"G.O.P."

[Baldy]

The flat tax is never going to happen and, IMO, that's a good thing. A progressive tax rate is here to stay, and there's nothing fundamentally wrong about having rich people pay more in percentage of tax than the less wealthy. And your comment about the guy making 20k being fine with paying the same percentage as the guy making 200k is just silly - you can't honestly believe there would be many people making 20k who would be fine with that situation.

If the attraction of the flat tax is simply the cleaning up and streamlining the tax code, you can do the same thing with a pretty basic progressive tax system. There's no need to go so drastic as a flat tax just for the purposes of making things simpler. Heck, just calling any source of income, realized or not, as taxable and having no deductions of any kind and then having a fixed number of tax brackets makes things pretty simple and you still have the rich person pay more in percentage than the less rich person. That's pretty simple without having to go a step further and go to the flat tax.

Flat tax is likely an extreme, but the abomination of tax code in the US needs a serious overhaul. You throw flat tax out there as an option, get a little steam behind it, and you end up with improvement to what we have now even if it's still some form of progressive tax. A flat tax is hardly a silly proposition given that it would require wealthy individuals and corporations to abandon the deductions - legislation right now is largely targeting individuals, not revising corporate tax code where billions of dollars are going unreported.

The US tax code has been simplified and streamlined countless times in the past only to end up where we are now. As long as politicians in Washington have the power to change the tax code at will in order to purchase the votes of the voting public, simplifying the tax code is a colossal waste of time, energy, and money. The total and complete elimination of ALL income taxes is the only solution to this problem. The US seemed to run pretty well for the first 150 years of it's existence without an income tax. There's no reason to think it wouldn't now.

[Pwns]

Flat tax is likely an extreme, but the abomination of tax code in the US needs a serious overhaul. You throw flat tax out there as an option, get a little steam behind it, and you end up with improvement to what we have now even if it's still some form of progressive tax. A flat tax is hardly a silly proposition given that it would require wealthy individuals and corporations to abandon the deductions - legislation right now is largely targeting individuals, not revising corporate tax code where billions of dollars are going unreported.
The US tax code has been simplified and streamlined countless times in the past only to end up where we are now. As long as politicians in Washington have the power to change the tax code at will in order to purchase the votes of the voting public, simplifying the tax code is a colossal waste of time, energy, and money. The total and complete elimination of ALL income taxes is the only solution to this problem. The US seemed to run pretty well for the first 150 years of it's existence without an income tax. There's no reason to think it wouldn't now.

I think you may be right as far as personal and small business taxes, but corporate taxes are FAR too complex and because of loopholes some corporations might pay some of the highest corporate taxes in the world while others don't pay any in taxes.

Close those loopholes and lower the rates.

But then what would the for-profit colleges and folks making money off of education loans do?

Stop filling kid's heads with this nonsense that you are a loser without college and that technical colleges are the easy way out. Help them to realize that they have more options and make sure they are financially literate with respect to student loans and the cost of college. Then maybe higher education will some day become less of a sellers market and for profits will actually have put out a good product and not just find people who are willing to get any kind of college education at any cost.

[houndawg]

Flat tax is likely an extreme, but the abomination of tax code in the US needs a serious overhaul. You throw flat tax out there as an option, get a little steam behind it, and you end up with improvement to what we have now even if it's still some form of progressive tax. A flat tax is hardly a silly proposition given that it would require wealthy individuals and corporations to abandon the deductions - legislation right now is largely targeting individuals, not revising corporate tax code where billions of dollars are going unreported.

I'm fine with that, I was just pointing out that moving away from a progressive tax system is pretty much a non-starter at this point though - the tax system is going to try to be progressive, there's no turning back from that concept. Whether it ends up being progressive is another thing, but our system is always going to have that intent.

As for the corporate tax code, again, we're going to have to get past the idea that we can roll the clocks back to the 1950's and return to raking in large amounts of tax from corporations This isn't the 1950's anymore and there will always be other countries out there trying to get just any of the corporate tax revenue. In that competition, the end game is that the rates, and therefore the revenues, from corporate taxation are going to be minimized. The only place to get it is from the individuals and the shareholders the corporation gives money to as employees or investors. We can gnash our teeth about that all it want but it doesn't change reality.

Since corporations are people, why do they need a different tax code?

If they don't pay, throw them in jail for tax evasion.

