What would be your ideal tax brackets....

[nickshepDEM]

Obviously no taxes would be great, but we all know thats not possible. What would be your ideal, yet realistic tax code/brackets be.

Like so...

Under 20,000 pay %....
20,000-30,000 pay %...
etc...

[lutefisk]

1. Depends on where the money goes

I don't want any of my labor to support death, destruction, and Republican cronies.

However, if I knew my money would contribute to a fair and just and honest society...

[mongo]

2. Ideal?

earned income (wages)

under 40,000 - 0%
over 40,000 - 20%

interest/dividend/capital gains

under 1,000 - 0%
over 1,000 - 30%

No deductions for anything. No mortage deduction, no child deduction, etc.

[nickshepDEM]

3. So someone who makes 1,000,000 a year would only be taxed

20% as long as its earned income?

[mongo]

6. Yeah, but they most likely only pay about that now

because a millionare can take advantage of all the tax breaks.

As long as the budget balances with those percentages...

[wolfman23510]

8. Idea

I like your idea!

[Stinky The Clown]

4. I like this one ....

These would need to be tweaked and studied further, but conceptually, something like this:

0-$50K - no taxes
(0-$25K - 10% federal subsidy; i.e.: money back from the feds)
$50K-$100K - 25%
$100K-$150K - 30%
$150K-$250K - 40%
$250K-$500K - 45%
$500K-$1M - 50%
over $1M - 65%

No upper limit on FICA - saves social security in perpetuity

[nickshepDEM]

5. Mine.

0-20: -10% (Earned income tax credit.)
20-50: 5%
50-75: 10%
75-100: 15%
100-150: 20%
150-250: 25%
250-500: 30%
1 million +: 40%

Very few deduction.

[0007]

28. The best I've seen yet. I'll Second that and take it to the hill.

[knight_of_the_star]

9. Isn't that similar to Clark's tax plan?

I know he talked about what you propose for 50k and less and for the over 1m as well as closing off corporate tax loopholes.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. Yeah, at least in the concept of no tax below 50K

I don't know what brackets he proposed, but I recall from the 04 primary debates he suggested this concept. My recollection is that it was the most progressive tax plan of any of the 9 who participated.

[ProudDad]

14. I'd change this thusly

$100K-150K - 35%
$150K-250K - 45%
$250K-500K - 75%
$500K-$1M - 95%

125% of anything over $1M - no deductions...

[Kenroy]

19. So somebody who earned 500K/year

would take home $25,000?

[Telly Savalas]

25. I'm assuming that these are all marginal rates.

That is every dollar earned above $500K is taxed at a rate of 95%. Income below $500K is taxed at a lower rate even if the taxpayers total income is above $500K.

This is the way tax brackets have always worked in the U.S. and most other places. Back in the 50's, by the way, the top marginal rate was something like 90%.

The original question isn't really one appropriate for the layperson though. I doubt anyone posting in this thread could give an accurate estimate of what they think our expenditures need to be in order to fund all the programs they want and if the tax rates they are proposing will generate that much revenue.

[ArkDem]

46. (0-$25K - 10% federal subsidy; i.e.: money back from the feds)

I don't think that would properly be called 'money back' from the feds since they would not have paid any in.

[gristy]

7. Progressively increase the rate as income goes up

And NO deductions. When the gov't wants to achieve something to benefit society, then make it a corporate tax break. Though there is still potential for abuse, things are easier to keep track of that way.

nickshepDEM numbers look pretty good to me. Added some higher rates on the top end.

0-20: -10% (Earned income tax credit.)
20-50: 5%
50-75: 10%
75-100: 15%
100-150: 20%
150-250: 25%
250-1 million: 30%
1 million - 10 million: 45%
10 million - 100 million: 60%
100 million +: 75%

[Stinky The Clown]

10. I'd prefer to see even less taxes on the lower end of the scale

The poverty level is what ..... ?

In some areas it gets amazingly close to 20-30K for a family. We need to make it such that the tax code works for thjose trying to move up. No more of that crap where a $1.00/hr raise puts you behind because of the tax bite.

