- Joined
- Jun 25, 2005
- Messages
- 3,237
- Reaction score
- 402
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
No new taxes please...there are too many as it is.
My tax plan?
0% under whatever the poverty line is in the lower 48 (roughly $12K for one person in 2015).
15% - poverty line amount to $40,000.
20% - $40,000-$100,000.
25% - over $100,000.
Capital gains and income treated identically.
No corporate/business taxes.
No deductions except for previous capital losses and charitable contributions.
If that is not enough money to fund the present budget...GOOD...then reduce spending until the budget is balanced.
No new taxes please...there are too many as it is.
My tax plan?
0% under whatever the poverty line is in the lower 48 (roughly $12K for one person in 2015).
15% - poverty line amount to $40,000.
20% - $40,000-$100,000.
25% - over $100,000.
Capital gains and income treated identically.
No corporate/business taxes.
No deductions except for previous capital losses and charitable contributions.
If that is not enough money to fund the present budget...GOOD...then reduce spending until the budget is balanced.
My plan raises real taxes on the wealthy and on negative externalities, and lowers real taxes/costs on business and the middle class, and give the minimum wage worker a Bernie type raise. I'm all for low taxes but I also want to have balanced budgets, and for the code to be at least revenue neutral. I really like the idea of paying as much of government as possible by taxing negative externalities. Noticed Bill Gates recently stated the same. You have to pay the bills from somewhere, might as well first be from behavior that negatively effects society and could change negative behavior. I'm also all for efficiency in government and welfare reform. Once surpluses come then lower taxes. The lower the better, as long as you pay bills first.
I like your 0% corporate rate but think 15% would have a more realistic chance of passing with Democratic support. At least they couldn't say companies are paying less rate than a secretary. 15% is low enough, especially with regulation reform and taking the burden of health insurance off of business, to be very pro growth.
Tax carbon closer to real cost. Goal of $4 a gallon retail at the pump. Also get rid of carbon subsidies.
Your ideas probably have a much better chance of becoming law then mine do. And I like many of your ideas.
But I like taxes to be extremely simple...something almost anyone can do in 5 minutes. And I do not like taxation on businesses/corporations - it is just passed on to consumers anyway and just makes things that much more complicated and hurts the economy, imo. Plus, capital gains have to be taxed the same as income as right now they are often far lower than income despite the fact that the rich make almost all of their monies from capital gains...this is why the super rich are calling for raising of income taxes...because it will barely affect them and makes them seem like they care.
Ask them what they think about raising capital gains tax rates and they will probably freak out.
As well, under my plan, a single mother of 2 who makes $20,000 OR a two working parent, family of 5 making under $28,000 would pay no federal income tax at all...which is the way it should be, imo. People living on/under the poverty line should never pay any income taxes.
https://aspe.hhs.gov/2015-poverty-guidelines
Policy thought:
Tax carbon closer to real cost. Goal of $4 a gallon retail at the pump. Also get rid of carbon subsidies
Lessen sales taxes on domestic oil just enough to give it an advantage in the market over foreign oil with goal of as quickly as possible domrestic production gaining 100% of U.S. market.
High corporate rate(possibly up to 90%) on domestic oil production
The goal behind this policy is to quicken the pace of transforming the economy to 100% renewable by raising the cost of carbon at real cost( hidden cost of subsidies, environmental, and health costs) while using domestic instead of foreign oil in the transition as even in a fast transition oil will be needed for years. By using domestic instead of foreign oil, it creates U.S. jobs and adds much needed revenue to government coffers to pay off debt and needed infrastructure.
I could be convinced against this policy as I am not knowledgeable on the environmental impact of fracking. I know a lot of people are against it, and there are all kind of things out there I have no idea are true or not like poisoning water supplies and causing earthquakes. If true, obviously I'd be against it. If in reality fracking can be done safely, and it is controlled to areas that are not like really beautiful, why wouldn't this be good public policy? Left/Right synergy.
Given Trump gave his updated tax plan today, I'll post mine Would love to have one of the tax foundations to analyze it. I think it would be a high growth, high government revenue plan but I just took an accounting 101 course once.
No deductions on net income.
10%-first $100,000 of net income
20%-any additional net income between $100,000-1 mil
30%-any additional net income above 1 mil
15% corporate rate
eliminate as best as possible outdated and poorly designed regulations that add unneeded costs to business
eliminate health insurance costs for business by going to single payer catastrophic/cash for minor health issues
eliminate payroll taxes
tax capital gains at above 10/20/30% rates except when companies offer stock to raise money and then at a 15% rate for net capital gains income above $100,000
*My carbon tax policy given above
*high tax on luxury goods and services
*tax unhealthy food, beverages, and any other harmful products at real cost.
Match tariffs and other anti-free trade laws for nations not willing to have complete and open access to their markets. But shoot for complete free trade and elimination of tariffs on all sides.So if China wants to have 30% tariffs on U.S products and a law that 50% of foreign factories located on Chinese soil must have 50% Chinese ownership, then match it.