[kalm]

Flat tax is likely an extreme, but the abomination of tax code in the US needs a serious overhaul. You throw flat tax out there as an option, get a little steam behind it, and you end up with improvement to what we have now even if it's still some form of progressive tax. A flat tax is hardly a silly proposition given that it would require wealthy individuals and corporations to abandon the deductions - legislation right now is largely targeting individuals, not revising corporate tax code where billions of dollars are going unreported.
The US tax code has been simplified and streamlined countless times in the past only to end up where we are now. As long as politicians in Washington have the power to change the tax code at will in order to purchase the votes of the voting public, simplifying the tax code is a colossal waste of time, energy, and money. The total and complete elimination of ALL income taxes is the only solution to this problem. PThe US seemed to run pretty well for the first 150 years of it's existence without an income tax. There's no reason to think it wouldn't now.

I think you may be right as far as personal and small business taxes, but corporate taxes are FAR too complex and because of loopholes some corporations might pay some of the highest corporate taxes in the world while others don't pay any in taxes.

Close those loopholes and lower the rates.

But then what would the for-profit colleges and folks making money off of education loans do?

Stop filling kid's heads with this nonsense that you are a loser without college and that technical colleges are the easy way out. Help them to realize that they have more options and make sure they are financially literate with respect to student loans and the cost of college. Then maybe higher education will some day become less of a sellers market and for profits will actually have put out a good product and not just find people who are willing to get any kind of college education at any cost.

Agree.

[GannonFan]

I'm fine with that, I was just pointing out that moving away from a progressive tax system is pretty much a non-starter at this point though - the tax system is going to try to be progressive, there's no turning back from that concept. Whether it ends up being progressive is another thing, but our system is always going to have that intent.

As for the corporate tax code, again, we're going to have to get past the idea that we can roll the clocks back to the 1950's and return to raking in large amounts of tax from corporations This isn't the 1950's anymore and there will always be other countries out there trying to get just any of the corporate tax revenue. In that competition, the end game is that the rates, and therefore the revenues, from corporate taxation are going to be minimized. The only place to get it is from the individuals and the shareholders the corporation gives money to as employees or investors. We can gnash our teeth about that all it want but it doesn't change reality.

Since corporations are people, why do they need a different tax code?

If they don't pay, throw them in jail for tax evasion.

Gee, super idea. How do you propose we go about throwing a corporation in jail? Sometimes the simplest ideas are also the dumbest. Case in point here.

[houndawg]

Since corporations are people, why do they need a different tax code?

If they don't pay, throw them in jail for tax evasion.

Gee, super idea. How do you propose we go about throwing a corporation in jail? Sometimes the simplest ideas are also the dumbest. Case in point here.

C'mon GF, use a little imagination... ... start with the CEO, the person behind the corporate person.


You seem a little peevish today, old timer, everything OK?

[kalm]

Since corporations are people, why do they need a different tax code?

If they don't pay, throw them in jail for tax evasion.

Gee, super idea. How do you propose we go about throwing a corporation in jail? Sometimes the simplest ideas are also the dumbest. Case in point here.

Why can't you throw a corporation in jail?

[JohnStOnge]

As is typical, the author provides no argument whatsoever for the idea that the lower 99 percent ( in this case) would be better off if the top 1 percent hadn't hadn't done as well. See...if the top 1 percent had suffered a decline in income while the lower 99 percent did about how they did then I guess every thing would be swell. Never mind that it doesn't mean that the lower 99 percent wouldn't be in the same place. Why, the GAP wouldn't be as big. And that's what matters.

[kalm]

As is typical, the author provides no argument whatsoever for the idea that the lower 99 percent ( in this case) would be better off if the top 1 percent hadn't hadn't done as well. See...if the top 1 percent had suffered a decline in income while the lower 99 percent did about how they did then I guess every thing would be swell. Never mind that it doesn't mean that the lower 99 percent wouldn't be in the same place. Why, the GAP wouldn't be as big. And that's what matters.

You're over complicating this. We have historically done better when the income gap is lower and government policies support long term investments in the greater economy versus benefitting a certain few.

[YoUDeeMan]

As is typical, the author provides no argument whatsoever for the idea that the lower 99 percent ( in this case) would be better off if the top 1 percent hadn't hadn't done as well. See...if the top 1 percent had suffered a decline in income while the lower 99 percent did about how they did then I guess every thing would be swell. Never mind that it doesn't mean that the lower 99 percent wouldn't be in the same place. Why, the GAP wouldn't be as big. And that's what matters.

You're over complicating this. We have historically done better when the income gap is lower and government policies support long term investments in the greater economy versus benefitting a certain few.

Sometimes we need those uber rich guys...where would we have been without Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, and the rest of the Robber Barons/Captains of Industry (and your favorite...J.P. Morgan)?

A concentration of wealth is sometimes what is needed.

