• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

100 Years of Tax Code

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,987
Reaction score
7,711
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
In 1913, we had 400 pages of Federal Tax Code.

In 2011, we evolved to 72,435 pages.

It started with a theft of liberty from a tiny group of the wealthiest Americans. Today we have a monster only Socialists could love; one aimed at thieving, redistributing and wasting massive amounts of wealth. Wealth that would be better left in the hands of those that earned it.
 

TiredOfLife

Banned
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
2,817
Reaction score
582
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
In 1913, we had 400 pages of Federal Tax Code.

In 2011, we evolved to 72,435 pages.

It started with a theft of liberty from a tiny group of the wealthiest Americans. Today we have a monster only Socialists could love; one aimed at thieving, redistributing and wasting massive amounts of wealth. Wealth that would be better left in the hands of those that earned it.
A Socialist would be happy to go back to 400. I could do it in four.

And you make it here, you pay up for what's required to do so here.
 

Fletch

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
37,408
Reaction score
16,814
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
A Socialist would be happy to go back to 400. I could do it in four.

And you make it here, you pay up for what's required to do so here.
So if it could be done in four pages, why does it take 72,435? Answer: Because its not about collection, its about control. The state doesn't want to just redistribute wealth, it wants to control how its earned, how its allocated, how its invested, how its spent, when its spent, where its spent and on whom it is spent.
 

TiredOfLife

Banned
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
2,817
Reaction score
582
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So if it could be done in four pages, why does it take 72,435? Answer: Because its not about collection, its about control. The state doesn't want to just redistribute wealth, it wants to control how its earned, how its allocated, how its invested, how its spent, when its spent, where its spent and on whom it is spent.
A state wanted control? Say it ain't so.
 

Cameron

Politically Correct
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
4,295
Reaction score
2,558
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
So if it could be done in four pages, why does it take 72,435? Answer: Because its not about collection, its about control. The state doesn't want to just redistribute wealth, it wants to control how its earned, how its allocated, how its invested, how its spent, when its spent, where its spent and on whom it is spent.
The U.S. controls very little of any of those things.

The real problem with the code is that nobody wants to take the time to go through it and make it more efficient (or fair). It's so long because people have added so many stupid exceptions and exemptions, and then more taxes have been added to make up for the lost revenue, and then more exceptions and exemptions, and then more taxes, etc. etc. etc. back and forth forever.
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,987
Reaction score
7,711
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
A Socialist would be happy to go back to 400. I could do it in four.

And you make it here, you pay up for what's required to do so here.
Oh... a Socialist would ideally love one page, but what we have is what happens when Socialism perverts a free society and do not have totalitarian rule.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,864
Reaction score
37,973
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So if it could be done in four pages, why does it take 72,435? Answer: Because its not about collection, its about control. The state doesn't want to just redistribute wealth, it wants to control how its earned, how its allocated, how its invested, how its spent, when its spent, where its spent and on whom it is spent.
A fair, efficient and progresive federal income tax code could exist that uses only two numbers: a standard deduction, say a 2X the annual fedral minimum wage, and a rate of taxation, at say 15%, for income from all sources above that amount. That is the easy part of fedral income tax reform, the hard part is getting the fedral gov't to agree to it and to limit their spending no more than the revenue generated.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,864
Reaction score
37,973
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The U.S. controls very little of any of those things.

The real problem with the code is that nobody wants to take the time to go through it and make it more efficient (or fair). It's so long because people have added so many stupid exceptions and exemptions, and then more taxes have been added to make up for the lost revenue, and then more exceptions and exemptions, and then more taxes, etc. etc. etc. back and forth forever.
It depends on what you mean by control, perhaps heavily influences would be more accurate. The federal income tax code is more about social engineering than revenue collection.

"income redistrubition"
The EITC or "negative" income tax.

"it wants to control how its earned,"
Different taxation rates apply based on the source of the income; e.g. gov't bond interest, stock dividend and wages.

"how its allocated,"
Income averaging and various asset depreciation shcemes are allowed.

"how its invested,"
Certain investments are not taxed at all; e.g. IRA, MSA or 401K.

"how its spent,"
This is a big one, since many dedctions are based on that; e.g. home mortgage interst, state taxes and charity.

"when its spent,"
Penaties for "early withdrawl" apply.

"and on whom it is spent."
This is also a big one since the more dependents that you claim then the lower your taxation is.
 

AtlantaAdonis

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
2,125
Reaction score
500
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I could make it much shorter.

