Election positions 2 - Taxes

Balanced Budget goes without saying.

And taxation is a complex topic, but I love to ponder it, always looking for that best of all possible worlds. ha

I know a flat tax is highly inequitable (not fair) unless it entails a starting point above a certain income; a point probably higher than the government’s poverty level; maybe a truly livable amount; a figure adjusted yearly to inflation etc. In other words...the first $xx,xxx dollars of ALL income for an individual (wages, interest, dividends, capital gains or inheritance) would not be taxed. All above that would be taxed at the flat rate. It still winds up being a higher percentage of income being taxed for middle incomes...but would not exempt the really wealthy as it now does... in the real world.

I am also intrigued with Sen. Gravel’s (and other’s) ideas of a user tax in lieu of an income tax, wherein those with more discretionary money and who spend it on pricier items...would automatically be paying higher taxes. I would assume that food would be exempt from taxation in this scenario. And that all those who fall below a certain income (probably the same level as above; the livable income level) would have a reimbursement from the government each year.

Wow....we could wipe out whole tax industries (if they let us) with either of these proposals, but life would be simpler and taxation would probably be fairer. But then the devil is always in the details.

Lee

A flat tax is a horrible idea. It's "fair" in the sense of treating everyone the same, rather than "fair" in the sense of distributing on an as-needed basis. I prefer the latter. In my view, for instance, it's "fair" to give two band-aids to the guy with two cuts, and none -- zero band-aids -- to the guy with no cuts at all.

Taxes are, in fact, the hallmark of civilized society. See Athens. As far back as Jefferson, we, as a country, made the policy decision that we would tax progressively. That approach merely codifies in the tax law an economic reality: $1 is worth more to the guy who has $0 than the guy who has $10,000,000. Your position is that the $1 is worth the same to both. And that's only true in the most superficial and meaningless way.

No, the government provides many wonderful services with our tax money. I'm a fan of schools, libraries, and the fact that we won't be invaded. Those things cost money -- tax money. The Post Office? Having roads? Worth every tax dime. Under your view, however, "if the government(s) don't have the money to support a program it just won't happen." I don't think I want it to be such that schools, libraries, hospitals or armies "just won't happen." And for you to suggest otherwise is radical, but also ridiculous.

It is impossible to tax a people into prosperity.

Me and my wife were discussing this earlier. When our society gets to the point where each and every working person can afford to:

Get health care

Own their own home

Send their kids to higher education

Then we can talk about flat taxes. But not a second before.

A flat tax hurts poor people while rich people don't even feel it. It _seems_ fair, in a mathematical sort of way, but in the way that it actually affects people, it is not fair.

I like the idea of a progressive flat tax system, but not just a plain flat tax rate for all. Something ranging from 5%-35% depending on your income level. The reason I like the idea of a flat tax system is that things would be far less complicated. No deductions, no loopholes, period. That way, at least I wouldn't have to pay an accountant to do my taxes an nobody could cheat (theoretically, that is).

I have no problem paying a little more and letting people in need pay less. Sure, it sucks watching a big chunk of my income wasted on no-bid contracts and corporate subsidies, but the government does do some good things with my money. The reason I don't complain about welfare is because I feel obligated to take care of those less fortunate. I was lucky enough to be born here and had the benefits of a good education. Those that came before made it possible for me to have every advantage. It's time for me to give back.

If you want to read something that will make you completely nuts, check this out. This is a list of 82 big corporations that pay no taxes. Exxon, Verizon, Boeing, Pfizer, Time Warner, Bank of America, Wachovia, American Express...just to name a few.

No. I submit that I could not.

I was recently introduced to the "Americans for Fair Taxes" group that seem to have looked at the idea of a flat rate tax pretty thoroughly. Their plan is based on a federal sales tax. One of their ideas is to have a "prepate" such that all spending up to the poverty line is not taxed. There is quite a bit of information on the Fair Tax web site if you're interested.

I have no idea how I feel about a flat tax. For one thing, I've been living so far below the poverty line since 1999 that I've been paid for being poor via Earned Income Credit. Although it's possible that I'll rise above the poverty line within the next few years, as long as I have my head of household status and my two beloved exemptions, er...sons, I probably won't have to worry about paying taxes for at least 5 or 6 more years. I find discussions of the flat tax confusing. Would I have to pay 15% of the 10,000 I made two years ago? Would a flat income tax do away with property taxes? Would it do away with sales tax, gas taxes, and all the other taxes?