Our first help has to go to the least of us. The tax code can work toward that goal.

[wolfman23510]

12. I'd prefer to see even less taxes on the lower end of the scale

I'd like to see a family of 4 make it in NYC on 30-40k. However, 40k makes you a rich man in Allentown, PA. It really needs to be adjusted for cost of living.

[gristy]

13. No, I don't think so

That will result in unmanagable complications. Can you imagine the fights that congressmen will have to get into to get the "scale", if you will, of their districts as low as possible. To some extent, the market will level this playing field.

I can go for lower taxes on the low end, but I can't agree to the idea of adjusting it for cost of living.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

16. No kidding.

I live in Los Angeles and earn in the low 30s (equal to roughly 20K in most places), yet my total taxes amount to almost 25%. Total rip-off.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. That's why we have state and local taxes

The trouble is that it's too hard to raise state and local taxes because people have more control over state and local governments and they don't want their taxes raised.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

24. Progressive Taxation

The first $20K is not taxed at all. The next $20-$50K is taxed at 5% ($1,500). The next $50-75% is taxed at 10% ($2,500).

A person earning $75K, for example, would have a tax bill of $4,000.

[1932]

15. I think it would be impossible to give actual brackets without

knowing a lot about the economy.

Obviously you want progressive rates, but any tax code that taxes a lot of people at more thatn 50% when it's not easy to make money is not a good tax code. And any tax code that lets a handful of people make extraordinary amounts of money while the rest live in misery probably could stand for some really high rates that just touch that handful of people at really high brackets.

So you need to know how easy it is to make money in a given year and different income levels, and you need to know how many people are making money at different income levels.

The other thing you really need to distinguish is money from work and money that just comes from having money (like capital gains, dividend income and inheritance).

People who get very high levels of income from those sources should be taxed more than income at the same level because REWARDS for WORK (and not for being rich) should always be the incentive in our society.

I think something like half the Forbes 400 richest Americans got rich from inheritance. When only half of the richest Americans are getting that way from working to earn it, you know that your society has some weaknesses that need to be addressed.

[OneBlueSky]

17. Top Federal Individual Tax Rates, 1960-2004

[Hippo_Tron]

21. I would never have guessed that Johnson cut the tax rate...

By 20% for the top income bracket. Very weird.

[sadiesworld]

26. Yep, and the payroll tax was doubled under Raygun.

All those excess SS funds have been used to make up for the shortfall created by Raygun's tax cuts for the top. Yet, your average middle-class dittohead LOOOOOOVES Raygun. Go figure.

[Yupster]

18. Not to be critical Nickshep, but

in order for this exercise to make any sense we'd need to know how much money different rates at different brackets would bring in.

I can suggest a table of rates, but I'd have no idea whether it would bring in enough to have a trillion dollar surplus or a trillion dollar defecit.

Without that knowledge, how can I make any guesses?

[TheFarseer]

22. off the top of my head

0-35,000 10%
35,001-60,000 15%
60,001-130,000 25%
130,001-220,000 35%
220,000+ 40%

No EIC for anyone making under, say, $8,000. I understand wanting to help people working to try and raise kids, but under $8,000 seems like a lame attempt at working.

And dividends over $100 taxed as ordinary income. No tax on savings interest up to $100.

[colinmom71]

27. To be fair...

A person filing an $8,000 income may have had a job loss or significantly long unemployment period resulting in such a low yearly sum, rather than being merely a lame worker. Or they could be a full time college student who can only work part-time, or on disability...

These are all (and likely not the only) scenrarios of those who deserve the help that the EIC was designed to offer. The raw number doesn't at all reflect what that person's work ethic may entail.

[Massacure]

23. The top percentile your in, divided by 2.

Bill Gates would pay 50%, a person making minimum wage 0. A person directly in between would be 25%.

[kitten29]

29. a flat tax across the board, no deductions....

we pay it at the check out line why not with 1040 or 1040EZ ???
the more ya make the greater the opportunity to take advantage of the little guy... flat tax and it's simple...

