Post your tax structure plan

[Balta1701]

Then why don't we ask the question what the return on investment looks like for every other tax under the sun? How valuable are the liquor taxes we pay? Property taxes? Tolls? Sales Taxes? Fees? Why aren't we looking at how strong their returns are?

I'd say in a lot of cases we actually do keep track of those things. Aren't toll levels compared to the amount of traffic on roads? Aren't fees for things like national parks constantly judged in terms of upkeep versus demand? Heck, I can recall a fairly recent debate over the value of the Chicago Parking Meters and what the appropriate fees should be on those. There are volumes of papers written on the effectiveness of sin taxes (cigarettes, alcohol, even sugar consumption) in terms of whether they achieve the correct goals and how high they need to be to get there.

[StrangeSox]

Then why don't we ask the question what the return on investment looks like for every other tax under the sun? How valuable are the liquor taxes we pay? Property taxes? Tolls? Sales Taxes? Fees? Why aren't we looking at how strong their returns are?

 

I don't have a problem with analyzing the effectiveness and appropriateness of different taxes.

 

But the cap and dividends cuts were sold with a specific message, and they really didn't work at all how they were ostensibly supposed to.

[StrangeSox]

Well, that begs the question of whether there should be any "income" tax. It's all a penalty.

Abolish the tax on labor and tax wealth instead.

[Jenksismyhero]

It's a tax on earned money. You can phrase "selling your labor" as "being smart with your time" and get the same results. But that $3000 was never taxed before.

 

I think this is a good opportunity to post this again: http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf

 

The bottom 90% of Americans hold a whopping 10.6% of stock value in this country (pg 51). The bottom 90% owns 18.8% of direct/indirect stock e.g. 401k's, but those are already given preferential tax treatment.

 

Both yours and NSS's plans explicitly exclude the top brackets from further cuts, so I don't have a huge problem there. It wouldn't amount to much of a hit against revenues, but again it's a cut that wouldn't much at all for 60% of the country (pg 58 for breakdown of stock ownership by wealth category).

 

Yes it was. I earned money. I invested that money. It's been hit with both state and federal income tax before I put it to use. It gets taxed again if that money makes more money.

 

I'm all about RAISING taxes on the top bracket. I'm also all about REDUCING middle tax brackets and shoring up spending (from subsidizing the poor/old to worthless defense spending)

[southsider2k5]

Yes it was. I earned money. I invested that money. It's been hit with both state and federal income tax before I put it to use. It gets taxed again if that money makes more money.

 

I'm all about RAISING taxes on the top bracket. I'm also all about REDUCING middle tax brackets and shoring up spending (from subsidizing the poor/old to worthless defense spending)

 

Unless you start eliminating entire taxes, there really isn't much more to reduce. All that is left are the untouchables and involunaries.

[Balta1701]

I'm all about RAISING taxes on the top bracket. I'm also all about REDUCING middle tax brackets and shoring up spending (from subsidizing the poor/old to worthless defense spending)

(Hug).

[StrangeSox]

Yes it was. I earned money. I invested that money. It's been hit with both state and federal income tax before I put it to use. It gets taxed again if that money makes more money.

 

I'm all about RAISING taxes on the top bracket. I'm also all about REDUCING middle tax brackets and shoring up spending (from subsidizing the poor/old to worthless defense spending)

 

You said that your money earned you an additional $3000, not that your initial capital was $3000. That $3000 that you now have has never been taxed, only your original investment money was. That original already-taxed money isn't subject to another tax.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks, do you see how everything you're proposing is blatantly self-serving?

 

edit: That doesn't mean it's wrong, necessarily, it's just that every deduction you can take should be kept, your rates should be lowered, and others's rates should be increased.

 

Oh sure I do, but I think I represent the average American for the most part (albeit slightly young) - I'm married. I own a home. I have college/post-college debt. I'm about to have a kid in 5 months. I have a car. I pay for my own insurance. I contribute to my own retirement fund. I'm not anywhere near "poor" and i'm not anywhere near "wealthy." Etc. Etc.

 

On average I'd say I contribute the most to the "economy" and so I should get those various deductions to assist paying a third of my income to the government, along with every other fee and tax I pay in my daily life that others don't pay (the poor) or the others that are able to dodge it/have no beef paying it since it's such a small amount compared to their overall income (the rich).

 

I'd have no problem putting those deductions into some kind of tax bracket requirement btw. In fact that might even be best.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

You said that your money earned you an additional $3000, not that your initial capital was $3000. That $3000 that you now have has never been taxed, only your original investment money was. That original already-taxed money isn't subject to another tax.

 

Ok I see what you meant.