I favor a balanced budget, too. But what if we had a real reason to go to war, instead of all these imaginary reasons? What if one of those improbable disaster movies about the Yellowstone volcano, comets, or alien invasions came true? We haven't rebuilt New Orleans successfully since Katrina wiped it out. A balanced budget would have to include a greater disaster contingency fund. Also, some of the things I most care about--libraries, education, and national parks--are drastically underfunded. More needs to be done with the budget than just balance it. There needs to be a more equitable distribution of funds.

To me, both taxes and a balanced budget are complex.

First I'd like someone to explain why a flat tax isn't fair at the lower levels.

The one argument I've seen is that the poor will "feel" the tax where the rich won't. That, on it's face, is a ridiculous argument. The poor will ALWAYS feel it if money is taken away for governance and the rich, unless we tax them until they are also poor, won't.

The roads, schools,and military don't have to be impacted by a flat tax. I think it would enforce the government to be more responsible with our money, not reduce the end services.
I left out libraries on purpose. I think the library as we've known it should pass the way of the dinosaur soon to be replaced with a media access and community center (that should end up being less costly).

I'm for taxing the rich more. As has been pointed out they can afford it. I would also be for poor and middle class people being taxed on a "profit" basis, that is they are only taxed on money that is left over after you account for that spent on food, necessary services (electricity and water), home (those paying of mortgages, building a home). Things like entertainment are fuzzier, they aren't technically needed to stay alive, but they do rather help maintain one's sanity, so I would classify something like a basic, low end TV as a necessity and not put extra taxes on it, but something like a high end hi-def TV a luxury and tax it extra. Computers are playing an increasingly large role in America, so I would classify them in levels like I did with the TVs. Books I'd apply a tax after you have bought $X amount of books (so someone like me who tends to get a lot of books would be taxed, but someone who maybe only buys one book a year wouldn't be), DVDs I'm leaning toward the same treatment (exception being HD and Blu-Ray, since the TVs they'd be playing on fall squarely in the "luxury" category). I would also classify gourmet foods and beverages as a "luxury" rather than a necessity, so they'd be taxed. All this would ensure the rich get hit relatively harder than the poor (but would at the same time be a flat tax applied at the time of purchase).

On a side note, if you think that a limited amount of money would encourage the government to spend it more wisely, than you're either looking at a different government than I am or you've got a lot more faith in humanity than I do (or both).

I worry what would happen to parks and public schools, they are already underfunded as it is and many politicos don't realize that they're important. One thing I would like is to have some say in how my tax money is spent, like spending on the US fish and wildlife bureau, green energy, the national parks service and public schools. Not on worthless things like rebuilding New Orleans (OK, before you jump down my throat, the part that was worst hit is below sea level, it's geologically unsound to build anything resembling a human settlement there. I support reconstruction, just somewhere else, and I would definitely support reconstruction of the natural marsh land that is both habitat and a natural flood dampener), funding the Iraq war, etc.

This is obviously an issue that gets people excited, and generally not in a good way. First and fore-most we need to tax corporations. As has already been pointed out many of the most profitable businesses in the world pay less in taxes than the folks who are commenting here. If those companies would pay even a small percentage then we probably wouldn't ever have a budget problem.

I don't know the tax system nearly well enough to make any major suggestions. The fair tax sounds interesting but seems flawed. The No-tax suggestion also sounds interesting but does not seem as well thought out and may have its own problems. Flat tax sounds nice but the reality is that a guy making ten grand a year is struggling bad enough without taking away $1,500.

I get anxious when ever I hear people start talking about how we don't need to increase taxes we need to balance the budget by reducing costs. Ok sounds great so far, unfortunately the next statement is too often about things like museums, national parks, health care and human services. If people would talk about reducing spending to the military I'd be all for it. $500 Billion is a lot of money. we should have listened to Eisenhower.

The current system is flawed, corporations and billionaires get a free ride because they, and their friends, wrote the laws. Until we can change that fact I'm not sure that any truly "fair" tax plan will ever be implemented, if such a thing even exists.

I'm more of a cut military costs (fewer jets not lower salaries/benefits). cut the war on drugs entirely, legalize drugs then tax the sale/production so much the cost is the same or only slightly less than current black market prices. sort of a guy as far as balancing budgets and shit goes.

also:
"The poor will ALWAYS feel it if money is taken away for governance and the rich, unless we tax them until they are also poor, won't."

that is in fact the whole point of a progressive tax, take as little from the poor as possible so they feel as little tax burden as we can manage while taking shit-tons of money from the rich who will never really feel a tax burden.
in the end lots of money from taxes with (ideally) a minimal apparent burden.