[nickshepDEM]

30. At what rate?

15%? 20%? I think the most common number for the flat tax is somewhere between 18-20%.

[kitten29]

31. you are correct

i would agree with that... without a flat tax we're all well unequal in favor of the rich... if ya don't make mucho $$$ you have no idea as to how your being ripped off.. sorry folks, that's reality....

[_Loki_]

32. Wow, I wouldn't have expected...

...to hear the flat tax spoken of happily over here...

I certainly favor it. And as to deductions, I have no problem with the idea that your first $30,000 (or whatever number is being floated around) is tax-free.

[nickshepDEM]

33. I dont think a 20% flat tax with the first

$30,000 tax free would generate nearly enough revenue.

[Yupster]

34. The last thing I heard from a flat tax supporter

was that it would take 23 %, and that was before the deficit went out of controll. I would guess 25 % now, and that's in addition to social security.

[_Loki_]

35. The deficit being out of control.....

....has less to do with taxation levels (which have not changed dramatically since before the current administration)than it does with SPENDING levels, which are assinine.

Bringing down spending needs to be factored in to the equation.

[Telly Savalas]

36. Take these two scenarios

Scenario A
Income below $30K not taxed
Income above $30K taxed at x%

Scenario B
Income below $30K not taxed
Income between $30K and $200K taxed at y%
Income above $200K taxed at (2y)%

(With x and y being values that'll pay for all govenment expenditures. i.e. the scenarios are revenue neutral)


Why is Scenario A superior to B?

[_Loki_]

37. re

"Why is Scenario A superior to B?"


According to the rules of this here forum, I'll probably get banned if I answer that.

[Telly Savalas]

38. In other words, you're not willing to defend the flat tax.

[_Loki_]

55. No, sir, ....

.....I'll gladly defend it, but the type of discussion that I would engage in to do so wouldn't be looked upon favorably, around here.

The post below, however, covers the gist of it.

[Nederland]

43. I'll answer that

The reason that A is superior to B is because the person making 200k+ will spend it in a way that is preferable to how the government will waste it.

There, I said it. Probably get banned, but there it is.

[kitten29]

51. a flat tax across the board

we're all eqaual, we all share the same tax burden... the math is
(what you make) x % = tax... no minimums, maximums, et. al. it's your income times a factor... don't ask me on the factor, i liked statistic's in school but there are those who can better gauage the rate, my guess would be around 15% +/- 5%... it's gonna suck initially, but as the market factors in this taxation base it will equalize over time... :shrug:

i don't know, i am only "joe human", i'm going on "gut" feel here...

my preference would be utopia, where no taxes are due !!!! and everyone was content !!! wow now that's a pipe dream....

[Ron Mexico]

45. That's what we started with.

It used to be 2%, no deductions, for a certain rate - and then it spiraled out of control to the multi-volume monstrosity we have now. Reagan tried to "simplify" it under the naive notion that politicians just stick with that and wouldn't eventually add 700-1000 new rules a year, and we see how well that worked (even if a lot of what Clinton did made sense, facts are facts: the system becomes more and more complicated every year, no matter who is in charge, and now even the IRS doesn't understand their own code). If you go flat tax, we'll be right back where we are in 50 years or so.

Further down in the thread I posted my idea - no income tax at all. Let me know what you think (hopefully with minimal flaming :) ).

[GayCanuck]

39. I think the problem in your country

is that for the most part they don't tax wealth, only income. So some fat freeper could be sitting on a pile of assets, have no income and therefore no taxes.

