• 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!

More equitable income taxes; a modest proposal

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,612
Reaction score
230
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The purpose income tax’s per capita deduction from taxable income is to decrease income taxes upon lower income earners and their families. Most of us would agree that’s a worthy purpose.

The progressive income tax rates purpose is to some extent increase higher income taxpayers’ contribution to government’s tax revenue and thus to some extent also increase the portion of lower earners’ after-tax incomes. [I agree with those believing progressive taxation’s mischief is the underlying cause for many of our less populists, more inequitable and complex tax regulations].

Due to progressive tax rates, the per capita tax deduction is of greater benefits to higher income earners and of lesser amounts of benefits to lower income earners. Many taxpayers’ incomes are too low to completely benefit from the lesser per capita benefits they're otherwise entitled to. Our current drafting of this regulation less effectively promotes democratic populism and its purpose (to decrease income taxes upon lower income earners and their families). The families, (particularly the children) of lower income earners suffer more (than other earners) due to financial needs.

If the per capita benefit were a tax credit rather than a deduction from taxable income deduction, it would greatly remedy these faults. Due to the changing purchasing power of the U.S. dollar, such a modification of regulations would become increasingly less effective if the per capita benefit is not cost of living adjusted, (similar to social security’s COLA).

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The U.S. Congressional Budget Office would determine the initial per capita dollar amount that would enable this proposal to qualify as effectively revenue neutral over a decade’s duration. Due to such a qualification, the congressional act’s passage would require only a simple rather than a super majority plurality.

This proposal’s would not significantly improve our nation’s economy. It would be both an economic and social improvement with no significant down side.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

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 understand exactly what you are suggesting. It is complicated and may take a while for that to sink into my little brain.

My first concern though is if the tax credit would be tax refundable. The last thing that our poor need is another refundable tax credit that they would only get if they made no income. I have met many people that if you give them anything, they will try to live off of that amount rather than to work and pull their own weight in life.

One of the things that I actually like about the personal deduction and standard deduction is that there is a certain assumption that people have a right to earn a base amount of money before we contribute any to the government. I very much agree with that. I also like the idea that if we were to increase that base amount that is not taxible, that everyone regardless of income gets to enjoy that same base amount, and any tax savings of expanding that base amount helps to offset the higher tax rates that people with larger incomes pay.

Politically, I think the biggest obstical with your proposal would be that it would be percieved as a direct redistribution of income - even more so that what we have now.
 
Last edited:

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Politically, I think the biggest obstical with your proposal would be that it would be percieved as a direct redistribution of income - even more so that what we have now.
That's exactly how I see it too. The faults in our current tax code are purposeful - not accidental. In order to change said code, a major shift in how government collect, applies and uses money would need to occur. Such things are not done lightly or I'd argue, done at all. Any changes in the tax code must occur slowly over a period of decades rather than a major shift. Curtailing loophole tax faults would cause not only the wealthy agida but would cause changes in the political system and power base. We're talking about shaking the very pillars of foundation in our government. That is not likely to happen unless an outright disaster the magnitude of which we as a country have never seen before, would occur.

Let's not delude ourselves that any proactive action will occur - government in this century will only be reactive. Therefore financial ruin must occur for changes to take place. That horror is getting closer all the time and perhaps in the next 20-30 years will occur.
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That's exactly how I see it too. The faults in our current tax code are purposeful - not accidental. In order to change said code, a major shift in how government collect, applies and uses money would need to occur. Such things are not done lightly or I'd argue, done at all. Any changes in the tax code must occur slowly over a period of decades rather than a major shift. Curtailing loophole tax faults would cause not only the wealthy agida but would cause changes in the political system and power base. We're talking about shaking the very pillars of foundation in our government. That is not likely to happen unless an outright disaster the magnitude of which we as a country have never seen before, would occur.

Let's not delude ourselves that any proactive action will occur - government in this century will only be reactive. Therefore financial ruin must occur for changes to take place. That horror is getting closer all the time and perhaps in the next 20-30 years will occur.
I hope you are wrong (about financial ruin) but I am afraid you are right.
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,612
Reaction score
230
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
.................... ..........My first concern though is if the tax credit would be tax refundable. The last thing that our poor need is another refundable tax credit that they would only get if they made no income. I have met many people that if you give them anything, they will try to live off of that amount rather than to work and pull their own weight in life.

One of the things that I actually like about the personal deduction and standard deduction is that there is a certain assumption that people have a right to earn a base amount of money before we contribute any to the government. I very much agree with that. I also like the idea that if we were to increase that base amount that is not taxible, that everyone regardless of income gets to enjoy that same base amount, and any tax savings of expanding that base amount helps to offset the higher tax rates that people with larger incomes pay.

Politically, I think the biggest obstical with your proposal would be that it would be percieved as a direct redistribution of income - even more so that what we have now.
Image P, why are you concerned that less wealthy taxpayers will be entitled to refunds of excess income taxes they paid in the current taxable year?

Too many legislators oppose government charity that they accuse of promoting some to deliberately live off taxpayers’ sacrifices and they further oppose lesser taxation upon the working poor. I believe we both perceive that.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,612
Reaction score
230
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Image P & Okham, I’m a populist. I believe the civility and decency of a government is indicted by how it treats its least wealthy and least powerful segments of its population.

If we are to decrease or completely flatten income tax rates, and/or shift any portion of tax revenue from income tax to another flat tax method that directly or indirectly increases the tax burdens upon the less wealthy, there's a need for some compensary provisuins.

There’s a need that the government adopt some additional financial considerations for those who with lesser or no incomes.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,559
Reaction score
3,319
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Supposn:

I really think that the government is tapped out. It will not be posible to keep "giving" stuff to the poorest Americans without finding a way to pay for it. All the tax increases you can think of for the rich will have to be used just to get our current deficit down.

Interest expense on the debt we are already on the hook for will be likely be the largest budget item in a decade.
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,612
Reaction score
230
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Supposn:

I really think that the government is tapped out. It will not be posible to keep "giving" stuff to the poorest Americans without finding a way to pay for it. All the tax increases you can think of for the rich will have to be used just to get our current deficit down.

Interest expense on the debt we are already on the hook for will be likely be the largest budget item in a decade.
WashUNut, you responded to the explicit scenario of;
……… if we decrease or completely flattened income tax rates, and/or shift any portion of tax revenue from personal income tax to another flat tax method that directly or indirectly increases the tax burdens upon the less wealthy, there’s a need for that the government adopt some additional financial considerations for those who with lesser or no incomes.

In such cases additional financial considerations would be compensation for additional direct or indirect increased tax burdens upon the less wealthy. You disagree with this?

Respectfully, Supposn
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,559
Reaction score
3,319
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
WashUNut, you responded to the explicit scenario of;
……… if we decrease or completely flattened income tax rates, and/or shift any portion of tax revenue from personal income tax to another flat tax method that directly or indirectly increases the tax burdens upon the less wealthy, there’s a need for that the government adopt some additional financial considerations for those who with lesser or no incomes.

In such cases additional financial considerations would be compensation for additional direct or indirect increased tax burdens upon the less wealthy. You disagree with this?

Respectfully, Supposn
If what you are saying is that if we go to something like a flat tax we need to insure we do not hurt the less wealthy then I agree with that.

I also think that the nation will son have to choose between less services or more taxes for every group. The rich alone can not fill the gap between spending and revenue generation.
 
Top Bottom