• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

Would you support or oppose ditching the whole tax system and starting over from zero?

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
38,215
Reaction score
25,162
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Would you support or oppose ditching the whole tax system and starting over from zero?

Tear up the whole taxing system. No more structures to hide money, no more tax havens, no loopholes, no giving to charity and claiming it on your taxes, no earned income credit no nothing. No special treatment of anyone just a progressive tax structure where the more one earns the higher the taxes.

Before folks start blasting away at me all I'm saying is stuff needs some changing in america and income inequality is a big one so I'm trying to come up with some ideas for our politicians since they don't seem to do to well together.
 

tecoyah

Illusionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
3,844
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Would you support or oppose ditching the whole tax system and starting over from zero?

Tear up the whole taxing system. No more structures to hide money, no more tax havens, no loopholes, no giving to charity and claiming it on your taxes, no earned income credit no nothing. No special treatment of anyone just a progressive tax structure where the more one earns the higher the taxes.

Before folks start blasting away at me all I'm saying is stuff needs some changing in america and income inequality is a big one so I'm trying to come up with some ideas for our politicians since they don't seem to do to well together.

I support the concept, as well as the end of lobbying and term limits.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,774
Reaction score
53,426
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yes, let's re-do the application of the 16A (taxation of income from all sources). We should have a two number federal income tax code for personal income (and get rid of taxing the income of corporations entirely). There should be fairly generous, yet truly standard, deduction (say $40K) and then a flat tax rate (say 25%) applied to any and all income over that amount. Yes, those at the bottom still get a free ride, but all others from the lower middle class to the mega-rich get any and all of their "excess" income taxed at the same rate (actually it is still quite progressive - due to the truly standard deduction).
 

Middle_Ground

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
2,541
Reaction score
1,216
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes, let's re-do the application of the 16A (taxation of income from all sources). We should have a two number federal income tax code for personal income (and get rid of taxing the income of corporations entirely). There should be fairly generous, yet truly standard, deduction (say $40K) and then a flat tax rate (say 25%) applied to any and all income over that amount. Yes, those at the bottom still get a free ride, but all others from the lower middle class to the mega-rich get any and all of their "excess" income taxed at the same rate (actually it is still quite progressive - due to the truly standard deduction).

Can I ask why you think corporations shouldn't be taxed on their income? I don't understand the idea behind that?

As for the original question yes I would have no problem just starting over.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
31,979
Reaction score
30,903
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In principle I would be for starting over.

One of the main issues I see is the more we mess with tax designations and brackets the more we end up with exemptions and custom rules that one could argue are political gifts. The issue we face with starting over is just a reboot of all those political gifts assuming we could ever agree on the base tax per bracket (if that was even the new standard.) Perhaps a secondary issue we face is how we restructure taxation at the corporate level then again at the individual level, which naturally becomes a question on entity exceptions.

Might be a special interest disaster, but our tax code to date has become a massive disaster.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,774
Reaction score
53,426
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
1) Can I ask why you think corporations shouldn't be taxed on their income? 2) I don't understand the idea behind that?

As for the original question yes I would have no problem just starting over.

1) I simply oppose taxation without representation - remember, way back, when that concept was taboo?

2) Corporate 'profits' should be distributed to share holders (who are taxable individuals) so that money would still be taxed - yet only once under my system.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,774
Reaction score
53,426
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
In principle I would be for starting over.

One of the main issues I see is the more we mess with tax designations and brackets the more we end up with exemptions and custom rules that one could argue are political gifts. The issue we face with starting over is just a reboot of all those political gifts assuming we could ever agree on the base tax per bracket (if that was even the new standard.) Perhaps a secondary issue we face is how we restructure taxation at the corporate level then again at the individual level, which naturally becomes a question on entity exceptions.

Might be a special interest disaster, but our tax code to date has become a massive disaster.

The concept of taxing the same (gross individual) amount of income differently based on how, or upon who, it was later spent is moronic and would seem to violate the (14A?) concept of equal protection (application?) of the law.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
83,153
Reaction score
72,999
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I support taxing all individual income as income using existing tax brackets. There could be a cap for tax free investment income so that those who make most of their money through investment income will be above that cap and will therefore be subject to the same bracket system.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
31,979
Reaction score
30,903
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The concept of taxing the same (gross individual) amount of income differently based on how, or upon who, it was later spent is moronic and would seem to violate the (14A?) concept of equal protection (application?) of the law.