[welshTerrier2]

40. excellent observation !!

many here focus on "tax equity", i.e. a system to provide "fairer" taxation by graduated rates with some form of low income exemption ... and these are very worthy ideas ...

but they are inadequate by themselves ...

the real evil in our tax policy goes beyond the mere inequalities between rich and poor in America ... the real risk to our country and our democracy is the ability of some to convert their massive wealth into a disproportionate influence on our government and its policies ...

we have been so conditioned to accept the idea that "to the victor go the spoils" and that there is nothing wrong with commercial success, that we fail to see and are unwilling to address the problems that massive wealth imposes on our democracy ... we may never be able to achieve a system of absolute equality for each and every citizen ... perhaps such a flattened playing field is not even desirable ...

but it is also not desirable to allow the massively wealthy to buy our Senators and Congressmen and control national policy that serves their narrow interests against the interests of the American people ...

i agree with you that we need to look beyond taxing only income, regardless of the graduated method employed, and start taxing wealth ... for those who seek only a fairer tax system, the system should levy taxes based solely on ability to pay ... toward that end, it seems clear that a multi-billionaire with little or no "taxable income" should pay far more in taxes than "little people" eeking out a living on a weekly paycheck ...

the idea of avoiding "double taxation" is a bunch of crap ... if you have more, whether you earned it this year or not should have no relevance ... it's time to tax not just income but wealth as well ...

[kitten29]

52. personally

if what you made after tax is taxed that doesn't bode well with me...

[bunkerbuster1]

41. What we had under Clinton works for me.

Top bracket, hitting income above 180K for single filers and 250K for joint filers of 39.6%.

Just two brackets under that: 15 and 36 percent, if memory serves.

It brought in enough revenue to keep things running then. I suspect it'd be ok for now, too.

[Nederland]

42. Go flat

35k - 0%
35k+ - 25%

No deductions. Keep it simple.

[Ron Mexico]

44. No income tax at all

Tax wealth and consumption, not income. I'd allow for a few exceptions (food, medicine, first-time home buying), but other than that tax property, purchases, inheritance and gas / energy consumption. I don't care how much somebody makes in a year - start making them pay their share when they start spending it.

In other words, if you want to buy a Hummer and run it all day, be prepared to pay out the ass.

There are simply too many loopholes and problems with the "$0 until this, 25% from this to this, 33% from this to this, etc." I do not want to be in a situation, for example, where unless my raise is five figures or more it's actually a mistake to take it.

We wouldn't have to file returns, the IRS wouldn't have to know what we make, the government couldn't socially engineer through the tax code and there would be no reward for having kids that you can't afford.

Someone earlier in the thread said "keep it simple." I agree entirely, and I HATE having my income reported to BushCo.

[Township75]

47. I think flat would be idea...

one tax regardless of income...same tax for stock earnings and such...no deductions.

I imagine it would be 20% +/- 3%.

I also think states should be responsible for more taxing than the federal govt. Basically, let the feds fund the military, national parks, epa, nasa, ect, and drop some of the other stuff. let states fund their own schools and universities. This way, states like CA which really value education get to keep all of their tax money for education, and other states where all they care about is keeping their taxes low can emjoy piss poor roads, schools, police force, ect.

[1932]

48. "States like CA which really value education" -- Hah!

I just heard recently that California has second lowest per capital spending on students in the nation thanks to the state's tax code.

The puiblic school system that worked so well through the senventies is now a mess partly because corporations pay so little in property taxes and they can't raise enough money from property taxes on everyone else to pay for all the things the state needs to do.

[BootinUp]

49. I don't subscribe to

any exact percentage rules. To me the main criteria is, are things improving for the majority? If I see the spread between the wealthy and the poor is expanding, if the middle class is losing its spending power and ability to save money, then the course must be corrected.

If the wealthy are investing their millions everywhere except back into the country that they claim to be a citizen of, then we need to do a better job of fleecin some of it for the good of said country.

[mvd]

50. Tax millionaires up to 50% in income taxes

Anything left after spending would be used to reduce taxes for middle incomes and lower.

[NaturalHigh]

53. "Anything left after spending"

The problem with that statement is that there will be NOTHING left after spending. The more revenue Washington has, the more it will spend on pork projects. Look at the highway bill passed earlier this year for a good example.

[mvd]

54. Cut out some of the pork, then

And I mean SOME, because the Repukes use the term too universally.

[Nederland]

56. I'd go even further

After looking at the latest budgets you'll have a hard time convincing me that the problem is lack of revenue.