Tax Reform

[Belsnickel]

There has been a lot of talk about it in recent days, but what would you like to see actually happen?

I just started thinking about all of the possible ways to balance our budget while reading this article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-15/we-are-subsidizing-rich-suburbanites-to-clog-cities-with-their-cars

It's just one of the many things that not many people think of that can have some impact on our budget. If you'd really like to have some fun, check out fiscalship.org and try to keep us afloat.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

What I want to see is taxes raised across the board and spending cut in half.

We have to pay down this debt.

It will hurt for a while but it needs to be done. Families have to live within their means, drop the Internet, drop cable, buy hamburger and buy small cars. The government needs to get rid of fat like earthworm research, trying to find out why lesbian women are overweight, cut military spending, close bases around the world but keep the Navy to police shipping lanes, stop our aid to countries.

Our children deserve a chance, right now they don't have one.

[Benton]

Sometime when I'm not on a phone (and not in St. Louis just down the streets from protestors) I'll get into it a bit more, but the nutshell for me is: close loopholes.

I don't think rates are too high. I think there's too much regulation and a lot of it ends up benefiting larger businesses that can afford to hire people to utilize breaks, whereas small businesses can't.

[GMDino]

(09-16-2017, 01:30 AM)Benton Wrote: Sometime when I'm not on a phone (and not in St. Louis just down the streets from protestors) I'll get into it a bit more, but the nutshell for me is: close loopholes.

I don't think rates are too high. I think there's too much regulation and a lot of it ends up benefiting larger businesses that can afford to hire people to utilize breaks, whereas small businesses can't.

Jebus...be careful down there.  Sounds like the looters and trouble makers are making it a mess after some initial peaceful protesting.

Back to thread...

[JustWinBaby]

(09-15-2017, 09:51 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: What I want to see is taxes raised across the board and spending cut in half.

Not a bad idea.
Of course, I'm in the camp that thinks tax rates don't matter much.  Maybe they would without all the loopholes, special interests and kickbacks.
But always remember that, for the wealthy, most of their income is capital gains.  AND they have a nearly indefinite investment horizon.  There's a pretty easy solution here, but because even wiping your nose in Washington gathers scrutiny we're screwed...

[Belsnickel]

(09-16-2017, 04:14 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Not a bad idea.
Of course, I'm in the camp that thinks tax rates don't matter much.  Maybe they would without all the loopholes, special interests and kickbacks.
But always remember that, for the wealthy, most of their income is capital gains.  AND they have a nearly indefinite investment horizon.  There's a pretty easy solution here, but because even wiping your nose in Washington gathers scrutiny we're screwed...

A lot of truth to this. We talk a lot about rates, but in reality it isn't necessarily that we need to raise rates, but we need to broaden the tax base. Making more money taxable by closing loopholes and the like is what does this. We see this in the discussion about corporate tax rates where we hear "we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world!" Of course, yes, the top tier rate is high, but the effective rate corporations tend to pay when all is said and done is a lot lower, and depending on the year is in the middle or near the bottom when compared to other WEIRD nations.

[ballsofsteel]

(09-15-2017, 09:51 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: What I want to see is taxes raised across the board and spending cut in half.

We have to pay down this debt.

It will hurt for a while but it needs to be done. Families have to live within their means, drop the Internet, drop cable, buy hamburger and buy small cars. The government needs to get rid of fat like earthworm research, trying to find out why lesbian women are overweight, cut military spending, close bases around the world but keep the Navy to police shipping lanes, stop our aid to countries.

Our children deserve a chance, right now they don't have one.

Cause they eat too much.

[JustWinBaby]

(09-16-2017, 07:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: A lot of truth to this. We talk a lot about rates, but in reality it isn't necessarily that we need to raise rates, but we need to broaden the tax base. 

True, it really does come down to broadening the tax base.  But marginal rates also do matter.  Broader base and lower rates is the path I think most economists would favor.  The complexity of the tax system and cost of compliance is many BILLIONS in deadweight economic loss.