[StrangeSox]

Oh sure I do, but I think I represent the average American for the most part (albeit slightly young) - I'm married. I own a home. I have college/post-college debt. I'm about to have a kid in 5 months. I have a car. I pay for my own insurance. I contribute to my own retirement fund. I'm not anywhere near "poor" and i'm not anywhere near "wealthy." Etc. Etc.

 

On average I'd say I contribute the most to the "economy" and so I should get those various deductions to assist paying a third of my income to the government, along with every other fee and tax I pay in my daily life that others don't pay (the poor) or the others that are able to dodge it/have no beef paying it since it's such a small amount compared to their overall income (the rich).

 

I'd have no problem putting those deductions into some kind of tax bracket requirement btw. In fact that might even be best.

 

The poor play plenty of taxes and fees:

 

You're college-educated with an advanced degree in law. You own a home and have a retirement fund. That's not average. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not average.

[StrangeSox]

Abolish the tax on labor and tax wealth instead.

 

Here's an old editorial, circa 1995, from Wolff (the same guy in the other link that details wealth distribution) advocating and explaining a wealth tax:

 

http://bostonreview.net/BR21.1/wolff.html

 

[Jenksismyhero]

The poor play plenty of taxes and fees:

 

You're college-educated with an advanced degree in law. You own a home and have a retirement fund. That's not average. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not average.

 

I meant generally. The majority of people own their home (not outright, but have their name on the title). Most people in my generation have some college debt. Most people in my spot in life (married, settled) start having kids, etc. I don't see why we need to get rid of those small incentives just so the tax code becomes more clear. It's a simple check list like I said before. Do you have X, then Y.

[StrangeSox]

I meant generally. The majority of people own their home (not outright, but have their name on the title). Most people in my generation have some college debt. Most people in my spot in life (married, settled) start having kids, etc. I don't see why we need to get rid of those small incentives just so the tax code becomes more clear. It's a simple check list like I said before. Do you have X, then Y.

 

The code is a hell of a lot more complicated than child credits and certain interest deductions.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'd support the vast majority of this. Though I'm not sure why something like deducting interest on college loans is taken out. That's a good thing. That's providing an incentive for people just like deductions for businesses who hire new employees. And I'd remove the cap. $2500 bucks isn't enough.

 

You reminded me of the day care expense, which i'll be utilizing next year. Only 20% is deductible? Ludicrous. Up that to 50% or more.

Interest on student loans could very well fall into education-related expenses.

 

And the child care deduction also only covers up to $5000 a year. Not sure about other cities, but in Chicago, $5000 (which is a little over $400 a month) doesn't begin to touch the cost of typical day care centers.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Also, Balta hit upon one of the main benefits of limiting the number of deductions and/or credits that Congress can enact. It puts a lot more sunlight on those few, and prevents the multitude of smaller ones that Congresspeople stick in there to satisfy lobbyists.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Interest on student loans could very well fall into education-related expenses.

 

And the child care deduction also only covers up to $5000 a year. Not sure about other cities, but in Chicago, $5000 (which is a little over $400 a month) doesn't begin to touch the cost of typical day care centers.

 

Where do you get the 5k? I thought it was 20% of total costs?

 

Edit: nm. You're talking about the FSA. I gotta do the math to see if it's better to take the child care tax credit. We're going to end up spending 19,500 on daycare a year. F'n ridiculous. Anyone want to be a nanny?

Edited January 24, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[NorthSideSox72]

Where do you get the 5k? I thought it was 20% of total costs?

 

Edit: nm. You're talking about the FSA. I gotta do the math to see if it's better to take the child care tax credit. We're going to end up spending 19,500 on daycare a year. F'n ridiculous. Anyone want to be a nanny?

Yeah, I know your pain. We have a three year old in there now in Pre-school, and are due with our second in June, so for about 2 years we will have double that. Its college tuition-level money, for a good place.

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

I want to add my own corporate tax desire, and that is to see a 10% tax rate on American private oil company annual earnings that with 1/2 of those tax revenues going to fund federally-funded alternative energy R&D and 1/2 being banked as rapid response cleanup funds for future spill responses. I don't care if that tax revenue comes from a reallocation of the existing tax rate or if it is an additional tax (which would be very hard to push through I realize), but I really think something like this needs to happen.

 

Petrobras, the Brazilian national oil giant, is required to spend 2% of its annual revenues on environmental science programs and that represents a couple-hundred million dollars a year.

[mr_genius]

Double-taxation happens all the time. I pay income taxes and then sales taxes and then property taxes and so on.

 

Balta is actually right for once. The 'double taxation' whining about capital gains is stupid.