1. Seniors eke out their living from unearned income plus social security. Making both of those subject to OASDI is counterproductive.
2. A top rate of 50% won't do it. We also need to think about reducing the plutocracy. I can see a top rate of 70% but a confiscatory rate on incomes of, say, 100 million. Nobody is worth that.
3. They're both arbitrary, no advantage.
4. Great idea.
5. Either/or, whichever gives them the higher return.
6. You'd have a revolution on your hands. A lot of old folks with paid off houses take the standard deduction and it works. It guesstimates things like sales taxes, gas taxes, and all the other things it would take a garden shed to store every year to itemize.
7. Again, that's rather unfair to people who have out of pocket medical expenses or who have been through natural disasters. Not going to work.
8. Too low. Even their pipe dream of a flat tax is 30%+ It also doesn't allow income averaging for people with very short career lifespans, like sports figures.
9. Not all businesses are created alike. This won't work.
10. This is far too rigid. it doesn't allow for the periods of rapid inflation and deflation this country has seen.
The only tax system that has worked well has been the progressive income tax system. That progressive structure, applied to unearned income, will also generate revenue while not punishing seniors who invested for retirement. It can also apply to inheritance taxes, allowing families to pass on wealth but not plutocratic empires.
The other thing that is desperately needed is a transaction tax on Wall Street.
As long as a progressive system isn't tied to specific dollar amounts but rather to the median wage, it will continue to work. That's what killed it in the 70s, being tied to dollar amounts while inflation kept pushing middle class people into the tax brackets aimed at the wealthy. That's why they were suckers for Reagan and it's why we lost it.
= new reply since forum marked as read