I think we've made a huge mess out of corporate tax rates and capital gains.  Double or triple taxation or whatever, but the two really go hand-in-hand.  You could lower the corp rate and eliminate capital gains exclusions to offset it, being revenue neutral for all.  You could also do the reverse, but I suspect that would be very suboptimal.

As long as you have preferable tax treatment of cap gains break (and dividends, ISO's, etc), I don't really feel like you are going to raise taxes on the wealthy.  A lot of people that get punished by high individual rates are not 1%ers they just had a really good year once.

I think a VAT or national sales tax is inevitable, but some states already have sales tax north of 10%.  And if you look at Europe, the VAT just keeps going up (I think 30% in some places).  But consumption taxes are generally considered superior to income taxes.

[Benton]

Ok, tax reform.

I like an income tax. I think there's less abuse than a vat or other type of sales tax. Plus, it's primarily used to support common good (roads, police, military, etc) so it's primarily generated by people using that stuff.

So, first off, simplify to three brackets. 10, 20, 30. Same as now, 10% income tax on lowest, 20% on the middle and 30% on the highest earners. The levels would be much different than now, though, with a mechanism to adjust with inflation. 10%ers would likely be undividuals earning under $40k, or families $100k; 20%ers would be $40,001-$200k or $100,001k to $300k for families. 30% on everything higher.

Second, eliminate almost all deductions.no child credits, no itemized deductions, etc. leave earned income credit there for the absolute poorest. There would be an exception, also, for businesses. They can deduct up to 80% of infrastructure or other improvements or labor training, provided they do not reduce payroll within a calendar year.

Third, eliminate all loopholes. All of them. No deductions because you own a racehorse or a summer house.

Fourth, eliminate estate taxes.

Fifth, tie capital gains to the unemployment rate and inflation rate. Basically the worse the economy, the higher the rate. The better the economy, the lower it goes.

[JustWinBaby]

(09-17-2017, 08:06 PM)Benton Wrote: Second, eliminate almost all deductions.no child credits, no itemized deductions, etc. leave earned income credit there for the absolute poorest. There would be an exception, also, for businesses. They can deduct up to 80% of infrastructure or other improvements or labor training, provided they do not reduce payroll within a calendar year.

The problem with a lot of that is it's structural, meaning deeply imbedded in people's finances and the financial system in general.

Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction and you raise cost of living for millions of Americans while simultaneously whacking the value of their home.  Other deductions (401k, 529, etc) are designed to encourage savings - eliminate the 401k deduction and 401k's probably go away (along with the company match).  Eliminate the charitable contribution and I think it's a safe bet non-profits will see 30% of their donations dry up.


It would be great if you could just eliminate the personal income tax because taxes trickle down and every non-public employee ultimately gets their money from a business (whether salaries, pensions, dividends or other investment returns).  But it's a global economy, and if your business taxes get too high all kinds of incentive for LEGAL tax arbitrage come into play.

[Benton]

(09-17-2017, 08:48 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: The problem with a lot of that is it's structural, meaning deeply imbedded in people's finances and the financial system in general.

Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction and you raise cost of living for millions of Americans while simultaneously whacking the value of their home.  Other deductions (401k, 529, etc) are designed to encourage savings - eliminate the 401k deduction and 401k's probably go away (along with the company match).  Eliminate the charitable contribution and I think it's a safe bet non-profits will see 30% of their donations dry up.


It would be great if you could just eliminate the personal income tax because taxes trickle down and every non-public employee ultimately gets their money from a business (whether salaries, pensions, dividends or other investment returns).  But it's a global economy, and if your business taxes get too high all kinds of incentive for LEGAL tax arbitrage come into play.

Fair enough. On the other hand, the mantra by conservatives for years has been that we don't need a social safety net because people are inherently good and donate. Charitable contributions should — if that's correct — stay the same. If not, there should be an influx of taxable income to keep those safety nets in place.