[kalm]

You're over complicating this. We have historically done better when the income gap is lower and government policies support long term investments in the greater economy versus benefitting a certain few.

Sometimes we need those uber rich guys...where would we have been without Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, and the rest of the Robber Barons/Captains of Industry (and your favorite...J.P. Morgan)?

A concentration of wealth is sometimes what is needed.

I think there's a certain degree of truth to that. Still, where would they have been without a nations resources and westward expansion?

[AZGrizFan]

Flat tax. It would be hard for a person making $20K to fault a person making $200K if they're paying the same percentage without all the loopholes and spurious deductions.

It feels to me like this administration is really trying to unsuccessfully equalize pay and put everyone on the same level, which flies in the face of a meritocracy. The more some wealthy folks are taxed, the more creative they and some of their taxation attorneys and accountants will continue to self-interpret the myriad IRS regulations that are rarely black and white, but shades of grey.

US citizens have a responsibility to care for those in our society that cannot take care of themselves. A flat tax or drastic change to our current taxation system would eliminate much of the IRS bureaucracy while likely providing the government with a more reliable revenue stream. I don't begrudge those who have accumulated wealth either by inheritance or concerted effort on their part, but we really shouldn't be trying to make everyone who has that luck guilty of committing some wrongdoing simply for having more than others. Fix the system so that it benefits and/or penalizes everyone equally, including (especially) companies who are the biggest offenders.

The flat tax is never going to happen and, IMO, that's a good thing. A progressive tax rate is here to stay, and there's nothing fundamentally wrong about having rich people pay more in percentage of tax than the less wealthy. And your comment about the guy making 20k being fine with paying the same percentage as the guy making 200k is just silly - you can't honestly believe there would be many people making 20k who would be fine with that situation.

If the attraction of the flat tax is simply the cleaning up and streamlining the tax code, you can do the same thing with a pretty basic progressive tax system. There's no need to go so drastic as a flat tax just for the purposes of making things simpler. Heck, just calling any source of income, realized or not, as taxable and having no deductions of any kind and then having a fixed number of tax brackets makes things pretty simple and you still have the rich person pay more in percentage than the less rich person. That's pretty simple without having to go a step further and go to the flat tax.

Here's the funny thing about deductions and "loopholes". A lot of them magically "close" the more money you make. I have a pretty basic income tax return, but due to income levels am no longer able to deduct the following items (including but not limited to) education expenses, childcare, medical expenses, and countless other deductions I used to be able to deduct. And in addition to that I'm subject to the AMT, which is the biggest fucking abortion ever foisted on this country.

If some jackass who makes $25,000 in a year (but pays $0 in taxes) has the never to tell me I don't pay MY fair share he's going to get dropped like a stone.

[BDKJMU]

Flat tax is likely an extreme, but the abomination of tax code in the US needs a serious overhaul. You throw flat tax out there as an option, get a little steam behind it, and you end up with improvement to what we have now even if it's still some form of progressive tax. A flat tax is hardly a silly proposition given that it would require wealthy individuals and corporations to abandon the deductions - legislation right now is largely targeting individuals, not revising corporate tax code where billions of dollars are going unreported.

The US tax code has been simplified and streamlined countless times in the past only to end up where we are now. As long as politicians in Washington have the power to change the tax code at will in order to purchase the votes of the voting public, simplifying the tax code is a colossal waste of time, energy, and money. The total and complete elimination of ALL income taxes is the only solution to this problem. The US seemed to run pretty well for the first 150 years of it's existence without an income tax. There's no reason to think it wouldn't now.

Ditto. There's hundreds of billions in untaxed income every year. Why? Because what the IRS doesn't know won't hurt them. In my younger days I had some jobs that paid cash under the table. Did I tell the IRS? Hell no.

Eliminating the income tax and going with a national sales tax would fix this. It would also encourage people to spend less and save more. And that's something that is sorely needed in the US- people need to save more.

[kalm]

The US tax code has been simplified and streamlined countless times in the past only to end up where we are now. As long as politicians in Washington have the power to change the tax code at will in order to purchase the votes of the voting public, simplifying the tax code is a colossal waste of time, energy, and money. The total and complete elimination of ALL income taxes is the only solution to this problem. The US seemed to run pretty well for the first 150 years of it's existence without an income tax. There's no reason to think it wouldn't now.

Ditto. There's hundreds of billions in untaxed income every year. Why? Because what the IRS doesn't know won't hurt them. In my younger days I had some jobs that paid cash under the table. Did I tell the IRS? Hell no.

Eliminating the income tax and going with a national sales tax would fix this. It would also encourage people to spend less and save more. And that's something that is sorely needed in the US- people need to save more.

