him a case of beer and a full explanation on why I asked him about what his tax situation is when we get off work tommorrow.

                              Does everyone want lower taxes? Sure they do. But there are more factors involved in peoples economic status then taxes. And that needs to be looked at before screaming "taxes are killing us" and "the rich are corrupting the system."

                                #21.2 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:31 PM EDT
                                SCTexan

                                Play with numbers all you want but you can easily boil down the 9% sales tax to this: look at as though we are just changing the collection of payroll taxes from our pay checks to the check out stand (your pay check will go up, so you will have more money in your pocket to pay the sales tax). It is almost a break even. In addition, those who make most of their money through capital gains will now be spending some portion of it and paying a new tax on it. Not to mention the collection of taxes when, person who's income comes from black market activities, purchase things.

                                • 1 vote
                                #21.3 - Fri Oct 21, 2011 7:48 AM EDT
                                northtosouth

                                those who make most of their money through capital gains will now be spending some portion of it and paying a new tax on it.

                                If you have ever dealt with the wealthy (really wealthy) they got that way by not spending more money than they have to.

                                Actually, the current tax code is more punitive then a flat tax rate. It opens up more tax loopholes that allow the higher tax brackets to pay less

                                By punitive, I mean it will hit lower income wage earners much harder than high income earners. Sorry if I didn't clarify. Good points, G. One question I have though. How in holy hell did you get a cash net worth of over $1mm making only $46k a year? Share, brother.

                                • 1 vote
                                #21.4 - Fri Oct 21, 2011 10:15 AM EDT
                                G from Godley

                                In addition, those who make most of their money through capital gains will now be spending some portion of it and paying a new tax on it.

                                One of the benefits of a flat tax is it affects everything. No deductions because you were wearing a blue shirt while buying something (an exaggeration, but I wouldn't be surprised.) 9% is a good starting point, but I'm thinking it would take something like 10% for individual, 15% for business, and something like 15% for investment. But as was pointed out, it would take a lot of figuring to get proper numbers.

                                How in holy hell did you get a cash net worth of over $1mm making only $46k a year? Share, brother.

                                Investing wisely and not allowing myself to follow the crowd (fads) blindly, not spending more then I make, restricted usage of credit cards and loans, and a wife that wouldn't let me have everything I wanted. :)

                                Most of what I started investing with was when I was in the military, when I had little real expenses, and when I was working oilfield, when I made much more then I do now (and unmarried) and was hardly ever home. It gave me a good base to start out with, and putting more in when available helped it grow faster.

                                Even now, if you invest wisely, you'll still beat the market. It took me 15 years, but I'm set. And I'm not resting on my laurels. I'm back in college (part time student) learning a new career and started a higher level position at work.

                                  #21.5 - Sun Oct 23, 2011 6:48 PM EDT
                                  Reply
                                  Sam BoDeleted
                                  Village Idiot-2299796

                                  No Money Will Circulate Without Stringent Taxes On Wealth:

                                  So the question is this: do you want an economy or not?

                                  Oh yeah, before you 'move overseas' to avoid your taxes? Try a 100% flight tax.

                                  Either we retain to ourselves a political economy, or to hell with the Republic. We can do better. If the existing political order can't deal with that, it is time it stepped aside so that the responsibilities of state can be assumed by people who will actually take them seriously.

                                  • 2 votes
                                  Reply#23 - Fri Oct 21, 2011 10:00 AM EDT
                                  Barry Rutherford

                                  We need a simpler system here in Australia. Now you need a pick up truck to carry the Tax Act around with you. A flatter simpler tax which must less deductions seems would help everyone.

                                    Reply#24 - Thu Dec 8, 2011 12:08 PM EST
                                    Donahue

                                    It's articles like this that prove full blown communism is the only rational plan. The fact that we even have a .1% that controls so much of this country's wealth stands for everything the "Founding Fathers" ConReps claim to love believed in. We need to adopt a humanitarian government with 100% income redistribution across the board.

                                      Reply#25 - Tue Mar 6, 2012 1:52 AM EST
                                      Leave a Comment:
                                      You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                      You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                      (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                      Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                      As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                      FUN STUFF:
                                      • Leaderboard |
                                      • E-Mail Alerts |
                                      • Top of the Vine |
                                      • Newsvine Live |
                                      • Newsvine Archives |
                                      • The Greenhouse |
                                      COMPANY STUFF:
                                      • Code of Honor |
                                      • Company Info |
                                      • Contact Us |
                                      • Jobs |
                                      • User Agreement |
                                      • Privacy Policy |
                                      • About our ads
                                      LEGAL STUFF:
                                      • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                      • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                      • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com