Maybe, various taxation has been challenged over the years to largely failures. It has been argued that there are some 4 limitations on how Congress can craft tax but ultimately they have wide ranging authority to tax and come up with all the means to exclude and/or apply uneven taxation as they see fit. That greatly explains why the tax code to date is enormous and complex.

There is an economic argument (I guess philosophical as well) about corporate taxation and then again on the shareholder and worker for those corporations. We can argue about the 'cost' of taxation on products and services but ultimately we may end up talking about chain entity taxation. The issue is technically most money movement that ends up declared as income ends up subject to taxation.

The other economic argument is more contentious, the idea of every single dollar being equal across all individuals. Some may say this is the diminishing utility argument that is a direct contradiction to a suggestion of treating all income as equal. With that argument is the core means of arguing for progressive taxation. The reason I am going into this is the more we apply inequality to income the more the door opens up to taxation based on use of income, said another way the thousands of means to reduce one's income liability by spending on something (buying a house for example or the number of dependents) or being in a certain condition (like married vs. single as an example.)

If income incentivizes behavior, then so does taxation to the point of control.

It gets messy... quickly.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,774
Reaction score
53,426
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Maybe, various taxation has been challenged over the years to largely failures. It has been argued that there are some 4 limitations on how Congress can craft tax but ultimately they have wide ranging authority to tax and come up with all the means to exclude and/or apply uneven taxation as they see fit. That greatly explains why the tax code to date is enormous and complex.

There is an economic argument (I guess philosophical as well) about corporate taxation and then again on the shareholder and worker for those corporations. We can argue about the 'cost' of taxation on products and services but ultimately we may end up talking about chain entity taxation. The issue is technically most money movement that ends up declared as income ends up subject to taxation.

The other economic argument is more contentious, the idea of every single dollar being equal across all individuals. Some may say this is the diminishing utility argument that is a direct contradiction to a suggestion of treating all income as equal. With that argument is the core means of arguing for progressive taxation. The reason I am going into this is the more we apply inequality to income the more the door opens up to taxation based on use of income, said another way the thousands of means to reduce one's income liability by spending on something (buying a house for example or the number of dependents) or being in a certain condition (like married vs. single as an example.)

If income incentivizes behavior, then so does taxation to the point of control.

It gets messy... quickly.

The idea that federal income taxation should be used as a social engineering vehicle was not expressed in the 16A. If an employer announced that they would pay their workers based on their household's size rather than work (job position?) performed then folks would likely object. Joe and Fred got a $2K/year pay raise because they each added a newborn child to their households, Mary got docked $2K/year because her eldest child just got a job and left home and Frank got docked $2K/year because his wife died - is a crazy idea.
 

Middle_Ground

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
2,541
Reaction score
1,216
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
1) I simply oppose taxation without representation - remember, way back, when that concept was taboo?

2) Corporate 'profits' should be distributed to share holders (who are taxable individuals) so that money would still be taxed - yet only once under my system.

I agree the same dollars shouldn't be taxed 2xs however if we are starting from scratch and getting rid of all loopholes and the supreme court essentially said corporations are people shouldn't those people be taxed like everyone else. Wouldn't the minimum deduction apply to them also.
I don't know it just doesn't seem fair to me that you can spend billions to get who you want elected but shouldn't be taxed. Isn't that representation?
Who knows maybe I'm looking at it in a different way?
 

Middle_Ground

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
2,541
Reaction score
1,216
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The idea that federal income taxation should be used as a social engineering vehicle was not expressed in the 16A. If an employer announced that they would pay their workers based on their household's size rather than work (job position?) performed then folks would likely object. Joe and Fred got a $2K/year pay raise because they each added a newborn child to their households, Mary got docked $2K/year because her eldest child just got a job and left home and Frank got docked $2K/year because his wife died - is a crazy idea.

Isn't that kinda what happens now?
Eic/child tax credit and your deduction changes if you no longer have a spouse.
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
45,968
Reaction score
52,024
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Would you support or oppose ditching the whole tax system and starting over from zero?

Tear up the whole taxing system. No more structures to hide money, no more tax havens, no loopholes, no giving to charity and claiming it on your taxes, no earned income credit no nothing. No special treatment of anyone just a progressive tax structure where the more one earns the higher the taxes.