Yes, people need to save more but wouldn't a sales tax simply cut consumption and depress wages? Not sure that's what you want given consumer spending is 2/3's of our economy. I'm also not sure the wealthy can buy enough things to drive that engine or produce enough revenue to pay for government.

[Baldy]

Ditto. There's hundreds of billions in untaxed income every year. Why? Because what the IRS doesn't know won't hurt them. In my younger days I had some jobs that paid cash under the table. Did I tell the IRS? Hell no.

Eliminating the income tax and going with a national sales tax would fix this. It would also encourage people to spend less and save more. And that's something that is sorely needed in the US- people need to save more.

Yes, people need to save more but wouldn't a sales tax simply cut consumption and depress wages? Not sure that's what you want given consumer spending is 2/3's of our economy. I'm also not sure the wealthy can buy enough things to drive that engine or produce enough revenue to pay for government.

No and no.

Wages will go up because withholding and payroll taxes will be eliminated and you will keep all of your income. There will be no such thing as "net" income anymore. Your gross income will be your take home pay.

With the elimination of corporate income taxes, the imbedded taxes (and compliance costs) in the goods you buy will be eliminated by the approximate amount of the consumption tax. That means the cost of the goods you buy will remain, for the most part, the same. Some goods might be marginally higher, while others will be a little less.

With the elimination of income taxes, especially corporate income taxes, the US will turn into the largest tax haven in the world. The trillions of dollars that has been shipped into safe havens around the world to escape income taxes over the years will start to find their way home...quickly.

[kalm]

Yes, people need to save more but wouldn't a sales tax simply cut consumption and depress wages? Not sure that's what you want given consumer spending is 2/3's of our economy. I'm also not sure the wealthy can buy enough things to drive that engine or produce enough revenue to pay for government.

No and no.

Wages will go up because withholding and payroll taxes will be eliminated and you will keep all of your income. There will be no such thing as "net" income anymore. Your gross income will be your take home pay.

With the elimination of corporate income taxes, the imbedded taxes (and compliance costs) in the goods you buy will be eliminated by the approximate amount of the consumption tax. That means the cost of the goods you buy will remain, for the most part, the same. Some goods might be marginally higher, while others will be a little less.

With the elimination of income taxes, especially corporate income taxes, the US will turn into the largest tax haven in the world. The trillions of dollars that has been shipped into safe havens around the world to escape income taxes over the years will start to find their way home...quickly.

That's not tax cut or a wage increase. They're justing getting to keep what they rightfully earned!

Serious question: What items would be taxed? Just retail? Services? Wholesale? Washington State has no income tax, just a sales, B&O, etc. And everything is taxed from retail, to timber, to litter. The sales tax rate is 8.7% and we're still having a tough time balancing the budget.

[GannonFan]

As is typical, the author provides no argument whatsoever for the idea that the lower 99 percent ( in this case) would be better off if the top 1 percent hadn't hadn't done as well. See...if the top 1 percent had suffered a decline in income while the lower 99 percent did about how they did then I guess every thing would be swell. Never mind that it doesn't mean that the lower 99 percent wouldn't be in the same place. Why, the GAP wouldn't be as big. And that's what matters.

You're over complicating this. We have historically done better when the income gap is lower and government policies support long term investments in the greater economy versus benefitting a certain few.

We've never been "better" when the income gap decreases (a tad different than nominally saying the income gap is less). The income gap decreases, i.e. rich and not rich people get closer together, when the economy contracts, i.e. a recession or depression. There's no other time when the income gap decreases. Rich people always do better than non-rich people when the economy grows simply because they had more to start with and hence, more to grow with. Pining away for some dream of no income gap is just not realistic and it's not a viable economic policy to aim for. It sounds great in Occupy movements and other fads to pass the time with, but it's more of a slogan than a workable policy.

[kalm]

You're over complicating this. We have historically done better when the income gap is lower and government policies support long term investments in the greater economy versus benefitting a certain few.

We've never been "better" when the income gap decreases (a tad different than nominally saying the income gap is less). The income gap decreases, i.e. rich and not rich people get closer together, when the economy contracts, i.e. a recession or depression. There's no other time when the income gap decreases. Rich people always do better than non-rich people when the economy grows simply because they had more to start with and hence, more to grow with. Pining away for some dream of no income gap is just not realistic and it's not a viable economic policy to aim for. It sounds great in Occupy movements and other fads to pass the time with, but it's more of a slogan than a workable policy.

1) You're right. The income gap increases with the bubble prior to a recession.

2) Where did I say we should have "no income gap?"