$15 minimum wage
State/Local:
Fund state/local government solely through sales and property taxes. No value added taxes as it raises costs of exports, no property taxes on business. No sales taxes on nutritious whole foods or low income rent.
so you basically want to drive the economy into a tale spin and smash working middle class and poor people in the mouth with high energy and travel costs?
why? what good does that do anyone?
sure you can raise that evil corporate tax to 90% and they will just charge your 100% more to recover it.
Not bad mine is simpler. 10% up to 1m dollars 20% for anything over 1m dollars
you pay 0 taxes up to the poverty level for your family size.
so basically a family of 4 would pay 0 taxes up to 24k dollars or something of that nature.
with a cap of 35k dollars for anyone.
if your home value is < 750k dollars then you can get a housing credit on your mortgage.
Pay roll taxes are highly regressive however they temporarily feed the government money through out the year.
they are pretty much a forced own payment on your income taxes. although I say corporate rate at 10%
with deductions only for non-executive pay, healthcare, and expansion or job creation.
There is no reason that long term capital gains should go higher than 15%. short term capital gains is already taxed as income.
Tax negative externailities at real cost:
there is no reason for any of these.
I agree we should have equal access to other nations markets as they do with ours.
So why don't you want low skill/no skill workers to have jobs?
there are only a few states like this. FL, TX, WA I do believe.
which is why me moving to another state is well not smart unless I get a pay increase.
No they wouldn't as foreign oil would then be cheaper and no one would buy their gas. Competition would force them to not do what you say. What they are getting is the huge domestic market handed to them and they profit at 10%, which is WAY more than they would get if they were getting 90% from a tiny share of the market or out of business because cannot compete with cheap foreign oil.
And I obviously do not like high corporate rates as I lower it to 15% on everything else. I make an exception on oil as I think it is a natural resource that should more benefit society as a whole and not a few individuals, who are going to be as rich as can be anyway even at 10%.
By lowering business costs by decreasing corporate rate, eliminating company health insurance costs, and lowering bad regulation costs, this gives business more money to pay higher minimum wage.
On capital gains, I have a low 15% rate when companies offer stock to raise money, the higher rates are just on people trading paper after the fact.
Me, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and John Doerr(One of those guys have a GED) disagree about taxing negative externalities.
Businesses only pay what the job is worth. If the job isn't worth it then they won't pay it.
Which makes 0 sense.
ad poplum fallacy is still a fallacy.
It would be an ad poplum fallacy if I stated it was true because so and so supports it. I did not do that, I just stated some smart people(and me) disagree with you. So what kind of fallacy are you guilty of here?
Do you know what supply and demand is? if you have low supply and high demand the price goes through the roof.
Foreign oil wouldn't be cheaper. Oil is a global traded commodity. it doesn't matter if you are in the US or if you are the middle east if the price is 40 dollars
a barrel then that is the price everywhere. Your tax would only hit US makers and do nothing for anyone else. They are not going to take a 90% tax on the chin.
they will recoop it elsewhere which would be the pump.
SO this is nothing more than class warfare. I don't like that they make so much.
well when working people are paying 10-15 dollars a gallon they will be up in arms.
that is exactly what an ad poplum fallacy is. lol
if anything it could also be an appeal to authority fallacy.
The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude. There are several variations of this fallacy, but we will emphasize two forms.
A."Snob Appeal": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to what an elite or a select few (but not necessarily an authority) in a society thinks or believes.
Businesses only pay what the job is worth. If the job isn't worth it then they won't pay it.
Which makes 0 sense.
ad poplum fallacy is still a fallacy.
I made an A in my Econ 101 course, amazing being all clueless about supply and demand. The up to 90% is meant to be on net profits. It will not effect their costs. If they make 100 million in profits and want to invest 90 million in machinery, and ten million in dividends, the 90% tax is on the ten million. If they want to borrow the 90 million and try and pocket the 100 million they pay 90 million in taxes. If p[rices go real high because of supply and demand you obviously eliminate the oil taxes. But the prices are low today, and demand would be less with higher taxes making gas more expenisve, and opening up the fracking industry would increase supply, and with the transition to electric further decreasing demand, all the factors lean towards prices going down.
Well you are reading my intent wrong. I did not mean it to mean it was proof of truth. All it meant was there are smart people(and me) that disagree with you. No more, no less.
In regards to capital gains, my policy takes into account that there is a difference in the value to an economy between an investor who gives money directly to a company in exchange for stock so that the company can use the money to grow, and an investor who later buys the stock from a fellow investor and the money instead of going to the company is just going to another individual investor. You want to keep the ipo investment at a low rate to encourage investing in a company's growth which has positive impacts to the economy. The later trades have far less impact on the economy and taxing them like regular income makes most hedge fund managers and day traders, etc, pay a fairer progressive rate like everyone else.
Do you know the difference between short term capital gains and long term capital gains and how they are taxed?
no I am reading your intent correctly and you just did it again.
now you are adding an ad hominem into it as well which shows well your argument
wasn't as strong as you think if you have to insult people.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?