Income tax
- Thread starter NoDrama
- Start date
Illumination
New Member
angelsbandit
Well-Known Member
As it is 47% of all working Americans pay zero or negative federal income taxes - leaving 40% of Americans to pay 86% of the total Federal income tax.
undertheice
Well-Known Member
why would anyone in their right mind donate the fruits of their labors to the black hole of federal spending? i might be willing to give some of my earnings to benefit the local infrastructure and even contribute on a state level, but the federal government has proven itself totally unworthy of my trust and too incompetent to be allowed to manage such huge sums of money.
Countryfarmer
Active Member
I wouldn't. I would think most people wouldn't. I would gladly vote in favor of a consumption based tax to replace our current tax system.
angelsbandit
Well-Known Member
A point of sale consumption tax would be better for those with little saved, or invested money, but those who have worked, paid taxes and invested or saved the rest would end up being taxed twice.
Further almost 50% of Americans pay no Federal tax now, and I don't think they would be too happy if they had to pay their part.
Further almost 50% of Americans pay no Federal tax now, and I don't think they would be too happy if they had to pay their part.
Countryfarmer
Active Member
A workable consumption tax would involve a rebate of taxation based on national poverty levels. This would ensure that those who are truly poor would not end up having to pay taxes on the funds that they use for the baseline of the hierarchy of needs.
As to those who have invested money, they would be thrilled about a consumption tax. As long as the wealth was not spent, even if they were buying and selling multiple stocks every day, there would be no taxation on this wealth. Only at the point that the wealth was utilized to purchase an end consumable would it be taxed. Additionally, as the capital gains tax is about to return to pre-Tax Reconciliation Act levels, meaning that all capital gains will be taxed at ordinary income levels. That means, just selling a stock, even though the income is reinvested could trigger a tax event. All this will do is reduce capital investment by private individuals.
As to those who have invested money, they would be thrilled about a consumption tax. As long as the wealth was not spent, even if they were buying and selling multiple stocks every day, there would be no taxation on this wealth. Only at the point that the wealth was utilized to purchase an end consumable would it be taxed. Additionally, as the capital gains tax is about to return to pre-Tax Reconciliation Act levels, meaning that all capital gains will be taxed at ordinary income levels. That means, just selling a stock, even though the income is reinvested could trigger a tax event. All this will do is reduce capital investment by private individuals.
angelsbandit
Well-Known Member
My point was geared tword those who have already paid income tax, and capital gains tax on the funds only to be taxed again when they spend it. This scenario could leave some paying over 70% of the initial income as taxes.
Yes - some of the wealthy would love not paying until the money is spent, but to make up for the taxes they currently pay the point of sale tax would have to be very high, as like it or not - it is the wealthy who pay the bulk of the taxes..
Yes - some of the wealthy would love not paying until the money is spent, but to make up for the taxes they currently pay the point of sale tax would have to be very high, as like it or not - it is the wealthy who pay the bulk of the taxes..
drinkmugrootbeer
Active Member
nope not me but I would act like I do
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
. As soon as it became disinvantagous to pay, which would happen pretty much right away.
But as soon as the infrastructure all those taxes pay for started crumbling, how many people do you think would choose to move to a country who has a government taxing their citizens using the benefits to provide the things that We have become accustomed to using.
You will still have taxes, just not on income, the way it should be. One sure way to shrink the rat government, take away the biggest piece of cheese.
medicineman
New Member
The infrastructure is crumbling now. If the Bush tax cuts are let to expire, maybe some of that money could go towards infrastructure repair. Allowing them to continue is fiscally idiotic and irresponsible. We are only talking about 3% on the richest dudes in America for Christs sake. Even those rich dudes would get tax relief on the first 250,000 bucks they earned, just like the rest of Americans. I and most of the people I know have never even made a quarter of that in a year. I can't even imagine what it is like to be rich, but if I were, I doubt I'd be crying over a 3% hike on my income tax while the rest of the regular people are losing their jobs, homes and everything that made America great. But that is how Capitalism makes people.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Infrastructure is strictly a local issue.
Next!
Next!
medicineman
New Member
Bridges accross the mississippi, uh local? Interstate highways, local? Local is in dire straights everywhere. Ports local? Airfields local? How could you percive locals coming up with a hundred mil for a new bridge, A half a bil. for a new airfield, a new port or repairs to either? How about utility lines, sewers, electric, flood, all local? I think they float bonds for some of these, but I believe the federal is involved in some also.
Countryfarmer
Active Member
Completely and totally incorrect. This kind of bad information is why people continue to make poor decisions.
If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, every single tax bracket will see a tax increase.
The lowest marginal tax bracket will increase from 10% to 15%. That is a 50% increase on the marginal rate for those taxpayers, and every other marginal bracket will see their own increases.
The marriage penalty will return, meaning all married tax payers will pay more than the equivalent income from two non-married people.
Dividends will be taxed at the ordinary tax bracket rates, meaning there will be a disincentive to invest in businesses.
The death tax will return, costing those taxpayers who fall into its clutches a whopping 55% of their estate upon their death. That is a death knell for many family farms who are land rich but cash poor.
Also affected will be the child tax credit, which will be cut in half; all education IRAs which will have the amount allowed reduced; long term capital gains will increase for everyone, affecting anyone selling a home or other large capital investment.
Simply put, if the tax cuts are allowed to expire it will be the largest single tax increase in the history of America, and all of us will feel the pinch.
BudMcLovin
Active Member
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
A bridge across the Mississippi River is, in fact, local. At a point you cannot see, there is an invisible boundary which separates Tennessee from Arkansas. Both states are responsible for that bridge. But that is not the point.
Transportation is Constitutional. The Federal government is perfectly correct in involving itself in transportation issues. However, the maintenance on all of those bridges and roads remains the responsibility of the state where that bridge or road is located. Every state has a Transportation Department charged with seeing to it that roads and bridges remain viable. If a state fell down on the job maintaining and building those roads and bridges over the years; crying foul now is disingenuous.
We pay plenty of excise taxes, both state and federal, on every gallon of gas we purchase. Not to mention the taxes we pay in the form of higher prices because the diesel used to transport goods and services is taxed. This tax is passed onto the consumer.
However, in my state, a full 25% of the state fuel taxes are diverted away from Transportation and dedicated to Public Education. These shenanigans go on everywhere, up to and including the Federal level. Government hacks love to play hide the weenie with non-essential, even totally irrelevant, projects so that come Appropriations time they can cry poverty.
In short, transportation would be fully funded if all taxes collected under the guise of Transportation taxes were actually used on transportation. Your yelping about crumbling transportation infrastructure only serves to highlight the incompetence and/or chicanery of Federal, State, and County officials.
And once again, (traditional) infrastructure is completely local.
mame
Well-Known Member
I believe Medicine Man's comment (which you bolded) is more toward the debate around the Bush tax cut debate which is not whether or not they should be extended but whether or not the richest 3% of America needs to keep their tax cut; People making less than 250,000 will most likely retain the tax cuts and none of what you said will happen.
also, QQ Americans pay so much taxes! (not... http://www.straightdope.com/columns...pared-to-the-rest-of-the-industrialized-world)
Similar threads