1. You don't pay any taxes on your first $25,000 of income.
2. You pay 20% on all income 25,000-200,000
3. You pay 50% of everything from 200,000 to 1 million
4. Cap income at 2 million dollars.
 

TiredOfLife

Banned
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
2,817
Reaction score
582
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I could make it much shorter.

1. You don't pay any taxes on your first $25,000 of income.
2. You pay 20% on all income 25,000-200,000
3. You pay 50% of everything from 200,000 to 1 million
4. Cap income at 2 million dollars.
I like it but I see no reason for a cap and I like to include everyone so they can all complain alike.

10% on the first 100,000. Then 20% on the next, then 30, 40, up to 50%. So over 500,000 it's always 50%, make as much as you like.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
69,869
Reaction score
51,997
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I like it but I see no reason for a cap and I like to include everyone so they can all complain alike.

10% on the first 100,000. Then 20% on the next, then 30, 40, up to 50%. So over 500,000 it's always 50%, make as much as you like.
Interesting idea, though I think we should also tax investment income as income above a certain cap. That's a massive loophole.
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,987
Reaction score
7,711
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I could make it much shorter.

1. You don't pay any taxes on your first $25,000 of income.
2. You pay 20% on all income 25,000-200,000
3. You pay 50% of everything from 200,000 to 1 million
4. Cap income at 2 million dollars.
25% of your proposal is sane, and I can make it even shorter.

1. You don't pay any taxes on your first $25,000 of income.
2. You pay 10% on any income thereafter.

Why should success be punished?

This would get rid of a huge swath of tax advisers, lobbyists, and migraines... plus it would unleash investment and employment.

It would be the death of Socialism at the Federal level, and I'd say at the state level as well, as punitive states would look like the Sahara.
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I could make it much shorter.

1. You don't pay any taxes on your first $25,000 of income.
2. You pay 20% on all income 25,000-200,000
3. You pay 50% of everything from 200,000 to 1 million
4. Cap income at 2 million dollars.
I would make it even shorter...
1. X% on all sources of income (earnings, profits, dividends, inheritance, gifts, lottery winnings, etc) with x being as low amount as possible and still have a viable government

2. A $400,000 per year per income receiver deduction, regardless of the source of income. So why $400k? Several reasons make it logical, first off is that our most highly skilled and educated commonly found profession (MD specialists) tends to top out at about that amount, thus I tend to believe that around $400k/yr is about the most productive that one human being can be. Secondly is that a $400k deduction would exempt 99% of our population from having to pay income tax as the top 1% starts at right around $400k. And if someone can't have a very nice standard of living on $400k/yr, then there is something seriously wrong with them.

Whatever point that we start taxing people sets a target amount of income that people will desire to achieve, however I would never set a max income. I do believe that by having a $400k exemption, incomes would naturally tend to start topping out at around that mark, essentially, more people would have incomes close to $400k and fewer people would have incomes far in excess of that amount.

It's that simple.
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
25% of your proposal is sane, and I can make it even shorter.

1. You don't pay any taxes on your first $25,000 of income.
2. You pay 10% on any income thereafter.

Why should success be punished?

This would get rid of a huge swath of tax advisers, lobbyists, and migraines... plus it would unleash investment and employment.

It would be the death of Socialism at the Federal level, and I'd say at the state level as well, as punitive states would look like the Sahara.
I should have read your post before making my post, we both have basically the same idea, except I proposed a much higher exemption.

With a flat tax, whatever amount that income tax starts at becomes the defacto target income amount. Why would we want to set that target at anything below what the maximum amount that an individual is likely to be able to personally produce?

But if me and you were trying to hash out a deal, I would be willing to compromise by meeting you closer to your target amount, lets say at about the $125k amount, because that is about what the average worker actually produces (GDP/workers).
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
38,146
Reaction score
45,078
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So if it could be done in four pages, why does it take 72,435? Answer: Because its not about collection, its about control. The state doesn't want to just redistribute wealth, it wants to control how its earned, how its allocated, how its invested, how its spent, when its spent, where its spent and on whom it is spent.
I would remind you that such decisions came about not by fiat but by lobbying, by debate and by vote. As long as our nation remains a bastion of individual liberty there will be little niche's carved out for those various interests. I would caution those who ask for "simplification" that the more uniform the tax code becomes the more liberty we give up. I'm always surprised that many of the people who are so vehemently opposed to a centralized and uniform medical system are the loudest advocates for just such a tax system.
 
Top Bottom