No income = no taxes. Low income = low taxes. High income = high taxes. But everybody pays the same percentage of their income. That percentage is determined by whatever it takes to fund the government for a year with some reserves for special contingencies, like wars and disasters. Politicians must cut spending to reduce taxes and if they spend wildly, taxes will go up. This will force politicians to be pragmatic, if they expect to be re-elected. They will be forced to balance government services and income. No tax breaks, deductions, depreciation, incentives, and other loopholes. Single and married people pay the same rates. I think it is important for the working poor to pay some taxes and be a part of the system. Tax waivers would be available only for those who have subsistence-only incomes, like those on disability, medicaid, and welfare. I can also support a sliding scale tax where those that are barely getting by get a lower rate that is subsidized by those that are wallowing in riches who pay a higher rate. But at any rate the loopholes to avoid paying taxes and the excessively complex tax code must be eliminated.
So the rate changes every year based on the budget? Why is there a difference between single & married people...? Just curious about that. I fully support deductions for charitable donations. This is essentially taking away from money the government could be spending, so I don't see why it shouldn't be. I'm not sure about incentives, etc. I don't really know what all there are incentives for at this time, buying a house or hybrid vehicle I guess. I don't see the need for that at all. But tax breaks for starting a business, I could see the reasoning for that. But... isn't this basically what we have now?
Any talk of taxes always brings out the libertarian in me.ALL...I repeat ...ALL taxes are passed under a "lets soak the rich mentality",and then trickles down into a "you just soaked yourself" reality. Property taxes are a perfect example.At the time of the 75000 homestead exemption this exempted the vast majority of middle class homes.Today you can't get a shack for under 75000.So you go and vote for a property tax of however many mills knowing that "I won't have to pay that .My home is exempt".Or "I won't have to pay that .I live in an apartment." A landlord is not going to eat that property tax...he is going to pass it on in the form of higher rents.Meanwhile ,Walmart or joe bob's grocery or billy sue's pharmacy isn't going to pay that tax either...the consumer is in the form of higher prices. So ...who winds up paying for that property tax ...the poor people ...the ones who live in an apartment because they can't afford a home.The poor people who shop at the cheapest place they can to buy groceries. When the income tax was passed ...INCOME was not considered to be the wages that you earn from your job.Who wanted this tax...the poor people....lets soak the rich.Prior to this tax the U S used tariffs on imported goods.This made the cost on all imported goods expensive...and poor people thought it was unfair.Now ,every dime you earn is taxed and if you die and leave it to your kid's it is taxed again.Let us all not learn from history and just keep soaking the rich.
This is not true. To be subject to the death tax the net worth of an estate has to exceed $1.5 Million. Only 1% of Americans have estates are this size. The vast majority of the assets in these estates are un-realized capital gains and have never been taxed.
There is not a death tax. No one is taxed for dying, that is just a republican sound byte. There is an inheritance tax. Inherited wealth is income for the lucky heir and the wealthiest of them must pay taxes on that income, just like people who get income by working for it.
I believe there is a tax on the estate upon death; any assets left after this taxation is left to the heirs. The rate of fed estate tax goes to 50+% on amounts above the exemption amount at the time. So the inheritance is not taxed again, and certainly not at any income tax rates. The US tax code is the worst and most complex in the whole world. I think it is fair to have a flat tax which will be far more efficient, and not having to do with any tax breaks or loop-holes for anyone. For the very poor, I agree that they should be tax exempt. In a way , a tiered tax rate may also may Ok for different income levels up to a certain extent; but one problem is who's to decide, or who has the right to decide which is the proper level of tax rate, esp. the higher tax rate for the higher income people. Does it mean that it is fair for a hard working couple who are successful having to cough out a higher tax payment both in higher percentages and in absolute dollar amounts because of their success? If they get overtaxed, that would be a big disincentive to work hard because most of the sweat money gets taxed anyway.
Only 1% of American estates are subject to the estate tax. Only assets above the 1.5 Million dollar mark are subject to the tax, and I think it jumps to 2 million for 07 and 3.5 million for 08. I may be off on the years. Currently the top rate is 45%, but again only the excess of the 1.5 Million is subject to taxation. Again most of the assets in estates over 1.5 Million are un-realized capital gains that have never been taxed before. The estate tax IS NOT a double tax.
You are right about the lowered fed tax rate which is now at 45% (from the old rate of 55%). But that is supposed to be going back to the old rate by 2011. Assets in estates are a combination of assets/realized gains after taxation plus unrealized capital gains; but the taxation is based on the total amount. Therefore isn't there some double-dipping going on (or double taxation) when it comes to estate taxes?
There is some double dipping, but the overwhelming majority of assets in eligible estates are assets that have never been taxed. The other thing to remember about the estate tax is that the 1% of Americans who have estates subject to the estate are by in large in favor of the tax.
1. THE "HOW MANY MEN" ARGUMENT The following is a thought-experiment intended to illustrate the moral problem of taxation as a matter of simple common sense. ====== "Suppose that one man takes your car from you at gunpoint. Is this right or wrong? Most people would say that the man who does this is a thief who is violating your property rights. Okay, now let's suppose that it is a gang of FIVE men that forcibly takes your car from you. Is this still wrong? Is it still stealing? Now suppose that it's ten men that stop you at gunpoint, and before anything else they take a vote. You vote *against* them taking your car, but the ten of them vote for it and you are outvoted, ten to one. They take the car. Still stealing? Let's add specialization of labor. Suppose it's twenty men and one acts as negotiator for the group, one takes the vote, one oversees the vote, two hold the guns, one drives. Does that make it okay? Is it still stealing? Suppose it's one hundred men and after forcibly taking your car they give you back a bicycle. That is, they do something nice for you. Is it still stealing? Suppose the gang is two hundred strong and they not only give you back a bicycle but they buy a bicycle for a poor person as well. Is it still wrong? Is it still stealing? How about if the gang has a thousand people? ten thousand? A million? How big does this gang have to be before it becomes okay for them to forcibly take your property away without your consent? When, exactly, does the immorality of theft become the alleged morality of taxation?" I love libertarian arguments.