As far as investment value, meh. A large portion of the country took a hit on investments. More are to come as states continue to grapple with infrastructure and retirement problems they can't afford. We can have a few years of people getting screwed some more, or we can keep trying to patch up the way it was. As one of those who would get screwed a little more, I say go for it if it means fixing it for the future.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-16-2017, 01:30 AM)Benton Wrote: Sometime when I'm not on a phone (and not in St. Louis just down the streets from protestors) I'll get into it a bit more, but the nutshell for me is: close loopholes.

I don't think rates are too high. I think there's too much regulation and a lot of it ends up benefiting larger businesses that can afford to hire people to utilize breaks, whereas small businesses can't.

The rates being where they are is why we have loopholes.

I agree no loop holes. Just a flat tax 15% and fund as much government as you can on that income.

[JustWinBaby]

(09-17-2017, 10:49 PM)Benton Wrote: Charitable contributions should — if that's correct — stay the same.

Yes, they'll stay the same...on an after-tax basis, which will mean 30% less.  

Before you gave $100 because it actually only cost you $70, but without the deduction you'll give $70 because $70 out of your pocket is what you're actually able/wanting to give.

[JustWinBaby]

(09-17-2017, 11:12 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The rates being where they are is why we have loopholes.  

Actually, I think a lot of loopholes are just legacy holdovers from businesses/industries that, at the time, needed and had justifiable reason for a carve out.

The tax code is just the perfect summary of everything that is wrong with Washington....namely that they almost never repeal or replace laws - I have to agree with John Boehner that we need to start judging Congress based on how many laws they erase.

I'm thinking maybe we need to pass a rule that every law needs 60 votes every 10 years in order to remain a law.

[Benton]

(09-17-2017, 11:12 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The rates being where they are is why we have loopholes.

I agree no loop holes. Just a flat tax 15% and fund as much government as you can on that income.

Similar thinking with justwin, loopholes are largely things that got written in at specific times if need and then never taken out.

And if you're saying a 15% income tax, that likely wouldn't fund even a reduced government.

[Au165]

You promote saving to lesson the burden on the the social safety net programs later in life. If you eliminate the incentive to do so you only move the problem to the safety net programs later. You have to incentivize savings because it is a self serving move for the government.

[Belsnickel]

(09-17-2017, 11:12 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The rates being where they are is why we have loopholes.

I agree no loop holes. Just a flat tax 15% and fund as much government as you can on that income.

(09-18-2017, 03:21 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Actually, I think a lot of loopholes are just legacy holdovers from businesses/industries that, at the time, needed and had justifiable reason for a carve out.

The tax code is just the perfect summary of everything that is wrong with Washington....namely that they almost never repeal or replace laws - I have to agree with John Boehner that we need to start judging Congress based on how many laws they erase.

I'm thinking maybe we need to pass a rule that every law needs 60 votes every 10 years in order to remain a law.

Yeah, our individual income rates are actually rather low when you look at it compared to the history of income tax in the country. This is especially true when you compare our tax rates to other wartime tax rates.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-18-2017, 03:21 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Actually, I think a lot of loopholes are just legacy holdovers from businesses/industries that, at the time, needed and had justifiable reason for a carve out.

The tax code is just the perfect summary of everything that is wrong with Washington....namely that they almost never repeal or replace laws - I have to agree with John Boehner that we need to start judging Congress based on how many laws they erase.

I'm thinking maybe we need to pass a rule that every law needs 60 votes every 10 years in order to remain a law.

I have felt this way for quite a while especially on regulations.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-18-2017, 04:48 AM)Benton Wrote: Similar thinking with justwin, loopholes are largely things that got written in at specific times if need and then never taken out.

And if you're saying a 15% income tax, that likely wouldn't fund even a reduced government.

Oh my version of the federal government is quite small. It would be interesting to see which programs/parts of the gov stayed and which went away.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-18-2017, 09:25 AM)Au165 Wrote: You promote saving to lesson the burden on the the social safety net programs later in life. If you eliminate the incentive to do so you only move the problem to the safety net programs later. You have to incentivize savings because it is a self serving move for the government.

If there is no gov safety net programs then people will just have more children to take care of them when they are old. That is often how families did this for years.