Before folks start blasting away at me all I'm saying is stuff needs some changing in america and income inequality is a big one so I'm trying to come up with some ideas for our politicians since they don't seem to do to well together.

I really believe that there is only one "fair" tax system and that is to do away with currency, issue everyone a government debit card and have the government decide how much money you should get every week. You won't have to worry about employers ripping you off or the guy next door pulling off a tax scam you are uncomfortable or unwilling to commit. You won't have to worry about income inequality because everything will be allotted in the most democratic way possible. Add in a little free medical for everyone, proper housing restrictions and an equalized, healthy food distribution system and nobody would ever need to worry about being broke again.

-edit-

OK, I tend to get REALLY sarcastic in these threads but, bottom line, I'd actually prefer that the federal income tax be abolished and that all federal revenue come from a tax on interstate and international commerce. No more using the federal income tax as a tool for influencing social change.

Individual income tax should be a STATE level tax, if a state chooses to impose such a thing, and all the experimenting with social and economic influences through taxation can happen in those 50 cells instead of across the country. Furthermore, taking a huge chunk of power away from the federal government will increase individual liberty, make government more accountable to the people and allow the feds to focus on the things they're supposed to focus on rather than all the little crap that bogs them down.
 
Last edited:

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,774
Reaction score
53,426
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I agree the same dollars shouldn't be taxed 2xs however if we are starting from scratch and getting rid of all loopholes and the supreme court essentially said corporations are people shouldn't those people be taxed like everyone else. Wouldn't the minimum deduction apply to them also.
I don't know it just doesn't seem fair to me that you can spend billions to get who you want elected but shouldn't be taxed. Isn't that representation?
Who knows maybe I'm looking at it in a different way?

Corporations simply raise the prices of their goods/services to generate the "correct" net profit percentage - which is distributed to the shareholders. Taxing corporations is no different than taxing their customers.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,774
Reaction score
53,426
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Isn't that kinda what happens now?
Eic/child tax credit and your deduction changes if you no longer have a spouse.

Yes, but that is far from the 'equal pay for equal work' idea which folks say that they want.
 

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
25,399
Reaction score
4,221
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Would you support or oppose ditching the whole tax system and starting over from zero?

Tear up the whole taxing system. No more structures to hide money, no more tax havens, no loopholes, no giving to charity and claiming it on your taxes, no earned income credit no nothing. No special treatment of anyone just a progressive tax structure where the more one earns the higher the taxes.

Before folks start blasting away at me all I'm saying is stuff needs some changing in america and income inequality is a big one so I'm trying to come up with some ideas for our politicians since they don't seem to do to well together.

Of course. Repeal the 16th amendment, and go back to one flat tax to pay for everything. Ideally everyone pays an equal amount, but since the govt is too expensive to that, lets start with a single flat rate on wages after a standard deduction.
 

Juggernaut74

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,784
Reaction score
1,366
Location
Iowa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
In theory, I’d support it. But here’s the rub...

All these posts saying “just make a flat tax on income” miss the point that much of the complexity of the tax code - even in its current state - stems from defining just what is and what isn’t income.

Are gifts taxable? Are inheritances? What about trading/bartering? If I find a $20 bill lying on the ground, is that income? If my employer pays for my health insurance is that income? If my home rises in value, is that income? If my 401(k) account rises in value is that income? Etc etc etc

And others have commented on it already, but for better or worse, there is a TON of social engineering done through the tax code. I’d argue it’s Congress’ favorite way to social engineer. I mean, if you were following the latest tax cut bill as it worked through its various permutations, you saw howling at the prospect of getting rid of the charitable deduction (no one will contribute to charities anymore!!!), the mortgage interest deduction (home prices will fall because it’s going to be more expensive to buy a house!!!), or various exemptions from tax.

Now some would argue, and I’m not sure I disagree completely, that maybe we just need to rip that band-aid off, suffer a bit of pain in the short term as things re-stabilize, and end up with a fairer or “better” tax system in the end.

But ultimately, no politician will put his/her neck on the line that much and intentionally inflict that much pain, lest he/she immediately blow his/her shot at re-election. So ultimately, I don’t ever see it happening.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,774
Reaction score
53,426
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
In theory, I’d support it. But here’s the rub...

All these posts saying “just make a flat tax on income” miss the point that much of the complexity of the tax code - even in its current state - stems from defining just what is and what isn’t income.