[Baldy]

Serious question: What items would be taxed? Just retail? Services? Wholesale? Washington State has no income tax, just a sales, B&O, etc. And everything is taxed from retail, to timber, to litter. The sales tax rate is 8.7% and we're still having a tough time balancing the budget.

Everything at the retail level would be taxed. No tax on labor or services, timber, litter, wholesale, etc.

[kalm]

Serious question: What items would be taxed? Just retail? Services? Wholesale? Washington State has no income tax, just a sales, B&O, etc. And everything is taxed from retail, to timber, to litter. The sales tax rate is 8.7% and we're still having a tough time balancing the budget.

Everything at the retail level would be taxed. No tax on labor or services, timber, litter, wholesale, etc.

What would the rate have to be? What would all of those IRS accountants and H&R Block folks do for work?

[Baldy]

Everything at the retail level would be taxed. No tax on labor or services, timber, litter, wholesale, etc.

What would the rate have to be? What would all of those IRS accountants and H&R Block folks do for work?

The rate according to the Fair Tax is 23%.

It's not like the IRS would be put out of business. There will still be a need for agents to pursue delinquent taxpayers, as well as personnel to process sales tax payments and returns. The best part is a leaner, more efficient department by not having to worry about compliance for 150,000,000+ individual taxpayers.

The overwhelming majority of H&R Block employees are seasonal anyway. Besides, with the obvious boom that the elimination of income taxes would have on the economy, they wouldn't be unemployed for very long.

[HI54UNI]

Everything at the retail level would be taxed. No tax on labor or services, timber, litter, wholesale, etc.

What would the rate have to be? What would all of those IRS accountants and H&R Block folks do for work?

The H&R folks would go back to being plumbers, ditch diggers, fast food workers, etc. like they normally are.

[BDKJMU]

Ditto. There's hundreds of billions in untaxed income every year. Why? Because what the IRS doesn't know won't hurt them. In my younger days I had some jobs that paid cash under the table. Did I tell the IRS? Hell no.

Eliminating the income tax and going with a national sales tax would fix this. It would also encourage people to spend less and save more. And that's something that is sorely needed in the US- people need to save more.

Yes, people need to save more but wouldn't a sales tax simply cut consumption and depress wages? Not sure that's what you want given consumer spending is 2/3's of our economy. I'm also not sure the wealthy can buy enough things to drive that engine or produce enough revenue to pay for government.

And that's a problem because Americans need to be saving more. And the only way they can do that is spend less mostly on sh*t they don't "need". What % of people that retire have saved enough?

[GannonFan]

We've never been "better" when the income gap decreases (a tad different than nominally saying the income gap is less). The income gap decreases, i.e. rich and not rich people get closer together, when the economy contracts, i.e. a recession or depression. There's no other time when the income gap decreases. Rich people always do better than non-rich people when the economy grows simply because they had more to start with and hence, more to grow with. Pining away for some dream of no income gap is just not realistic and it's not a viable economic policy to aim for. It sounds great in Occupy movements and other fads to pass the time with, but it's more of a slogan than a workable policy.

1) You're right. The income gap increases with the bubble prior to a recession.

2) Where did I say we should have "no income gap?"

Well, you did imply and even say that the income gap needs to be less. Again, I'm not sure when the income gap has ever decreased (as it would to make your goal of making it less) without the economy retracting. That's why the idea is a nice slogan with no practical application.

[bluehenbillk]

Why are we wasting all this talk on tax?

OK, now I'm going to sound more like my core Republican self: We tweaked taxes, unless we're going to further overhaul they system, yea that's worth talking about but that's one of many secondary problems this country has.

Let's talk spending, and I don't mean the sequester. The sequester is like a fraction of what we need to tackle, suck it up people.

Here's the most important number of all: 44%. That's the % of total federal spending that goes towards the "Big 3" and I'm not talking about Detroit. It's Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid. I blame all of the Beltway for this but it falls more on the shoulders of the Democrats. The Federal Government is failing the next generation of this country, the Millennials while overspending on our seniors, and the problem is just going to get worse.

What needs to get done, 3 things IMO:

1- The minimum ages to receive both Social Security & Medicare need to be raised.

2- Take the framework of a good idea of the Patient Care Act (Obamacare), that was poorly executed, and apply to Medicare & Medicaid - overhaul the current system, make REAL changes, lower costs for recipients & the amount of $$ government puts in it.

3- You know W will never be in anyone's Top 10 of greatest US Presidents but his idea of privatizing Social Security or the option of, was in the ballpark of being a good idea. Simply, we need to spend less on the federal level for this