Are gifts taxable? Are inheritances? What about trading/bartering? If I find a $20 bill lying on the ground, is that income? If my employer pays for my health insurance is that income? If my home rises in value, is that income? If my 401(k) account rises in value is that income? Etc etc etc

And others have commented on it already, but for better or worse, there is a TON of social engineering done through the tax code. I’d argue it’s Congress’ favorite way to social engineer. I mean, if you were following the latest tax cut bill as it worked through its various permutations, you saw howling at the prospect of getting rid of the charitable deduction (no one will contribute to charities anymore!!!), the mortgage interest deduction (home prices will fall because it’s going to be more expensive to buy a house!!!), or various exemptions from tax.

Now some would argue, and I’m not sure I disagree completely, that maybe we just need to rip that band-aid off, suffer a bit of pain in the short term as things re-stabilize, and end up with a fairer or “better” tax system in the end.

But ultimately, no politician will put his/her neck on the line that much and intentionally inflict that much pain, lest he/she immediately blow his/her shot at re-election. So ultimately, I don’t ever see it happening.

Yep, who knew that making something free could be so complicated.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
31,979
Reaction score
30,903
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The idea that federal income taxation should be used as a social engineering vehicle was not expressed in the 16A. If an employer announced that they would pay their workers based on their household's size rather than work (job position?) performed then folks would likely object. Joe and Fred got a $2K/year pay raise because they each added a newborn child to their households, Mary got docked $2K/year because her eldest child just got a job and left home and Frank got docked $2K/year because his wife died - is a crazy idea.

I understand the argument, just unclear if it has ever been challenged on those grounds.

The *only* reason I am talking about this is my position to support starting over with our tax code suggests an all of a sudden abandonment of what is there now. That means all those arguably social engineering vehicles are discarded day one, odds are a politician or two out there will try go get them back in one way or another.

The rest of your post is more or less handled now without it being so concrete.

Not everyone doing the exact same job ends up with the exact same pay. Performance, skill set, longevity with the company, job market for a given position with a company, the list goes on impacting all the things that may make person A make more than person B doing basically the same thing with the same job title. All things considered the workforce population attempts to find the job at the rate they desire (within reason of course,) which ends up placing them in competition against everyone else in a given labor pool (labor supply and demand.) Employers are not paying based on the similar criteria to taxation reason, and that tends to break your argument (even though I understand the Constitutional question on the government using tax code to control behavior.)

Our core issue is still the same, even with the idea of starting over with our tax code a big flaw in the plan is the wide range of taxation authority Congress seems to have and uses for all sort of social influences and control reasons. Good, bad, or otherwise Congress consistently wants to involve themselves in influencing society and economics, I doubt they will change anytime soon.

Besides, when was the last time Congress did something to restrict themselves? (Which is the only real way around this.)
 

Juggernaut74

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,784
Reaction score
1,366
Location
Iowa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I understand the argument, just unclear if it has ever been challenged on those grounds.

The *only* reason I am talking about this is my position to support starting over with our tax code suggests an all of a sudden abandonment of what is there now. That means all those arguably social engineering vehicles are discarded day one, odds are a politician or two out there will try go get them back in one way or another.


Exactly. Or alternatively find themselves voted out of office en masse.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
31,979
Reaction score
30,903
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Exactly. Or alternatively find themselves voted out of office en masse.

Which rarely happens, Congressional reelection rates against approval rates have never lined up.
 

Juggernaut74

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,784
Reaction score
1,366
Location
Iowa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Which rarely happens, Congressional reelection rates against approval rates have never lined up.

True. I suspect such a drastic rewrite & elimination of perceived tax breaks (even if the net tax isn’t drastically changed) might change that however.

I could be wrong though *shrug*
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,587
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Would you support or oppose ditching the whole tax system and starting over from zero?

Tear up the whole taxing system. No more structures to hide money, no more tax havens, no loopholes, no giving to charity and claiming it on your taxes, no earned income credit no nothing. No special treatment of anyone just a progressive tax structure where the more one earns the higher the taxes.

Before folks start blasting away at me all I'm saying is stuff needs some changing in america and income inequality is a big one so I'm trying to come up with some ideas for our politicians since they don't seem to do to well together.

yes ditch the whole thing and start over.

the fact is that our current code is simply way to old to try and modify and way to complex.

it needs to be completely replaced with something way more efficient and less costly.
See TTWT i support a similar plan.
 
Top Bottom